Dear Hari,
I was reading recently on Hindu-blog.com the following explanation regarding Radha Krishna: "To understand the relationship between Radha and Krishna, first we have to clear the worldly impurities from our mind, which is clogging our vision. Once these impurities are removed we will understand the true meaning of Raslila – the individual soul realizing that it is part of the universal soul, which is a continuity. It is always Radha and Krishna together or simply Radhakrishna. Radha exists with Krishna; not without Krishna. Radha represents the individual soul and Krishna the universal soul. On a lower level, we say the individual soul merges with the universal soul. In fact, Radha on seeing Krishna realizes that there is nothing called the individual soul and that she is Krishna..." It seems to me that this is how many so called Hindus view or explain their faith and understanding of Radha and Krishna. But could it really be that simple?
On the same website one can find a quote by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati which supposed should have said or written ones: "On perusal of the first chapter of Bhagavad Gita one may think that they are advised to engage in warfare. When the second chapter has been read it can be clearly understood that knowledge and the soul is the ultimate goal to be attained. On studying the third chapter it is apparent that acts of righteousness are also of high priority. If we continue and patiently take the time to complete the Bhagavad Gita and try to ascertain the truth of its closing chapter we can see that the ultimate conclusion is to relinquish all the conceptualized ideas of religion which we possess and fully surrender directly unto the Supreme Lord."
But what does it really mean to "surrender" so called "directly unto the Supreme Lord"? In the past some of us may have understood this as a request to engage in spreading and facilitating a certain society of people and its understanding of life and the Supreme Godhead. But could that really be the right meaning of fully surrendering "directly" unto the Supreme? Why should there be a need to "fully surrender unto the Supreme Lord", if we are supposed to be anyway also a part of Him or Them in some way or another?
Meaning of Radha-Krishna and fully surrendering unto Them
Re: Meaning of Radha-Krishna and fully surrendering unto Them
I find the hindu blog description uninteresting and not useful.
I have dedicated the past years to redefining the meaning of "surrender," as the word does not seem to efficiently express what it intends. I see it important to accept the irrevocable connection to the divine couple as our essence. When one has accepted oneself and this natural connection, one's life is in harmony with Radha and Krsna (as well as all divinity in existence) and unfolds as it should, when it should.
I see no reason to complicate this very straightforward essential truth. I have explained this in detail in my short book segment.
What you do after you have accepted this connection will most likely be a natural extension of your being. And if it is not, you will have a good reason why.
I have dedicated the past years to redefining the meaning of "surrender," as the word does not seem to efficiently express what it intends. I see it important to accept the irrevocable connection to the divine couple as our essence. When one has accepted oneself and this natural connection, one's life is in harmony with Radha and Krsna (as well as all divinity in existence) and unfolds as it should, when it should.
I see no reason to complicate this very straightforward essential truth. I have explained this in detail in my short book segment.
What you do after you have accepted this connection will most likely be a natural extension of your being. And if it is not, you will have a good reason why.