Why is there no Radha Krishna worship in the Madhva sampradaya?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So why is there no Radha Krishna worship in Madhya Sampradaya? In the Vedic tradition there is there is always two sides which go along entirely there is fidelity and there is flexibility. Fidelity is faithfulness, continuation with the tradition and this flexibility is preemption so that flexibility is the source of dynamism that the Sampradaya stays relevant to its contemporary audiences and fidelity makes sure that it stays up as a potency so both are important.
Now if you see, strictly speaking no tradition stays the same over time. If you look at Christianity as it was say 1000 years ago, Christianity as it is now is different. So Christianity at the time of Thomas Aquinas is quite different from say Thomas Aquinas before the age of enlightenment.
If you look at 2nd, 3rd, 4th century prominent theologian Christianity’s time is different. So there is always the fidelity and flexibility. So now how it happened is that there is scriptures have a message but depending on the particular scriptures have a broad message.
In fact you may have heard about omnipotence, supreme potency. So scriptures are also have to be omniform. Omniform means they contain message which is relevant for different audience at different levels.
So say even with respect to the worship of Vishnu Tattva there are scriptural passages glorify Vishnu, the scriptural passages glorify Ram and the scriptural passages glorify Krishna. So these passages are there and depending on a particular Acharya’s mood, that Acharya may focus on a particular worshipable deity more. So when that focus is there, then that particular deity’s temple will get established and then things start following.
So if you see Madhvacharya he had a particular historical context. So how it is? Shankaracharya taught impersonation. Then Ramacharya taught Vishishtadvaita.
Now Ramacharya talked about the worship of Vishishtadvaita. But then his focus was yes, we are one but there is difference also. Advaita but there is some qualification.
So he brought the pendulum to the center. Now Madhvacharya took the pendulum moving to the other extreme. That’s why he has his philosophy of Pancham Veda.
That is Jiva and Jagdish are different. Jagat and Jagdish are different. Jiva and Jiva is different.
And Jagat and Jagat is also different. So like that there is a difference between. So his took the pendulum to the other side.
To drive home that point that actually oneness is wrong. There if you see he focused more to drive home that point. The duality has to be emphasized then the intimacy is there in terms of the connection of the heart.
But the intimacy is not so much there in terms of the the intimate and the absolute. It is focused more on the opulent side of the absolute. He is superior.
We are subordinate. Focus is more on his greatness our smallness. So that’s what Madhvacharya taught at that particular point.
And that was the most effective way to counter what Shankaracharya was doing. Shankaracharya was doing. Strong on the counter.
And once he he brought the pendulum back to the center. So in that sense if you see the same worship of Shri. Now if you see it’s not that the worship of Radharani is not talked about in scriptures.
It is mentioned especially Brahmapurana, Brahmanvartapurana and in Brahmapurana they talk about it. But it is not emphasized. It’s definitely, no Acharya has sort of denied or rejected the existence of Radharani.
Nobody has done that. They may not have emphasized it. But they have not denied it.
So they don’t emphasize it because they have come at a particular time in history and they are focusing on a particular mission. So now when Nityanand Mahaprabhu came at that time he is giving an intimate understanding of the absolute. And that intimate understanding focuses not just on the Madhurya Rasa, Madhurya Bhava, Madhurya Rati, that is either it can be Sita Ram, Lakshmi Narayan together or it can be only Rukmini Dwarkadheesh.
But he is focusing even more on how for the sake of the absolute truth, for the sake of Krishna not only we should be able to give up the bad which is like sinful activities but we should be able to give up even the good. Even the good means morality. So for a woman even chastity is a higher term.
It is required to give chastity. Women should be ready to give chastity also. Of course the book is never became unchanged.
But in public perception they were ready to risk the loss of their chastity for the sake of worshipping Krishna. So this is a very intimate understanding of God and the God’s relations with his devotees. So that was a review, that was emphasized by Srikant Narayan.
There is a scripture but it is emphasized by Srikant Narayan. And that’s why this sort of variation if you want to see it’s very much common in the Vedic tradition. So it’s not wrong that one particular Sampradaya emphasizes a particular worship and another Sampradaya doesn’t emphasize.
So that’s ok. But the point is as long as something is based on scripture, then we understand that it is authorized. And why there is a particular emphasis at a particular time? That is because that social context or that particular acharya’s mood, that particular time seems, then accordingly certain things are presented.
So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu basically brought the pendulum back to the mainstay and revealed not just the opulence of Godhood but also the intimacy of the Lord’s relationship with his devotees. And that intimacy which even trumps the intimacy that trumps morality, that is revealed in the worship of Radha Krishna. And that is what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is talking about.
So it’s not necessarily in any way contradictory. It’s just it’s sort of progress. Once we understand the complete historical context, then we can understand why there was Radha Krishna worship in the Gauda Sampradaya.
The Gauda Sampradaya is like Radha Vallabh Sampradaya, Kumar Sampradaya. Now, or in the Kushti Marga. They are similar.
So they also have Radha Krishna worship. But if you see the emphasis that is there in Radha Krishna worship, that is more. We have Vallabh Acharya.
He focused more on the worship of Krishna as a child. But as a Mithalnath, he has focused more on the worship of Krishna in Madhuriya or Radha Krishna. So, overall, it’s like when we are saying Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is not alone.
He is like the crest of the wheel. And there are others also in that. So overall, historically, there was a resurgence of Bhakti which happened in the medieval ages.
So whether it was Tulsidas in the north or whether it was Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the east or the centric or like Tukaram and others in the east and west. There has been an overall resurgence. And that resurgence was there.
And Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, in one sense, his predestined contribution, if you want to say, is the focus on the Harinam Samkirtan and his teaching of Ajatmikta Veda. But that is something which is… So Radha Sampradaya, Chaturanga, Radha Krishna worship, they are just a part of the wave that is coming up where the worship of God in a more intimate mood is stopped.