Krishna & Pleasure


To depict Krishna and his rasa-līlā as something totally unlike what we ourselves know of happiness and pleasure is suicidal, for it causes us to feel that Krishna is irrelevant to what we spontaneously, naturally, and powerfully want and need. The fact is that nothing could be farther from the truth. Krishna is called “Krishna” for a reason! Rāma. Govinda. Madan Mohan. Rasarāja. Gopi-vallabha. All these names are bursting with exactly the flavor and experience our heart and soul spontaneously, eternally crave. If we deny or ignore that, why should we be surprised that our bhajan lacks life and attentiveness?

Yes, something also needs to be said to explain that our concept of happiness and pleasure pales in comparison to the pleasure and happiness experienced in rāsa-līlā. This is fine! Say it loudly, for it is also inspiring and powerfully attractive to us, right now, and for real. And let us clearly explain that this difference arises because of a fundamental difference in the nature of our approach to pleasure (karma and kāma – “selfishness”) vs. Krishan’s approach to it (līlā and prema – “selflessness”). Stress this all you want, and then some, otherwise we will never attain that all-attractive rasa!

But please beware of depicting Krishna as utterly “transcendental” as if “transcendental” means having no similarities at all with what we already understand and have spontaneous emotional attachment to. Besides being philosophically inaccurate, it will prolong our spontaneous disinterest in Krishna and his bhajan.

Vraja Kishor das (

Jīva and Māyā


Q: Is māyā a “temporary fix” for the jīva who is disinclined to Krishna?

It need not be a temporary fix. If a jīva is happy with māyā, so be it; Mission accomplished. Krishna’s mission is to expand happiness, so if a jīva is happy with māyā, his mission is accomplished. Therefore not all jīva end their relationship with māyā. Only some do. 

To us it may seem odd to hear that a jīva can be happy with māyā, because we currently live in a very stressful yuga with fairly unhealthy bodies and minds. But there are many, many other ways to exist in māyā besides being a human being on the Internet in 2016. If some of these living conditions satisfy the jīva, great; Mission accomplished.

Those who do not find satisfaction in māyā, however, are more fortunate – for they have a chance to be attracted to something even greater. 

Q: I understand that time is continuous; and I also understand that māyā is one of Krishna’s shaktis so she has always existed. Still I am wondering if there was any point in time where māyā was not available to individual consciousness which lead them to become ‘lost souls’ in the darkness?

No. Śāstra describes the relationship of jīva and māyā as anadi. (“Without a previous condition”). For example Krishnadas Kaviraja (in Cc) uses the phrase anādi-bahirmukha (“oriented away [from Krishna] without a previous condition”). Śrī Jīva (in Ts) uses the phrase anādi-bhagavad-ajñāna (“unaware of Bhagavān, without a previous condition”). Krishna himself (Gītā 7.27) says that the māyā (moha) of jīva is inherent in their sarga (“their initial condition”).

Krishna and his śaktis are eternal. He has three categories of śakti: jīva, māyā, and bhakti. All three are eternal. Krishna is the enjoyer. Jīva is the contributor to the enjoyment. Bhakti is the means by which a jīva experiences pleasure by contributing to Krishna’s pleasure. Māyā is the means by which a jīva seeks pleasure independently.

Vraja Kishor (

Men & Women – Mouths & Candies


If you are a man, it’s like living in a candy store, but having persistent jaundice and indigestion. If you are a woman, its like being an amazing candy, but in a store full of cavity ridden, bad-breath mouths.

The man tries to cure his jaundice and indigestion, but finds that his eyes are always bigger than his stomach. The woman hopes against hope that a better mouth will come into her store, but finds that even the best are still too blunt and blatant for her true flavor.

We need a miracle.

The first miracle happens the moment a man realizes that it’s more natural to be a candy than to be a mouth. He just cannot produce unlimited digestive fire, and just cannot become fully perceptive.

The second miracle happens the moment a woman realizes that there is only one mouth with unlimited digestion and refinement – the root of all persons, rasarāja, the true enjoy of flavors.

These miracles happen as the sugar-dust from the footprints of bhakti-śakti falls on our heads.

Maya is not Evil

Maya is not the devil. She is not hunting you or persecuting you. You are not the victim, you are the perpetrator and you are the beneficiary. There is no “Satan vs. God” paradigm, please stop imposing Christian world-views on Bhāgavata Dharma. There is no evil super villain who is going to eat your soul if you don’t get protection from the great big superhero in the sky. No one is after you. No one is out to get you. Give up on these childish nightmares. Give up the teddy bears and security blankets. You are the ultimate cause of your predicament, and no one but you are the ultimate root of your enlightenment.

Maya is compassionate and kind, you are the one who refuses to even play by the one and only rule she enforces: “share” that’s why she spanks you and you are the child feeling anger over getting spanked for doing something very wrong.

This video is an excerpt of a class session from an online course called “God, Consciousness, & Reality” in which we are discussing Śrī Jīva Goswāmī’s analysis of Vyāsa’s samādhī. Because the topic is so important, and misunderstanding of Māyā is so widespread and deeply rooted today, I decided to make the video available on YouTube, etc.

Please watch it carefully and patiently. Jīva Goswāmī’s revelation of the Bhāgavatam will revolutionize your outlook on life.

Vraja Kishor das (

Who is to Blame for our Illusions?


An extremely important section of the Bhagavatam (1.7.4-6) describes Vyāsa’s samādhi (divine vision). In this vision, he saw Māyā (the power of illusion) subordinate to Krishna (the complete, original personal-consciousness), but bewilering the jīva (individual consciousness). Analyzing this in Tattva Sandarbha, Śrī Jīva Goswāmī brings up a very important question, “Who is to blame for the jīva’s infatuation with māyā?” 

Who is to blame for our illusions?

Śrī Jīva explains that only the jīva is to blame. 

Māyā does not bf5501ea3148d587f0405e2253c7cce4“entice” us. She would actually prefer not to give herself to us, and is ashamed and humiliated by having to do so. We approach her and proposition her, she merely agrees to our proposition – out of compassion. Thus the whole idea of māyā as a “temptress” has no basis in Bhāgavata. It is a saṁskāra from Abrahamic/ Western thought.

Krishna is also not to blame. Our unique individual nature is to be fascinated with enjoyment more than love, and Krishna provides māyā to placate this incongruous and unconstitutional disease of consciousness. Within māyā he includes “medicine” for this disease. The lower potency medicine is karma – a slow-acting but constantly applied mechanism that gradually encourages the jīva towards love/cooperation and away from self-centered enjoyment. A higher potency (but more rare) medicine also exists, becuase Krishna causes bhakti to manifest within māyā, to grant the jīva an opportunity to experience Krishna (which is possible only through bhakti), the glimpse of whom begins to slacken our fascination with māyā’s selfish pleasures and supplant it with a fascination for Sri Krishna’s exhilarating love.

Thus neither māyā nor Krishna is to blame for our situation. We are to blame.

That we are the root cause of our own problems also means that we have to be the root cause of our solution. The jīva’s rectification requires the help of bhakti-śakti, but only the jīva can decide to become receptive to that bhakti-śakti or remain fascinated with the opportunities for self-centered enjoyment provided by the illusions of māyā.

Vraja Kishor (

Meditation and Imagination (nāma-bhajan)


Q: There are many tips and instructions, such as “just hear the mantra” and “listen to yourself chant sincerely”, as well as “the name reveals everything – but to let it do so you need to arrive without own made-up concepts!”. However, there are also recommendations to  actively focus on the meaning, maybe even “imagining” it.  Could you help me reconcile these different teachings? 

I ask because when I try to really just focus on the sound and feeling of the names on my tongue it feels kind of dry and void often and my mind slides into contemplation of the named persons – but I am not sure if this is just a psychological thing going on, because of something I recently read, a picture I saw etc. or, I almost don’t dare to write it, the slight beginning of spiritual revelation?

Mantras are made of very special words.

Words are sounds that have meaning. A word without a meaning is not a “word” – it is a sound. If I listen to Mandarin Chinese, for example, it sounds like music, not like words – because I don’t know the meaning within the sounds. Thus if you listen to a mantra without comprehending the meaning, you are not listening to the mantra fully.

Often people argue that a mantra is magical. All you have to do is hear the words, and poof, something happens.

It is true that mantra are magical, but even magic operates according to principles. You’ll notice that mantras are not melodies or whistles and claps. They are words. This means they are more than “vibrations” and “frequencies” – they are vibrations and frequencies with meaning. To truly hear the vibration requires comprehending the meaning.

This is why dīkṣā and śikṣā are always coupled together. Dīkṣā bestows us with a mantra. If the sound of the mantra itself is all we need, then what is the need for anything further? What is the need for sambandha if the abhideya is completely “magical” and works by its own power, with nothing from our side? Dīkṣā is always accompianied by śikṣā because to use the mantra correctly requires learning what the words mean. To do the abhideya properly requires sambandha.

If you listen to a mantra without comprehending the meaning you are barely listening to it. There will still be an effect: the effect is that you will eventually inquire about the meaning, receive proper śikṣā and then start to meditate on the mantra much more effectively. Thus even simply hearing a mantra does lead eventually to the full fruit of the mantra, but only after it leads to the stage of meditating on the mantra correctly.

Now, contemplate how “comprehending the meaning of a word” happens.

It is a function of buddhi, intellect. Buddhi recognizes patterns of sounds, and associates them with meaning. Then it presents an image of that meaning to the manas. The ahankara establishes how the manas reacts to those images. And the whole affair is observed by the ātmā (consciousness) via the citta. 

Think about it carefully. What buddhi does is translate a pattern of sound into an “image” with meaning.

Therefore intelligence works through imagination. And you will notice that the most intelligent people are excellent at visualizing and imagining abstract things, even things they have not seen before with their eyes.

It is not “imagination” in the sense of making something up. But it is “imagination” because the word produces an image of its meaning in the intellect.

 So, hearing a mantra should produce an image in the mind, then the mind should react to that image. This is how the mantra changes the citta (ceto darpana marjanaand soon the ātmā can see into the mantra directly, without clouds of saṁskāra in the citta. Then there is direct samādhī of the mantra and one immediately attains the full effect of the mantra.

In the case of a Krishna nāma-mantra. The words should produce vivid images in the buddhi, which are not “imagined” according to the saṁskāra of the individual, but are informed by the “dictionary” of śāstra. The sambandha-jñāna gained by study of śāstra allows the sound of Krishna’s name to produce a reasonably accurate manifestation of itself in the buddhi. The manas should then react to this with affection. This causes the ahaṁkāra and citta to develop saṁskāra positive to bhakti. Which allows the ātmā to perceive the complete presence of Krishna within the sound of his name.

The image produced by the nāma in the sambandha-jñāna-yukta-buddhi will contain in it the guṇa and rūpa (particular qualities and specific beauties) of the named. Later, when still more clarified and powerfully manifest, those guṇa and rūpa will “animate” – revealing the other entities they interact with (parikāra) and the way they all play together (līlā).

Thus the full dhāma of Krishna exists in the name “Krishna” but we require dīkṣā and śikṣā to develop buddhi that can host those names and thus clarify the sentience/citta so that the ātmā can directly contact them.

Simply trying to chant the nāma-mantra without any image in the mind is ineffective, as you yourself have noticed. People without proper sambandha may want to err on the conservative side by avoiding “imagination” of the meaning of the mantra but that is a very short-term solution at best. We actually need proper śikṣā from śāstra immediately following dīkṣā, then nāma-smaraṇa can be truly done.

When japa is done with perfect sambandha the entire dhāma manifests to our perception.

Vraja Kishor das (

Should I Meditate?

After a class on Chapter Six of the Gita (which is all about meditation), someone asked…

Q: Besides a few poor attemps, I haven’t really started meditating. I am kind of unsure if and how to begin. I wouldn’t say that I am already very advanced on my karma-yoga path. So, should I try to start on meditation at an beginner-level right now or do I need to wait until I reached a higher step on karma-yoga?

You should focus on your actions. Focus on making your actions more beneficial to others, and less motivated by a desire to separately benefit yourself. Dedicate yourself more fully to the service of others.

You won’t be able to succeed in this, however, without wisdom and knowledge about who you are and why typical selfishness isn’t really your own best interest. This is why, prior to discussing karma-yoga, Krishna first gives an initial seed of jñāna in 2.12-30. Only after we comprehend who and what we really are, and what our relationship to the world is, only then can we see that separatist selfishness isn’t really relevant to us, isn’t really our true best interest. And only then can we seriously pursue karma-yoga, which is the dedication of our energy and action to benefiting others.

You will also notice that Krishna’s discussion of karma-yoga mainly spans chapters 3 through 5, and that as it moves from three to five it becomes progressively more philosophical, and regularly refers back to the need of having jñāna to be able to do karma-yoga. In fact one of the most strongly stated and often repeated points Krishna makes in the first third of the Gītā is that knowledge (jñāna) and right-action (karma) are two inseparable parts of a single endeavor for spiritual evolution.

So although you ashould focus on your actions, this doesn’t mean that you should ignore the cultivation of knowledge. If you ignore the cultivation of knowledge you will not be abe to continually decrease the selfishness in your actions, and thus you will not be able to succeed in karma-yoga. So, even a person who does karma-yoga must devote some significant time to study and meditation.

When karma-yoga becomes very mature, the impulse to be active goes away. Then one can devote most of one’s time to study and meditation. That is when one crosses into being a jñana-yogī. As Krishna explains at the beginning of Chapter Six (3rd text), jñāna-yoga is not a different path from karma-yoga, they are actually a beginning and advanced way of doing the same yoga. Jñāna-yoga is simply the more advanced form of karma-yoga, and only a person who has really graduated from karma-yoga can successfully apply themselves to jñāna-yoga. 

In jñāna-yoga meditation is the primary activity. In karma-yoga duty is the primary activity, but this does not mean duty/action is absent from jñāna yoga, or that meditation is absent from karma-yoga.

Meditation should be done by everyone, but not everyone should expect to do it for long stretches of time day after day – that is for jñāna-yoga.

Pātāñjalī reccomends mantra meditation the most highly. Mantra is a set of words that encapsulates deep knowledge, which becomes revealed to a person who carefully contemplates the words (“meditates” on the words). So, every yogi, even the beginner karma-yogi should practice at least a few minutes of mantra-meditation every day.

It should be done as advised in Chapter Six, not while riding a train or bike, or walking around doing housework. It should be done in a peaceful place, seated properly, breathing deliberatly, and with a mind clearly focused on the words of the mantra, allowing their meanings to unfold through the meditation.

The mantra should not be a mundane mantra, since Krishna defines in chapter six that the purpose of meditation is to redirect the flow of thoughts so that they can contemplate consciousness itself, rather than only flowing towards the objects of consciousness. So the mantra should be a verbal form of advaya-jñana (the absolute consciousness). There are many suitable mantras, and different specific schools prescribe different mantra to their students.

In the Gauḍīya school we especially prescribe mantra of Bhagavān Śrī Krishna, such as the gopāl and kāmadeva mantra. We also highly reccomend meditation upon the hare krishna mahāmantra. Everyone in the Gauḍīya school should meditate on these mantra even if they are beginners – though naturally the advanced students will meditate on them much more deeply and abundantly. Still we should all spend a few minutes every day at least in really careful and deep meditation on them.

We should undertake the study of the texts that explain the concepts encapsulated in the mantra. This is an extension of the meditation.

With this study and contemplation/meditation of activities proceed quickly to become purified and we progress towards uttama-bhakti yoga.

Vraja Kishor

Smart Isn’t Beautiful???


Recently I heard someone say, “We [devotees] shouldn’t be too philosophical, because that would drive all the non-philosophical people away.”

This is like a mother saying to her daughter, “Don’t be so beautiful, it will drive away all the ugly men.”

First, who cares if she scares away the ugly men?

Second, what kind of girl thinks it is important to attract people other than her boyfriend? Or to attract friends that her boyfriend doesn’t like so much? In other words, what kind of devotee cares about attracting people besides Krishna, or attracting people Krishna finds unattractive?

In the seventh chapter of Gita, Krishna says that of all the people who come towards him, the philosophical are the “most dear to him.” (priyo hi jñānīno’tyartham). Krishna loves philosophical devotees, and that should be enough information for us!

Third, everyone is attracted to beauty, including the ugly. It makes no sense to say that people who are less philosophical are not attracted to people who are more philosophical.

Knowledge  is one of the six aspects of bhaga (the stuff that is attractive).


aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ
jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva ṣaṇṇāṁ bhagam itīṅganā

“The six parts of attractivness are:
Superlative power, bravery, renown,
beauty, knowledge, and dispassion.”

(Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47)

Two types of people are not attracted to these qualities. (1) Those too blunt and dull to even comprehend the difference between attractive and unattractive, (2) Those who have  psychological complexes about their perceived lack of these qualities. These people have a negative attraction to the qualities – feeling threatened by those who possess them in greater abundance. A group of such people only attract more of the same.


Knowledge is attractive. Even All-Attractive Krishna finds it attractive.

However, putting lipstick over warts does not constitute beauty. Pride in academics and intellectual musculature is such “knowledge-lipstick.” Pride is the opposite of vairagya (“dispassion”) and is therefore ugly. Real philosophy has a shy, humble character to its strength. Real philosophy is essential for understanding Krishna, and also happens to be beautiful and immensely attractive to the sort of people that Krishna likes.

Vraja Kishor das (

How Can We Forget Krishna?


Q: “Falling down” from the spiritual world is quite a strange idea, but if we never met Krishna how to explain our longing for Him? I feel,  everyone longs for Him only,  as nobody is happy here.

Longing for Krishna is actually a very rare thing that only the most advanced bhakti-sādhaka’s achieve. It is not something that everyone intrinsically has.

Krishna says that even to comprehend god at all is very rare (manuṣyānām sahasreṣu…). And he says that of all those few who do comprehend god, those who can conceive of god in a personal way are still more rare (vasudeva sarvam iti sa mahātmā sudurlabha). Of all those who can conceive of god in a personal form, those who want to develop a devotional relationship with him are even still more rare (yoginām api sarveśaṁ…).

Explaining the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, Śrī Rūpa, in Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu, explains that longing for Krishna (āsakti) is the most advanced stage of sādhana.

So I do not agree that “everyone longs for Krishna.” Practically no one even knows what or who Krishna is, what to speak of has a real, sincere longing for him.

Q: Then what do we feel? What is that hole in the heart that cannot be filled by any amount of material sense gratification?

We are kṛṣner nitya-dāsa. This means that our very constitution is meant to experience Krishna. We are consciousness by nature (jñāna-mātra, svayaṁ-jyoti pratyag-dhāma), and consciousness always longs for an object worth being conscious of. Krishna is the supreme object and subject of consciousness (adhokṣaja, govinda, kṛṣṇa, etc). So we long to fulfill our constitutional potential, of experiencing the most deeply fulfilling object of consciousness. We do not exactly know what that object is. This is why we search around for a million things. But Krishna manifests the Veda to help us discover him, the true supreme object of consciousness (jñeya).

As you mentioned, the idea of leaving a relationship with Krishna is too odd. Because if we could leave it, it must not be fully satisfying and engrossing, therefore it must not after all be the param-jñeya (supreme objective of experience), and Krishna must not be “govinda” or “adhokṣaja” or “kṛṣṇa” etc. Therefore this concept is not acceptable. Śrī Jīva and the other founding ācāryas of Gauḍīya Vedānta clearly never present such a concept. They present the concept that we are anādi-bhagavād-ajñāna – we have never experienced Bhagavan – because we were instead fascinated by the qualities of māyā (yaya sammohita jīva) as a result of our unique and causeless individual nature and disposition.

We are generally happy with māyā except when we do not cooperate with her rules and come under the influence of negative karma. But this in itself provides a clue that this happiness is not perfect for us. Krishna provides the Veda to give us a way to know him and establish a real relationship with him, the Supreme Object of Love and Joy. (anarthopaśamam sākṣāt and the next verse).

Vraja Kishor dās (

“Krishna Doesn’t Need Me, He Already Has Radha”?


Q: Krishna is in love with Radha. Radha’s love is so great  it makes Krshna so mad about her that even if He is with another beautiful Gopi,  He can not stop thinking about her. A soul who is in love with Krishna will give Him their entire heart, their entire self – but it seems Krishna can never do same as He is always longing for Radha only. 

Is there no hope for anyone other that Radha? Is it possible to have direct experience and emotional exange with Him? If not, it does not sound very interesting or satisfying. We are persons, and we want a relationship, full and direct, with the person we love. But how can a small insignificant jiva can expect to have a direct, fully satisfying, overhelming emotional exange with Krishna, when Krishna is completely overwhelmed with his relationship to Radha?

I agree with your first premise: Rādhā’s love for Krishna is so intoxicating and extreme that Krishna is completely fascinated and enchanted by it, and cannot withdraw his heart and attention from it at any time, and is never really satisfied or happy without being fully absorbed in it. I agree with this completely.

I also agree with your second premise: that love is anāvṛta, it wants to give itself fully, completely, and directly to the beloved.

How then can anyone besides Rādhā ever achieve perfect divine love to the fullest extent?

It is impossible for anyone who ignores Rādhārānī.

It is impossible for anyone who ignores Rādhārānī. Actually, those who ignore Rādhārānī cannot even comprehend Bhagavān Krishna at all. Śaktimān simply does not exist without śakti.

Those who do not ignore Rādhā relate to Krishna in context of her relationship with him.

Those who do not ignore Rādhā relate to Krishna in context of her relationship with him. This is not “indirect” or “less” than a one-to-one singular relationship. A many-to-one relationship is actually “more,” and equally direct (considering that the beloved is Krishna who is unlimited. See the paintings of the Rāsa dance, etc). Further, the relationship which includes Rādhā has two inspirations for love: Rādhā and Krishna, rather than only one: Krishna alone.

Our participation in Rādhā and Krishna’s relationship integrates with and augments itThere are two ways of doing this: direct and indirect.

The queen of those who take the indirect approach is Candrāvalī. Not only her and her associates, but also all the gopas and elders in Vraja also embrace the indirect approach. The essence of the indirect approach is to enhance the value of Rādhā by making her availability more precious, rare, difficult to attain, etc. And also by inspiring Krishna for it (increasing his appetite) and inspiring Radharani (competition is an important inspiration). Candravalī takes the outward appearance of competing with Rādhā, but the fact is that she is Rādhā[‘s primary expansion], and she serves Rādhā by providing competition.

Among those who take the direct approach: Lalitā is the queen. She and the gopīs like her, and all their friends directly augment the relationship of Rādhā and Krishna by literally and directly participating in it. They are flowers augmenting a central flower. This is the literal meaning of the word “mañjarī” – flowers that do not stand alone, but cluster together. There is a central diamond on a ring, but the gold and other stones around that diamond add their beauty to its. In fact the entire ring is usually appreciated as one unit, with special attention to the central stone.

It isn’t easy for us to conceive of Krishna’s love life, because our own love-lives are doomed to be so meager and paltry by comparison.

It isn’t easy for us to conceive of Krishna’s love life, because our own love-lives are doomed to be so meager and paltry by comparison. Our appetite and capacity for enjoyment is limited by the restricting prakṛti in which we enjoy, and also by the fact that we are infinitessimal (we are only “infinity to the power of one” while Krishna is “infinity to the power of infinity, infinite times”). Krishna has incalculable appetite for pleasure, and incalculable ability to enjoy it. The concept of romance held by we kali-yuga mortals falls a billion light-years short of what happens in the groves of Vrindavana! Vedic culture has some reflection of it, you can see some of it still in ancient sculpture from that culture and epoch. It came into the world through Kāmadeva and Rati, and was propogated by their paramparā, esepcially the scholar Vatsāyana. It is not exactly “monogamy” by any means, although there is one central lover who is the main focus of the beloved’s attention and enjoyment.

Krishna has incalculable appetite for pleasure, and incalculable ability to enjoy it. The concept of romance that we kali-yuga mortals have falls a billion years short of what happens in the groves of Vrindavana.

It is quite a lot like how Vedic theism is neither poly- nor mono-theistic – there is an abundant plurality of divinity, yet a central figure as the unifying link through it all. Similarly, in Vrindavana the romance of the Supreme Enjoyer is neither polygamous nor monogamous – it is both. There is an abundant, infinite plurality of gopīs / lakṣṁīs, yet a singular central figure unifying and coordinating them all as the focal point – Śrī Rādhā.

I aologize if my discussion of sexuality has startled any reader who might be unprepared for such discussions. I thought it was necessary background information to help express my understanding of why Krishna’s relationship with Sri Radha doesn’t preclude our participation. We add our beauty and talent to Sri Rādhā’s, augmenting her, supporting her, assisting her in every way. There are many girls involved (polygamy) but Sri Radha is their central focus and queen (monogamy). Krishna’s one pointed attention on Rādhā doesn’t preclude the fact that Śrī Rādhā manifests herself as and thorugh counteless divine goddess gopīs who all simultaneously coperate in a singular mādhurya-rasa.

This is why the poets and scriptures describe Krishna as “surrounded/covered by gopīs.” This is where we fit in. Our relationship with Krishna is never independent of Sri Radha’s relationship with Krishna, but this should not be envisioned as meaning we sit 20 miles away knitting a sweater for them while they make love.

In fact, our ability to taste, feel, smell, see, and hear Krishna is augmented to the power of infinity by our directing our senses primarily into the seva of Śrī Rādhā. By considering her interest to be ours, her heart to be ours, her mind to be ours, her senses to be ours and dedicating our emotions, thoughts, and actions accordingly – we (as a natural concomitant result, not a separate pursuit) experience Krishna through her – which is not at all indirect but rather is an immense, incalculable magnification of the experience of Krishna’s tan-mātra. (Similar in a way to how a telescope can hardly make our experience of Jupiter less intense and direct).

Thank you for this wonderful question. I have explained only whatever I can explain. I do not claim to know the whole story, but I hope my angle on the story may be helpful to you.

Vraja Kishor das (