The two-faced religion, Speculations on the origins of Gaudiyism Options

[Chanahari]

When I myself was a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I often thought that it is like two religions mixed together. You have Radha and Krishna, as the sources of all love and beauty – They are the highest goal, and when you reach Them, you will not have anything to fear or concern yourself, for you will be naturally Theirs, and They also will be naturally yours, and in this situation, all of you will enjoy the highest bliss and happiness. But on the other hand, there is a much more strict (and much more often exposed to) approach. You are an insignificant speck, who has to serve and eventually surrender, subjugating all your own desires and own goals, even own interests for the sake of the Absolute, Supreme Lord, Vishnu. (Here the relation is somehow becomes feudalistic, dependent, even the terminology is that of a power hierarchy; like a subject and a sovereign). These two conflicting approaches could alone form at least two different religion, but yet they still compressed together as one.

Have you ever asked yourself why should one become the servant (a subjugated one) of Vishnu, a Lord, in order to attain prema towards Radha and Krishna? Why should you be a Vaishnava, applying a Vishnu symbol on your body, subjecting yourself to so many rituals and rules?

Can you really love someone Who is so much over you; someone who requires so much servitude and dependence? Someone who is on a much higher position in a strict hierarchy? Or can this Someone really love you, that little speck under His feet?

Ever thought why so much threats in the Scriptures? (If you eat/do/say/avoid this and that, in this time and that place, and (don't) eat/do/say/avoid something/anything/everything other besides that, you will surely fall in the hellish realms and become a (insert unfavorable condition here) in your next lifetime(s).) Are that fearful and strict approach beneficial to develop spontane love to Radha-Krishna? If not, why should one still follow these injunctions?

These were the questions which always troubled my mind – and also troubled some of my fellow Vaishnavas, as I could hear that sometimes, from what they said/wrote. As I'm not a literalist, and I'm also a very materialistic person, I wasn't content with the standard sastric/traditional explanations I got. For this reason, I concocted a theory on what I read in mundane scientific papers and other places, and what I felt/thought/realized. And I will post it here, for it certainly uses some (if admittedly little) academic knowledge; it is also eclectic; and it has a chance to stir up some controversy . I reached the conclusion that Gaudiya Vaishnavism seems like two distinct religions, because it is indeed two, mixed together by the storms of history.

Why do (some) Vaishnavas worship Radha-Krishna?
The first people we know to be Vaishnavas were the Aryans – the Indo-European population of North India. Their origins is uncertain; Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory teaches that they started from Afghanistan (although their original homeland wasn't there), through Kashmir, and they expanded to the south and east. Immigrationists believe that this happened in the time when Rigveda was written down.

From Rigveda, we know that firstly Aryans weren't particularly Vaishnavas in the beginning. They worshipped many distinct (demi)gods, amongst them Indra was the principal. While Vishnu is also frequently mentioned, doesn't seem to be near as prominent as Indra. The Vedas don't speak about Vishnu having distinct avataras; they also don't speak about Radha-Krishna. Vishnu seems to be connected with the sun. The worship of the (demi)gods was assciated with very strict rules and regulations, especially regarding purity (something surprisingly frequent in semi-tribal societies), and appeared as sacrifices.

Later – after the Rigveda, but well before the Mahabharata – there was a social and religious reform among the Aryans. The already existing caste system solidified, became rigid. In the same time, Indra was replaced by Vishnu (after some tryings with Brahma and Prajapati, as it seems from some hymns) in the post of god-in-charge. The worship of Vishnu became an exclusive right of brahmanas, and it associated with the same standards inherited from the sacrifices.

Before Indo-Europeans reached the area now known as Vraja, (well, if you accept the theory, as I do), the territory was populated by people whose own name we don't know. Although archeological researches show that the area was populated before the Aryan invasion, very few traces remained. Either they didn't know writing, or their writings were destroyed by later immigrants, together with their buildings and other remains. Rigveda calls them Abhiras; they are mentioned as people who raise cattle (or protect the cow, if you want ), and they were described as sinful, demonic people (this notion is present even in the Bhagavatam, where Abhiras are lumped together with kiratas, hunas, andhras, pulindas and other people, who despite being very fallen and devoid of any Aryan qualities, still can be brought to the path of devotional service by a bona fide spiritual master). Sri-Sri-Radha-Krishna-ganoddesa-dipika also associates the word Abhira with certain inhabitants of the Vraja area. (Note: These Abhiras are most certainly aren't the same as the later ones after the collapse of Maurya Empire.)

In my theory, Abhiras were the first who worshipped Radha-Krishna. Maybe they used other names for Them, which now can't be reconstructed – maybe Kana was their original term for Krishna. They didn't worship demigods; didn't sacrifice (at least not animals). Probably there was not a liturgical stratification (this is the term I use for the lack of better - I think of clergy and generally, people, who have greater "access" to God than non-clerics; like brahmanas in caste system), and from that they worshipped both Radha and Krishna, it seems that both genders enjoyed equal rights. They worshipped the Divine Couple without complex rituals and without fear.


How did Radha-Krishna worshippers became Vaishnavas?
And then, Aryans came – either as their invading forces rushed through the whole subcontinent, or just slowly expanding by the population growth, and then just reached Vraja. Aryans attacked – maybe for the cattle, maybe for the territory. They occupied the Vraja area, probably after a fierce fight. The attack happened long after the Rigveda was written down, but maybe before even Vishnu-worship gained prominence.

In the following times, surviving Abhiras were enlisted in the castes, and when Vishnu-worship became the main religion among Aryans, Krishna was merged with Vishnu. Probably that had something to do with the process known nowadays as „Sanskritization”: Abhiras wanted to integrate in the occupiers' society, so they began to cling to the rites and rules prescribed by the Aryan Brahmins – today some low-status sub-castes frequently do this, rising in caste rank by accepting stricter life rules. Merging of gods of the conqueror and the conquered also happened among Semitic tribes (especially Mesopotamians) and among the native tribes of Central and South America; moreover, the practice is also continuing now, when Native American tribal main gods get identified with certain saints of the Catholic Church (and this also happened in Europe, in the times of the Church expansion). This merger makes surrendering easier for the conquered, as it covers away the cultural differences. An other well-known Indian example for that phenomenon is Buddha. Maybe all the ten principal avataras (except Kalki?) were tribal gods previously, and became incorporated with Vishnu. Abhiras (and later Aryans as well) began to worship Krishna as Vishnu – and Krishna-worship became Vishnu-worship in its standards, rules and regulations. Interesting, that in Padma Purana, the person Radha worships and desires is called also sometimes Vishnu, as a synonym with Krishna:

yathA rAdhA priyA viSNos tasyAH kuNDam priyaM tathA
sarva-gopISu saivaikA viSNor atyanta-vallabhA

The Aryan society was strictly patriarchal (as religions with strong purity prescriptions tend to be, just like Jews, Muslims, and some European Gypsyes) - Abhiras also became patriarchal, and the ideological base of today's ISKCON marriages was born. For the same reason, Radha's figure was heavily disenfranchised.. The philosophical and theological positions, which are accepted today by followers of Madhva and Ramanuja, exemplify the situation Radha-Krishna worship has fallen into. These two schools do accept Krishna, as one of the many forms of Vishnu, and worship Him with awe, reverence, rules and austerities. But Radha lacks the place worthy of Her – Madhvaites either don't believe Her existence whatsoever; or think that She is an apsarA. Nowhere do we found Radha as Krishna's equal – She is not of the same substance as Krishna; She is always just His female servant. While Her mind is always focused to Him, She is rarely an important thought in His mind. She is even defined by Krishna ("You know, She is the girl besides Krishna.") At the same times, histories of Abhira life before the Aryans, and stories about Radha and Krishna found their ways into holy scriptures of Aryans, and spread throughout India. But the original Radha-Krishna worship, with its joyful, peaceful, loving attitude, was destroyed by strictness of the tribal Vishnu religion.