Saturday, July 16, 2011

Chandravali, the compliant

In the viṣkambhaka (or introductory interlude) of Dāna-keli-kaumudī, Vrinda Devi speaks a couple of verses in glorification of Radha. She starts out with an expression of humility,

anālocya vrīḍāṁ yam iha bahu mene bahu-tṛṇaṁ
tyajann īrṣāpannāṁ madhuripur abhīṣṭām api ramām |
janaḥ so’yaṁ yasyāḥ śrayati na hi dāsye’py avasaraṁ
samarthas tāṁ rādhāṁ bhavati bhuvi kaḥ ślāghitum api ||

Even though to give me honor,
the enemy of Madhu shamelessly
abandoned the Lakshmi Devi he cherishes,
like nothing more than so much grass,
despite her jealousy,
I have never had the opportunity to serve Radha.
Who then on this earth can possibly praise her adequately?
(DKK 11)
Vrinda Devi appears to be refering to her marriage to Shalagram in the form of Tulasi Devi, with whom she is identified. Here, though, she shows that like Radha's other sakhis, despite their own personal glorious attainments, she has put aside any such claims in order to give recognition to Radha’s vast superiority. What is being spoken of here is Rādhā-dāsya, for who can glorify Radha better than one who is her dāsī?

After humbly expressing this inadequacy, Vrinda Devi goes ahead anyway and makes an attempt to glorify the Queen of Vrindavan in the following verse:


rādhāyā mukha-maṇḍalena balinā candrasya padmasya vā
vyākṣiptā suṣameti keyam abudhaiḥ ślāghā vinirmīyate |
yad dūre’py anubhūya bhūyasi sudhā-śuddhāpi candrāvalī
padmālī ca visṛjya śīryati nijāṁ saundarya-darpa-śriyam ||

It seems that the charms of the moon and the lotus flower
are merely the reflections of Radha’s perfectly proportioned face,
and so the less intelligent praise them.
But as soon as they feel her presence, even from afar,
Chandravali, who is compared to a multitude of moons,
and her friend Padma, compared to an entire garden of lotuses,
both of whom are filled with spotless nectarean charms,
wither in shame, losing any pride they had in their own beauty.
And so indeed it should be. The pride we have in our own virtues should always be tempered by the knowledge that they are tiny fragments, at best, of the divine splendor. Since Radha is Krishna's complete potency, all other women, whoever they are, are but fractions of her splendor.

And indeed, Chandravali is just another aspect of Radha, in the sense that Radha represents in Shri Rupa Goswami’s mind, the original erotic lover in her perfect state, the full form of the hlādinī śakti, whose portions and expansions are the other gopis, the queens of Dvārakā, the countless Lakshmis, worldly goddesses and indeed all forms of feminine beauty and virtue. Radha expresses love as it would be the most perfectly enjoyed by Krishna. Even more than this, in Rupa Goswami's vision (as with all the rasika sampradāyas of Vrindavan), Radha is unequalled and Krishna in fact neither wants, needs, nor even knows any other lover but her.

Chandravali always loses

One of the features of Krishna that the Vaishnava tradition inherits from the rāsa-līlā of the Bhāgavatam and most other sources is that he is the Supreme Male, and that his consorts are unlimited in number -- śriyaḥ kānṭāḥ kāntaḥ parama-puruṣaḥ. In the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, Rupa Goswami follows the classical nāṭya-śāstra texts by describing in the first two chapters the nāyaka, i.e., the male romantic lead (Krishna) and his male companions (sahāya). Krishna is here described in somewhat abbreviated form, specifically in relation to the romantic dramas of Vrindavan. This is because Rupa has already gone into great detail in his previous works, Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta and Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, to classify and describe Bhagavān's forms and qualities in his broader manifestations.

The next seven chapters of Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi are devoted to the feminine roles in Vrindavan's romantic comedy. Krishna's innumerable consorts are described according to the Puranic model in the third chapter, but in the fourth, Rupa establishes the unequaled supremacy of Radha. And this, of course, is how the Vrindavan schools differ from earlier Vaishnavism.

The chapter begins as follows:


tatrāpi sarvathā śreṣṭhe rādhā-candrāvalīty ubhe |
yūthayos tu yayoḥ santi koṭi-saṅkhyā mṛgīdṛśaḥ ||
abhūd ākulito rāsaḥ pramadā-śata-koṭibhiḥ |
puline yāmune tasminn ity eṣāgamikī prathā ||
tayor apy ubhayor madhye rādhikā sarvathādhikā
mahābhāva-svarūpeyaṁ guṇair ativarīyasī ||

Of all the gopis beloved of Krishna, Radha and Chandravali excel, and each has millions of supporters in her yūtha. The rāsa-līlā took place on the banks of the Yamuna with hundreds of millions of gopis, according to the tradition found in the Agama literature. Of the two, however, Radha is in all respects superior. She is the very embodiment of mahābhāva and excels in all the virtues. (UN 4.1-3)
And this complete superiority of Radha over Chandravali, and indeed any other apparent competitor, will be emphasized over and over again:


tāvad bhadrā vadati caṭulaṁ phullatām eti pālī
śālīnatvaṁ tyajati vimalā śyāmalāhaṅkaroti |
svairaṁ candrāvalir api calaty unnamayyottamāṅgaṁ
yāvat karṇe na hi niviśate hanta rādheti mantraḥ ||

Shyamala herself says, “Alas, it is only for as long as the mantra composed of Radha’s name does not enter her ears that Bhadra can flatter herself, or Pali can remain puffed up [in her own achievements and virtues], that Vimala can reject modest behavior, or that I, Shyamala, can be proud. And Chandravali can only walk around with her head proudly held up high for as long as she does not hear the name of Radha. (UN 6.7)
What is interesting and should be noted here is that originally Chandravali is another name for Radha in the texts preceding Rupa Goswami, such as Gopāla-vijaya, Śrī-kṛṣṇa-kīrtana, and perhaps elsewhere. Rupa Goswami obviously felt need to splinter the one Radha into many different forms, which are the other nāyikās in the pastime. In the Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, a total of 360 such nāyikā personalities are depicted (UN 5.102). All of them are contained within Radha, including Chandravali, since Radha is the complete form of the svarūpa-śakti and mahā-bhāva. But it might be said that broadly two divisions could be made in this overall categorization--vāmā (headstrong) and dakṣiṇā (compliant). Radha is the former, Chandravali the latter.

Chandravali's dramatic purpose

For some critics who look at Krishna's līlās as though they are a kind of moral tale, the character of Chandravali is a problem. She seems two-dimensional and her only purpose to act as a foil. Even though some character description is given, she she seems to be there only to provide background, acting merely as a necessary contrast where she is always supposed to lose, and on whom the brushstrokes of Radha's supremacy are then painted in.

Chandravali and her friends like Padma are generally mocked and made fun of like the members of an out-group in a society of high school girls, who sometimes seem to try to outdo each other in being mean.

The Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi even devotes a full chapter to such rivalries, which are between yūtheśvarīs, who would be the leaders of such in-groups. The category of yūtheśvarī, by the way, seems to be original to this text. Rupa Goswami classifies these girls according to their good fortune, etc. (saubhāgya, which Jiva glosses as the extent to which the nāyaka or male hero, in this case Krishna, responds to them, saubhāgyaṁ nāyaka-premṇā labdhādaratvam) and their verbal skills (pragalbha-vākyā).

Krishna with Chandravali in the temple at Rathor.
The latter skill demonstrates the role of these rivalries as a dramatic (or comic) device, since the superior yūtheśvarī is one who is most competent in the thrust and parry of verbal duels and always able to get in the last word (durlaṅghya-bhāṣitā), the quick put-down. So, in these duels, as they are described in plays such as Vidagdha-mādhava, Radha and her friends inevitably get the upper hand and make fools of their rivals, Chandravali and Padma.

Rupa Goswami works a little harder at developing Chandravali’s character than the other gopis, and she specifically plays the role of Radha's chief rival. Their difference is more than just superficial however. You could say, there are distinct philosophical differences between the two.

In the ninth chapter of Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, Rupa Goswami gives a nice example of an indirect exchange between Radha and Chandravali, in which they use rather strong language to show the difference in their attitudes.

The following verse spoken by Radha has a double meaning running throughout, as so often based on a pun of Chandravali's name ("many moons") [but which this translation does not attempt to convey]:


yā madhyastha-padena saṅkulatarā śuddhā prakṛtyā jaḍā
vaidagdhī-nalinī-nimīlana-paṭur doṣāntarollāsinī
āśāyāḥ sphuraṇaṁ harer janayituṁ yuktātra candrāvalī
sāpi syād iti locayan sakhi janaḥ kaḥ soḍhum īṣṭe kṣitau

Chandravali has an ambiguous attitude; she tries to cover all bases; her approach to love is simple-minded; I think she is naturally dumb. She makes the lotus of expertise in pleasing a man wither up and die, and what is more, she delights in these flaws. And yet, somehow she is being engaged in trying to bring life to Krishna’s hopes! Sakhi, on seeing this, is there anyone on earth who can stand for it? (UN 9.48)
And Chandravali's answer to that (speaking to a sakhi who is telling her to be more like Radha), using a parallel metaphor, is:


ṣoḍaśyās tvam uḍor vimuñca sahasā nāmāpi vāmāśaye
tasyā durvinayair muner api manaḥ śāntātmanaḥ kupyati |
dhig goṣṭhendra-sute samasta-guṇināṁ maulau vrajābhyarcite
pādānte patite’pi naiva kurute bhrū-kṣepam apy atra yā

Stop trying to persuade me to be meaner to Krishna! And don’t even mention the name of that other gopi, what to speak of comparing her to the full moon with all its sixteen phases. Her wicked behavior would enrage even a tranquil-hearted monk. Fie on her! The prince of Gokula, the most virtuous of the virtuous, who is worshiped by all the people of Vraja, falls down at her feet, and yet she does not even move her eyebrows to acknowledge his presence! (9.49)

Madhu-sneha, ghṛta-sneha

In fact, the difference between Chandravali and Radha's attitudes to love is not simply a dramatic device, but seems to have didactic purpose also. The theme is somewhat central the 14th chapter, where the different sthāyi-bhāvas are discussed. I would like to go into more detail here, but this article is already getting long. Suffice it to say that in the hierarchy of basic loving attitudes or sthāyi-bhāvas, Rupa Goswami starts to distinguish between Radharani and Chandravali at the second stage, named sneha and this continues on in māna and praṇaya. Of course it is in māna that the distinction between the headstrong and the compliant lovers is strongest, as indicated in the above examples from UN 9.


The important point to retain, of course, is that Radharani wins. She is the one who is able to win Krishna's heart, precisely because she dominates over him. 


In the beginning of the Ujjvala, Rupa Goswami cited several verses that indicate that for an attractive man who has the ability to seduce any woman in the world, the one who presents a challenge to him will be more attractive than one who is easily attained. But Radha's māna is not just a matter of playing hard to get, it is a matter of vātsalya, in the sense that she knows what is best for Krishna. She will take no nonsense, precisely because she knows it is not good for him. It won't make him happy.


When Jayadeva depicts Krishna abandoning the other gopis to run after Radha because she holds the rope that binds him to his desires, it is exactly this that is being said. Radha is telling him to stop thinking he is God and to accept that he needs her and that without her he cannot survive. If he truly wants to plunge to the depths of his being as Love, he must surrender. Chandravali can give herself, but that touch of compliance, of surrender to him, and the inability to come to that stage of self-confidence where she can subjugate Krishna completely, is lacking.

Rupa Goswami's preference for drama

Rupa Goswami explains that these different attitudes, rivalries and competition for Krishna's love are a source of pleasure for him.


saṁmohanasya kandarpa-vṛndebhyo’py agha-vidviṣaḥ
mūrto narma-priya-sakhaḥ śṛṅgāro vartate vraje
kṣipen mitho vijātīya-bhāvayor eṣa pakṣayoḥ
īrṣyādīn sva-parivārān yoge sva-preṣṭha-tuṣṭaye
ata eva hi viśleṣe snehas tāsāṁ prakāśate ||

One of the intimate friends of the enemy of Aghasura, who is more enchanting than all the gods of love, is śṛṅgāra-rasa, who has taken human form and lives in Vraja. Envy and these other conflicting states of mind are his expansions. He is the one who thrusts the various gopis into these conflicting states of mind for the sake of his dear Krishna's satisfaction. Therefore when the gopis are separated from Krishna, they feel affection for each other. (9.42-43)
The example he gives is taken from Lalita-mādhava (3.39). After Krishna has left for Mathura, Radha and her friends search Vrindavan in disbelief, convinced that he is still hiding there somewhere. At Govardhan, Radha catches sight of her reflection in a pond and, thinking it to be Chandravali, appeals to her in the following words:


sāndraiḥ sundari vṛndaśo hari-pariṣvaṅgair idaṁ maṅgalaṁ
dṛṣṭaṁ te hata-rādhayāṅgam anayā diṣṭyādya candrāvali
drāg enāṁ nihitena kaṇṭham abhitaḥ śīrṇena kaṁsa-dviṣaḥ
karṇottaṁsa-sugandhinā nija-bhuja-dvandvena sandhukṣaya

O Chandravali! How fortunate I am to see you! Up to now, it has been a most inauspicious day. How many times Krishna held you tightly in his arms. Quickly, water my thirsty soul by wrapping your arms, which still carry the fragrance of Krishna's flower ear ornaments, around my neck. (9.44)
Chandravali's purpose as a competitor to Radha is not simply to give pleasure to Krishna, but also to give pleasure to the devotees. The rasa is in the meeting of the ideal with the ideal. As Kaviraja Goswami puts it:


rādhā kāñcana-vallī
phullā kṛṣṇaḥ phulla-tāpiñchaḥ |
anayor saṅgama-lakṣmī
sukhayati na hi kaṁ sa-cetanaṁ lokam ||

Radha is a blossoming golden creeper, Krishna a blossoming tamal tree. What conscious being anywhere [in the universe] would not be pleased by seeing their glorious union? (GLA 11.18)
So this is clearly the dramatic purpose. What can be done? Chandravali really is nothing more than background. She stands in for everyone else. Like Brahma and Shiva compared to Vishnu or Krishna, her function is to serve the plot.


dvau sva-pakṣa-vipakṣākhyau bhedāv eva rasa-pradau ||

The distinction of two groups who are either allies or rivals lends to the experience of rasa. (UN 9.41)
hari-priya-jane bhāvā dveṣādyā nocitā iti |
ye vyāharanti te jñeyā a-pūrva-rasikāḥ kṣitau ||

Those who say that the rivalries between different competitors for Krishna’s love is improper should be recognized as really having no sense of rasa. (UN 9.41)
This latter verse, with its use of the slight a-pūrva-rasikāḥ (“unprecedented connoisseurs of rasa”) has annoyed devotees and scholars in the nitya-vihāra schools and is one of the principal objections to the Gaudiya Vaishnava system. For the nitya-vihāra schools there is no possibility of competition with Radha and they feel no need for such drama. And indeed, the Gaudiyas recognize it as a theatrical ploy meant to enhance the experience of rasa. Rupa Goswami’s approach is not purely theological. We will discuss this further below.

To each their due

Nevertheless, despite his consistent placing of Radha in the position of supremacy, Rupa Goswami of what to do with Chandravali within the bounds of the Krishna līlā. He notes again the oft-repeated general rule that is applied:


yasyā yādṛśa-jātīyaḥ kṛṣṇe premābhyudañcati |
tasyāṁ tādṛśa-jātīyaḥ sa kṛṣṇasyāpy udīyate ||

When a particular type of love for Krishna awakens in a devotee, then the very same genre of love awakens in Krishna as well. (UN 14.62)
This also implies that Krishna reciprocates with all exactly according to their desire and so fulfills it.

This then makes it possible to say that even though Chandravali is in an eternally losing competition with Radha, she is still satisfied with the results:


rādhāyāḥ sakhi sad-guṇair anudinaṁ rūpānurāgādibhiḥ
sāndrāṁ labdhavator api vyasanitāṁ vyākṣipta-kāntāntaraiḥ |
prāpa kvāpi parasparopari yayor na mlānatāṁ yas tayos
taṁ candrāvali-candrakābharaṇayoḥ ko vetti bhāva-kramam ||

Vrinda says to Kundalata: O sakhi! Who can understand the workings of love in Chandravali and the wearer of the peacock crown, whose love for each other never diminishes even as Radha’s virtues, such as her beauty and love, grow day by day, attracting Krishna’s heart and increasing his love for her, while at the same time becoming a source of distress to Chandravali and diminishing her. (UN 14.65)
God reciprocates with all according to their desire and according to their degree of devotional intensity. And by the same token, each will be satisfied according to that desire. Chandravali is also receiving her due, and if God is merciful, would always be completely satisfied with whatever role she is given. At least Rupa Goswami feels it necessary to account for that. After all, if she is one of the two finalists in the Krishna-dearmost sweepstakes, then surely the omnipotent Krishna has some place for her!

Since Radha is beloved of Krishna, how can anyone comparable to her for him? Purely as a matter of love: If you love your wife, then your mutual love will both enhance her beauty and simultaneously your perception of it. In such circumstances, who would you compare to her? Your love would exclude all possibility of comparison.

Is Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi a nāṭya-śāstra text (i.e., one dealing with theater) or a theological one? The nāṭya-śāstra was developed by Bharata Muni as a compendium of the performing arts. Its purpose was to be encyclopedic: to present the gamut of human emotions and reduce them to individual personality types, the situations in which they appeared, the ways in which they would be revealed in body language, and most important of all, how to produce the intended sentiments in the audience.


The Dramatis Personae as Archetypes

Rupa Goswami was a poet before he was a theologian. And yet he noticed something about religion in general and about Krishna devotion in particular that was, perhaps obvious in the Indian context, but had never before been developed. That was the similarity between devotional religion and the dramatic arts. Some adjustments had to be made, some major differentiations had to be made, but on the whole, the two systems – that of devotional religion and that of the dramatic arts – could be synthesized. The Bhāgavatam puts highest emphasis on hearing the pastimes (līlā, caritra), and the result of hearing it is rasa or sentiment.

I obviously cannot give a complete analysis here of all that Rupa did. But in the context of understanding the secondary characters in the dramatis personae, it is necessary to understand how Rupa Goswami saw them ontologically. Or indeed any of the characters in any of the stories, whether demons like Hiranyakashipu or devotees like Prahlada.

Is Chandravali even meant to be seen as a real person? Taking any of these stories as anything besides stories, or the characters as anything but archetypes, is a problem. Even if they were to be taken as historically true, they have been converted into archetypes by the story itself.

Chandravali, Nanda and Yashoda, all the personalities in Braj-Vrindavan are archetypes. Those archetypes exists in the mind of the conditioned soul in a variety of forms, but the Vaishnava sādhaka is engaged in a process of reconfiguring his own psychology to conform to the Vrindavan ideal.

As that reconfiguration takes place, the chief archetypes (the animus and anima) are envisioned as Radha and Krishna. The union of the Divine Couple (coniunctio oppositorum) stands at the center of the archetypal constellation, ruling over it as they should. Chandravali and the other gopis should be seen as shadows of Radha. Though they are contained within the overarching anima complex, they represent the non-dominant traits. In the nitya-vihāra, of course, the shadow is not at all present and all the 360 types have been assimilated into Radha.

What this means in the economy of the individual psyche is that the compliance of the feminine (anima) to the masculine (animus) is being seen as a losing proposition. Only when the feminine characteristic of mahā-bhāva predominates can the union of opposites be effectuated, both in the individual male or female psyches. This is the meaning.

Photos of Chandravali's temple and deities at her birthplace in Rithora, between Nanda Gaon and Barsana, taken by R.D. Bansiya at Panoramio

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am touched by your article. For many years i have struggled with candravali.

You are the first person i've come across who has devoted some thought to her position.

I want to ask you one question. Suppose candravali is as real a person as you or i; now suppose she finds herself on planet earth today and reads. Reads this article, reads rupa gosvami, reads how krsna lies to her, how krsna sees her and is so disappointed and wishes it were radha, reads all the cruel things devotees say about her, how the one she loves always loves someone else...

tell me, how could she be completely satisfied with her relationship with krsna? How could she be even a little bit happy? How?

Devotees say stuff like oh she's transcendental and we just can't understand; nobody will actually think about it.

i think about it. As a matter of fact i have been obsessed with it for what seems my whole life. The situation to me is intolerable to the point that i do not want to know krsna because of it, i do not want to go to any planet where He is. I'm hoping a person can have an informal relationship with some other incarnation.

To me, krsna seems unfathomably cruel, a bully. And what rupa g describes seems exactly like mean high school chicks. So hurtful. How do people want to get to that? Where is the attraction?

krsna sakti

Jagadananda Das said...

Dear Krsna Sakti,

You have expressed the problem nicely.

First, Chandravali is not a real person but a literary device to contrast Radharani's method for conquering Krishna with other strategies, illustrated by Chandravali.

If Chandravali is a real person, then she experiences Krishna, her own Krishna, who reciprocates with her in accordance with her devotion. In a situation where Krishna is himself, as svayam bhagavan, he is always conquered by Radha and Chandravali cannot, because her personality and the kind of love associated with it is inadequate to the task of attracting and holding the Supreme Male.

A second point is that one is permitted to discuss such strategies when it comes to love and to also have disagreements. These may have an emotional charge, without it being a negative.

Hope that helps,

Jai Radhe.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to understand why you believe candravali is not a real individual.

I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on two more ideas:

1. If C. were a real individual, would she have free will to leave krsna and gain a permanent relationship with a different visnu tattva expansion (e.g. Lord Pradyumna in vaikuntha)?

2. If my relationship with krsna is different from my relationship with balarama, which is different from my relationship with ksirodaksayi visnu.... because They are eternally separate individuals, in what way is there "one" god?

thanks
krsna sakti

Jagadananda Das said...

Jai Radhe. Literal thinking literally causes problems. You start with "if Chandravali is a real person" and so on. It is really pointless to speculate about those characters "out there." It just leads to endless complications such as the one that you produced here.

Of course, if you can imagine it, why not? There is probably a Purana somewhere that contemplates such a possibility. There are plenty of Puranic accounts that do not fit one or the other sadhaka's vision of the myths. We are selective and we are selective in accordance with our particular desires for spiritual perfection. Absorption in the details of a fantasy may be helpful to some, but it rather misses the point of bhakti.

The point of bhakti is prema, which is a redrawing of the way in which one interacts with the world, focusing on love. In my opinion, that practice includes the experience of love in this world. Not everyone agrees with me. And I only agree with myself on Pratipad or Purnima.

Jai Sri Radhe.

Anonymous said...

No matter, What People says,
And what books or this whole world…
He is absolute so his Love….
And the place for Shri Chandrawali in him….
Is for her only, for her and no one else...
Look carefully, dis Jealously, dis Games and dis tricks….
He is not at all interseted in all dat crap….
People put demselves into….
Wat he can do in dat….
Has he said anything anywhere..
Can he ??????

Sarva Rasa Dasa said...

There is a reason that Srila Prabhupada insisted that everything in Srimad Bhagavatam was literally true. One may engage with a myth for some time but then it floats away into some realm of irrelevance. Actually, Chandravali is a young girl whose kunja happens to be on the way from Krishna's place to Radhadevi's kunja. So Krishna comes by... Chandravali is a "tomboy" and a nature child. She is happy by herself, and that is why She is happy with Her eternal relationships. Radhadevi is a "princess" and She has Her status to think of and defend. She and her gang always derogate Sri Chandravali because... They are fully confidant in Krishna's reliability? Before you feel sorry for Them remember that Sri Krishna is the sum total of all that be, and Radhadevi and Chandravali are his internal potency. They make us take birth again and again in ignorance, who knows why. Feel sorry for the all jivas first.

Anonymous said...

Of course Candravali is as real as you or I or Lord Krishna. She is completely satisfied with her position just the way it is. There is no envy in the spiritual world of any material sort so even if she "plays" being jealous that is something we cannot understand with our material senses and mind. Just like Radharani also "acts" proud, or becomes angry, etc. Who would not be satisfied in whatever relationship they are meant to be regarding Lord Krishna?

Jagadananda Das said...

The question is certainly difficult for someone with a literal frame of mind to comprehend.

Think of Chandravali as a fictional character playing a role in the development of rasa and as a counterfoil to Radharani, as a way of understanding the hierarchies of madhura love.

You have to start by thoroughly understanding rasa-tattva.

Chandravali is an archetype.

Jagadananda Das said...

Chandravali is the archetype of one who loves, but whose love cannot completely win her beloved. She gets Krishna according to her love, but it is not enough. Radharani always wins. Why? That is what Rupa Goswami is telling us. The why here is important.

Anonymous said...

Sarva rasa dasa, it's 2 years later... I just ran into these postings, which I don't remember participating in, and who knows who you even are... but that's it, that's it, that's completely on. Chandrav is a tomboy who doesn't like girly girls. I've never heard it said, but that is the truth...The whole "too submissive" thing does not find the inner truth; it is the point of view, the understanding, of the "princess" lovers.

But, although she is happy by herself, it does not follow that she is happy with her so-called eternal relationships. She tries to escape---remember the river:she was not trying to commit suicide; she wants to find a form of God who truly loves her-kind of girl, not girly girls. It is only then, when she finds Him, that she can love with her whole heart...and that is what she longs for.

krsna sakti






Viṣṇupriyā Prāṇa Dāsa said...

I had always had this nagging feeling throughout my devotional life spanning nearly three decades that this kind of rasa elucidation is plain and simple bullshit. I feel no need for an euphemism here since the word used is really an understatement as far as expressing my feelings. There is no rasa in putting somebody else down. This is just a veiled form of egotism. Transferring our desires on to the deity to get some kind of legitimacy. I am certain that the deity would be cursing these Nazi followers for causing immense hurt to Her Lord.

Anonymous said...

Radhaji is krishnaji's "Aatma" and chandravaliji is krishnaji's "pran". Krishnaji is complete only with both of them . If u have understand the love story of Bajirao and mastani then you can easily understand the relation between krishnaji and chandravaliji. Radhaji gives pleasure to krishnaji as swakiya and she only gives pleasure to krishnaji as parkiya in the form of chandravaliji.