Dr. Radhakrishnan (Books)

Once one of the brahmacārīs of our āśrama met Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, who is a spiritualist of sorts and an erudite scholar. Dr. Radhakrishnan is the vice-president of India as I write this essay. On meeting him, our brahmacārī received from him a copy of his Bhagavad-gītā as a gift. Dr. Radhakrishnan had translated this Gītā into English and written a commentary on it, and it sold well in the market for ten rupees in those days (1954).

The brahmacārī read the book and came to us a little dissatisfied, though the book itself was deeply esoteric. The reason for his dissatisfaction was that Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight: in many places he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion. This is a perfect example of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's statement (1.1.1) that "by Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion" (muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ). When the Lord so easily bewilders Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, Lord Indra, and other great universal controllers, it is not at all surprising that Dr. Radhakrishnan is placed into illusion.

The brahmacārī was especially shocked and hurt by Dr. Radhakrishnan's misinterpretation of Text 34 of Chapter 9, which appears in his book on page 254. He came to us very depressed, wanting to discuss this passage. The following words were found in the book:

It is not the personal Kṛṣṇa to whom we have to give ourselves up utterly but the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal who speaks through Kṛṣṇa.

We have not the slightest intention of confronting a world-famous philosopher like Dr. Radhakrishnan with arguments, yet on the brahmacārī's repeated request we have to scrutinize the text and point out the discrepancies. We have great respect for Dr. Radhakrishnan, not only because he is the vice-president of our country but also because of his scholarship and his position as an erudite master of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, he is faithful to the brahminical tradition he hails from and is a follower of the Māyāvāda school. Going by the oft-quoted dictum that it is better to have a learned enemy than a foolish friend, I feel encouraged in this matter. An intelligent opponent will present reasonable rebuttals, but an ignorant friend may bring about disaster with his floundering. Therefore we feel no compunction about strongly arguing against the points Dr. Radhakrishnan makes in his Bhagavad-gītā commentary.

A well-known Bengali saying goes, "After reading the whole Rāmāyaṇa, you want to know whose father Sītā is?" This question is ludicrous, since Sītā is Lord Rāma's wife, and thus such a query will naturally invite quips and laughter. We find the same absurdity in Dr. Radhakrishnan's English commentary on the Gītā. He writes that we do not have to surrender to the person Kṛṣṇa but to "the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal" within Kṛṣṇa. This implies that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His "inner self" are two separate identities. According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, since there is a difference between Kṛṣṇa's body and His soul, we must surrender to Kṛṣṇa's soul and not His body. This new discovery in the field of religious philosophy reminds us of the "paṇḍita" of the Rāmāyaṇa referred to above.

Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa's sole purpose in speaking the Bhagavad-gītā is to convince us to surrender to His lotus feet. Yet right at the outset Dr. Radhakrishnan is unwilling to accept this point. Lord Kṛṣṇa gives the central instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.66):

sarva-dharmān parityajya

mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja

ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo

mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke these words to Arjuna so that he would surrender to Him. The Sanskrit word śaraṇam in this Gītā text means "surrender."

On page 62 of his "Introductory Essay", Dr. Radhakrishnan has also discussed the idea of surrender in some detail. He writes,

Prapatti (surrender) has the following accessories—good will to all (ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ); (ii) absence of ill will (prātikūlyasya varjanam); (iii) faith that the Lord will protect (rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāsaḥ); (iv) resort to Him as savior (gopṛtve varanam); (v) a sense of utter helplessness (kārpaṇyam); (vi) complete surrender (ātma-nikṣepaḥ).

These six limbs of surrender should be followed in relation to Kṛṣṇa, or Viṣṇu, because this instruction on the process of surrender appears in a Vaiṣṇava scripture. Dr. Radhakrishnan has translated the first limb (ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ) as "good will to all." Question: Is it possible to surrender to everyone? Surrender should be directed toward the Supreme Lord alone. Dr. Radhakrishnan's proposal is impractical, and indeed impossible. Long before Dr. Radhakrishnan wrote his commentary, many realized spiritual preceptors, including the famous Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, explained that the words ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ mean that one should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa, favorably. No genuine scholar would be willing to disregard all other spiritual authorities and accept Dr. Radhakrishnan's version.

When Dr. Radhakrishnan uses the words "faith in the Lord," he definitely refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By what logic does he say "Lord" but mean the impersonal Brahman? Arjuna certainly means the person Kṛṣṇa when he says (BG 2.7), śiṣyas te 'haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam: "Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me." With these words he addresses Kṛṣṇa at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā. At this stage of the Gītā the impersonal Brahman is still to be discussed. When the subject of the impersonal Brahman is finally raised, Lord Kṛṣṇa unequivocally declares that He is the source of the impersonal Brahman. Sound logic says that one cannot surrender to something impersonal and formless. Those who are overly attached to the impersonal Brahman will find surrendering to this formless concept very painful and, indeed, impossible, and if they persist along this path they will end up surrendering to their wife, family, and relatives.

A good example of such philosophical jargon meant to bewilder the public is Dr. Radhakrishnan's translating ānukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ as "good will to all" instead of "surrendering to the Supreme Lord," its proper meaning. Such an interpretation is what we can expect from a mundane scholar.

The first word in devotional service is surrender. The only meaning of surrender is to accept that one is a servant of God. Even great scholars and philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan will have to perform heaps of austerities and penances before they will yield to the process of surrender. This is the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā. Dr. Radhakrishnan's explanation of the six limbs of surrender is superficial. Originally defined in a Vaiṣṇava text, these six limbs of surrender pertain to Lord Viṣṇu, or Kṛṣṇa. Ānukūlya means "loving devotion to Lord Kṛṣṇa." The Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu states, ānukūlyena-kṛṣṇānuśīlanaṁ bhaktir uttamā: (CC Madhya 19.167) "One should render transcendental loving service to Lord Kṛṣṇa favorably. That is called pure devotional service."

The main instruction in the Bhagavad-gītā is to take complete shelter of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Yet this cardinal conclusion, which emanated from Lord Kṛṣṇa's own lotus lips, is reversed by Dr. Radhakrishnan when he writes that one should surrender not to the person Kṛṣṇa but to the "Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal who speaks through Kṛṣṇa." It is an exercise in futility to take up the Gītā for discussion only in order to ostentatiously display one's erudition, and thus to foolishly misinterpret the text so much that one concludes that the speaker of the Bhagavad-gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa, is a mere mortal. This use of Vedic knowledge to pronounce that God does not exist is a clear example of serving Kṛṣṇa unfavorably.

How does Lord Kṛṣṇa describe sholars like Dr. Radhakrishnan, who have an atheistic understanding of the Vedas? In the Bhagavad-gītā (7.15) we find this statement:

na māṁ duṣkṛtino mūḍhāḥ

prapadyante narādhamāḥ

māyayāpahṛta-jñānā

āsuraṁ bhāvam āśritāḥ

Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

This is confirmed in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.38):

premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena

santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti

yaṁ śyāmasundaram acintya-guṇa-svarūpaṁ

govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Śyāmasundara, Kṛṣṇa Himself with innumerable inconceivable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love."

Therefore, the scriptural conclusion is that mundane philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan are not qualified to delve into spiritual subjects. The devotees of the Lord alone are eligible to understand Lord Kṛṣṇa; no one else is qualified. As Kṛṣṇa Himself states in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān yaś cāsmi tattvataḥ: (BG 18.55) "One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service."

Scholars like Dr. Radhakrishnan should understand that within Lord Kṛṣṇa there is only Lord Kṛṣṇa and nothing else. Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and soul are the same. The Gītā's conclusion is that the nondual truth is Kṛṣṇa, the absolute Supreme Being. But Dr. Radhakrishnan has somehow discovered another, second being within Kṛṣṇa. This discovery then converts Dr. Radhakrishnan into a believer in dualism!

In general, the monists cannot grasp the intricate philosophy of nondualism. So Dr. Radhakrishnan has spun out of his imagination a theory by which he tries to establish dualism in nondualism. When Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that we must surrender to "the Unborn, Beginningless, Eternal who speaks through Kṛṣṇa," he implies that it is the impersonal Brahman within Kṛṣṇa who is speaking about surrender. Once it is established that the impersonal Brahman can speak, then He must also possess the instrument of speech, namely the tongue. Thus we see that Dr. Radhakrishnan's whole concept of impersonalism is immediately undermined. There is sufficient evidence in the scriptures to conclude that one who talks can also walk. And a being capable of speaking and walking must indeed be endowed with all the senses. Then He must also be able to perform other activities, such as eating and sleeping. So how can Dr. Radhakrishnan claim that his beginningless, eternal object is impersonal?

In his "Introductory Essay," on page 62, Dr. Radhakrishnan writes,

When we are emptied of our self (?), God takes possession of us. The obstacles to this God-possession are our own virtues, pride, knowledge, our subtle demands, and our unconscious assumptions and prejudices.

From his own arguments we can safely surmise that Dr. Radhakrishnan, due to his carelessness and previous upbringing, is seeing a difference between Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and His soul. He is still not free from false ego, that is, "emptied of self." Therefore his "virtues, pride, knowledge, subtle demands, and unconscious assumptions and prejudices" are all preventing him from understanding the transcendental truth. He must have been brought up in an atmosphere of Māyāvāda thought; for this reason he was unable to grasp the truth.

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, the founder and propagator of Māyāvāda philosophy, proved that the material world was an illusion—mithyā—and so he diligently pursued the path of austerity and renunciation, and he stressed it in his teachings. He did not waste valuable time trying to lord it over this illusory material world. But if he were to see the present condition of the philosophy he propounded, perhaps he would be ashamed. We have no doubt that Dr. Radhakrishnan was influenced by him; this is evident from his writings. Yet in his "Introductory Essay," page 25, he writes, "The emphasis of the Gītā is on the Supreme as the personal God who creates the perceptible world by His Nature (prakṛti). He resides within the heart of every being; He is the enjoyer and Lord of sacrifices. He stirs our heart to devotion and grants our prayers. He is the source and retainer of values. He enters into personal relations with us in worship and prayer."

After writing this and thus accepting the real purport of the Gītā, how can Dr. Radhakrishnan later state that Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and soul are different? Such an idea must be a result of his materialistic education. What a strange monism he propounds, in which the Absolute Truth, the nondual Supreme Being, is supposedly separate from His inner existence! Can Dr. Radhakrishnan explain these obvious flaws in his philosophy? When the Supreme Lord Himself is present in everyone's heart as the omniscient Supersoul, then who else can sit in His heart? In the Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself speaks about His transcendental qualities, making statements that Dr. Radhakrishnan, armed with his material erudition, has made but a feeble attempt to contradict. Through such foolishness Dr. Radhakrishnan has made a show of spreading education, but in fact he has preached untruth.

Brahman, Paramātmā (the Supersoul), and Bhagavān (the Supreme Personality of Godhead)—all three are the same nondual Supreme Absolute. It would be riduculous to say that Dr. Radhakrishnan is ignorant of this subject, yet we fail to see the logic in his claim that when the Supreme Lord incarnates He comes under the sway of māyā. The Lord unequivocally states in the Gītā that when He appears, He does so in His original transcendental form. Hence there can be no difference between Him and His body. The Lord further states that His appearance, activities, and so on are all transcendental, beyond the realm of matter. He is eternal, supremely pure, the original Supreme Personality and Supreme Brahman. We all agree that the jīva is covered by māyā, but if the Supreme Brahman, or Parabrahman, is also covered by māyā, then is māyā superior to Parabrahman?

Since Dr. Radhakrishnan implies that the impersonal Brahman alone possesses such transcendental qualities as being inexhaustible, imperishable, and unborn, we must turn to the Gītā for a proper reply. In truth, all the divine expansions of the nondual Supreme Being are endowed with these same superexcellent qualities. As Arjuna declares in the Bhagavad-gītā (11.18),

tvam akṣaraṁ paramaṁ veditavyaṁ

tvam asya viśvasya paraṁ nidhānam

tvam avyayaḥ śāśvata-dharma-goptā

sanātanas tvaṁ puruṣo mato me

"You are the supreme primeval objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the Personality of Godhead. This is my opinion."

We should understand that those passages in the Gītā which describe Parabrahman as akṣara ("indestructible") are references to Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Controller Godhead. Not once is Lord Kṛṣṇa equated with the kṣara, the conditioned jīvas. Not only big philosophers like Dr. Radhakrishnan, but even mighty demigods like Lord Brahmā and Lord Indra are in the category of kṣara.

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna glorifies Lord Kṛṣṇa as akṣara, Parabrahman, and ādi-deva (the original Personality of Godhead). Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that the term akṣara, "inexhaustible," is synonymous with the word avyaya, "without deterioration." Therefore why does he conclude that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His body are different? This we fail to understand. On page 275, Dr. Radhakrishnan admits that Arjuna says Lord Kṛṣṇa is Parabrahman, Bhagavān, the Absolute Truth. In the same book and on the same page he writes something quite incoherent and fictitious and attributes it to Arjuna: "Arjuna states that the Supreme (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is both Brahman and Īśvara, Absolute and God." If Dr. Radhakrishnan possesses such a sketchy and incorrect perception of the Gītā that he thinks Bhagavān is different from Brahman then how can he claim to have read the Gītā? He argues that Bhagavān and Supersoul Kṛṣṇa are products of māyā, while Brahman is not! Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has severely criticized such speculative philosophy. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta he writes, "Not knowing that Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān are all features of Kṛṣṇa, foolish scholars speculate in various ways."

We accept both Arjuna and Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī as greater authorities than Dr. Radhakrishnan. Arjuna directly heard the Bhagavad-gītā, and the President of India, Dr. Rajendraprasad, has accepted Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta as an authentic and authoritative scripture. Those who try to understand the Bhagavad-gītā by receiving it from one in the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna can actually understand its esoteric knowledge; others fail miserably. It is imperative that one attentively hear what the Bhagavad-gītā and other authorized scriptures have to say about the impersonal Brahman.

The Lord's statements in the Gītā concerning the impersonal Brahman are unequivocal, yet Dr. Radhakrishnan seems unsatisfied with them. He grudgingly translates Text 27 of the Fourteenth Chapter, "For I am the abode of Brahman, the Immortal and the Imperishable, of eternal law and of absolute bliss." Since Lord Kṛṣṇa is the basis of the impersonal, formless Brahman, He is certainly far superior it. The mosquito net is inside the house, not the other way around; the ink-pot is on the table, not vice versa. Even a small boy can grasp this. Then why does Dr. Radhakrishnan hesitate to accept this truth? There are countless proofs in the scripture of Lord Kṛṣṇa's supreme absolute personality, but Dr. Radhakrishnan is like an owl in the daylight of truths. He tries to cover the sun of truth by creating a dark cloud of word jugglery. Thus instead of truth and knowledge, confusion is paraded before the world. We strongly condemn this sort of activity.

Whether directly or indirectly, Dr. Radhakrishnan has tried to circumvent the truth—that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the basis of Brahman—and in the process he has been defeated. If Dr. Radhakrishnan really accepts Lord Kṛṣṇa as the absolute God, then what inspired him to see another being within Kṛṣṇa and to write, "It is not the personal Kṛṣṇa to whom we have to give ourselves up..."?

The truth is that only those who have been blessed by the Lord can fathom the spiritual science dealing with God. Dr. Radhakrishnan's book irrefutably proves this.

The Māyāvādīs try to imitate Śrīpād Śaṅkarācārya. Pretending to be orthodox, they reject the truth that the jīva is part and parcel of Parabrahman, the Supreme Lord. They also deny the fact that it is only the part and parcel aspect of Parabrahman (the jīva) and not Parabrahman Himself who falls under the spell of māyā. And worst of all, they deny that Parabrahman is none other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. According to their lop-sided argument, when the jīva attains mukti (liberation) he merges into the impersonal Brahman and loses his individual identity. By this logic, when the Supreme Lord, the Parabrahman, incarnates in this material world or appears in the Deity form, He becomes an ordinary jīva. Thus the foolish Māyāvādīs draw a distinction between the Lord and His form, and in this way they commit great offences against Him.

So, by knocking a wedge between Lord Kṛṣṇa and His form, Dr. Radhakrishnan has demonstrated his lack of intelligence; indeed, māyā has robbed him of intelligence, and according to Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu he is the worst offender. In the Bhagavad-gītā the Lord describes such offenders as mūḍhās because they ascribe human frailties and faults to the Supreme Lord. Today the world has become a hell because of an excess of atheists, and this is due only to the preaching of Māyāvāda philosophy by enemies of the Supreme Lord. Lord Caitanya's mission is to save the jīvas from the clutches of these offenders. Those who are unconcerned about this mission commit offences against Lord Caitanya.

Of course, their biggest offence is to distinguish between Lord Kṛṣṇa and His form. Thus in the Gītā (9.11), Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself condemns these offenders:

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā

mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam

paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto

mama bhūta-maheśvaram

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be."

Let us study how Dr. Radhakrishnan has translated this verse, which appears on page 242 of his book: "The deluded despise Me clad in human body, not knowing My higher nature as Lord of all existences." In other words, when the person who is "Lord of all existences" is "clad in human body," those who see from a materialistic perspective take Him for an ordinary mortal, while those who see from a spiritual perspective understand that He is the Supreme Being, the cause of all causes. So if it is the deluded who despise Lord Kṛṣṇa, then is it not time for Dr. Radhakrishnan himself to admit that he is guilty of this crime? Let him realize how he has abused the "Lord of all existences," equating Him with a mere mortal. When we see how such big scholars are inimical toward Lord Kṛṣṇa, we can conclude, following the Gītā, that their intelligence has been stolen by māyā.

All the previous spiritual authorities have accepted Lord Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Even Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has accepted this truth. Yet Dr. Radhakrishnan is so deluded that he considers Lord Kṛṣṇa an ordinary jīva, or perhaps an extraordinary one.

There is no one who possesses more knowledge than Lord Caitanya. The knowledge of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which is logical and scientific, must be received from Lord Caitanya. Has Dr. Radhakrishnan anywhere discussed Lord Kṛṣṇa on the basis of the precepts of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, who is in the direct spiritual line of Lord Caitanya? We request Dr. Radhakrishnan to study the Ṣaṭ-sandarbha of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. He was especially empowered by his spiritual masters to direct his writings toward the scholars and philosophers and make them understand this esoteric knowledge. Another philosopher of his stature is yet to be born; in fact, no one in the future will be able to surpass him in erudition. We hope that since Dr. Radhakrishnan is a philosopher, he will not reject Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī's precepts.

From the writings of Dr. Radhakrishnan one can easily prove how he is perplexed in trying to fathom the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He tries to present Lord Kṛṣṇa as an extraordinary human being and a historical figure of India, but the Bhagavad-gītā makes such a task impossible. In his "Introductory Essay" (page 30) he writes:

In the Gītā Kṛṣṇa is identified with the Supreme Lord, the unity that lies behind the manifold universes, the changeless truth behind all appearances, transcendent over all and immanent in all. He is the manifested Lord, making it easy for mortals to know, for those who seek the Imperishable Brahman reach Him no doubt but after great toil. He is called Paramātmān.

How can we identify a historical individual with the Supreme God? The representation of an individual as identical with the universal Self is familiar to Hindu thought. In the Upaniṣads, we are informed that the fully awakened soul, which apprehends the true relation to the Absolute, sees that it is essentially one with the latter and declares itself to be so.

But the jīva's becoming "essentially one" with the Lord is not the last word in spiritual life. Of course, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya propagated this idea so that atheists could at least come to this level of realization. But beyond this is the realm of the Supreme Absolute Personality of Godhead.

Dr. Radhakrishnan has never directly perceived the supreme transcendental personality, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Although Lord Kṛṣṇa is right in front of him, he cannot see Him, and thus out of delusion he calls Him a historical person. Genuine Indian religious philosophy teaches that there are both oneness with God and difference from Him. This concept of simultaneous oneness and difference has been termed viśiṣṭā-dvaita, dvaitādvaita, śuddhādvaita, and acintya-bhedābheda-tattva. If this esoteric concept were false, then Kṛṣṇa would not be worshiped throughout India, practically in every home. He is worshiped not as a historical figure but as the Supreme Lord. Kṛṣṇa's position as the Supreme Godhead is firmly established by the authoritative text Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on and essence of the Vedānta-sūtra and the Gāyatrī mantra. Many scholarly Māyāvādīs far more erudite than Dr. Radhakrishnan have tried to shake the faith of the general populace, but since time immemorial Kṛṣṇa temples have mushroomed by the millions—a slap in the face for the Māyāvādīs and atheists, who claim the Lord Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary mortal. In the future also, more Kṛṣṇa temples will be built to frustrate the agnostics and nonbelievers. All Viṣṇu temples are authorized by the scriptures and ācāryas. It hardly seems likely that, just for the sake of Dr. Radhakrishnan, the entire Indian population is going to strike a compromise with Māyāvāda philosophy.

Indian history is filled with accounts of many brilliant heroes who lit up the heavens with their fame. Why have the many sages and philosophers left aside these brilliant suns and chosen only Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Śrī Rāma, and Their expansions to worship as the Supreme Godhead? The spiritual preceptors who have delved into the scriptures to make an unbiased study of this phenomenon are scholars far more advanced than Dr. Radhakrishnan. Yet it is quite understandable that an ordinary mortal like Dr. Radhakrishnan is illusioned about Lord Kṛṣṇa, since even the residents of the heavenly planets are illusioned about Him. As stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.2), muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ: "By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion." The earth planet is way down in the seventh position among the fourteen planets in this cosmic system, so its residents are endowed only with meagre potency.

Those who try to understand Lord Kṛṣṇa without receiving His mercy, like Dr. Radhakrishnan, will certainly be deluded even if they are scholar—philosophers like him. The Brahma-saṁhitā says that Kṛṣṇa is easily manifest to the devotees but is beyond the reach of Vedic scholars. Śrīla Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya has proved this point by participating in a pastime of Lord Caitanya's in which the Bhaṭṭācārya exhibited his Vedic learning. In recent times, paṇḍitas such as Śrī Bankim Chattopadhyaya and Dr. Bhandarkar became equally deluded trying to approach this subject.

Wthout proper understanding, Dr. Radhakrishnan has given his opinion about the descent of the Lord's incarnation. He writes, "An avatāra is a descent of God into man and not an ascent of a man into God." What he means by "descent of God into man" is that the avatāras, or incarnations, possess physical bodies made up of the five gross elements. Of course, it remains to be clarified what he means by "not an ascent of man into God." Nowadays it is very much in vogue to designate a man as God. And it is not just a few who are said to be avataras: many philosophers go as far as to say that every human being is God. For the present we do not wish to delve into this subject.

We would like to inform Dr. Radhakrishnan, however, that when the Supreme Lord empowers a jīva with His divine potency so that the jīva can carry out some specific work, then that jīva is known as a śaktyāveśa avatāra. But this is not the only type of incarnation. The scriptures describe innumerable incarnations of the Supreme Lord, such as svayaṁ-rūpa, svayaṁ-prakāśa, āveśa, vilāsa, prābhava, vaibhava, yuga-avatāra, puruṣa-avatāra, guṇa-avatāra, and manvantara-avatāra. If we calculate the duration of one manvantara-avātara's life, it comes to an incredible number of years—more than three hundred million. And there are other incarnations who live longer. The scriptures give details of the Lord's authorized incarnations—the purposes for their appearance, their forms, the places of appearance, their pastimes, etc. There is no room for the vox populi whimsically choosing an ordinary mortal as an incarnation. And if despite the scriptural injunctions some people still accept a human being as an incarnation, it is easy to surmise the extent of their scriptural knowledge.

The goddess of learning, Sarasvatī, inspired Dr. Radhakrishnan to say "Man cannot become God." We would like to clarify this statement by saying "Even after becoming liberated, a man cannot become God." A liberated person can become a pure devotee of God, but he cannot become God or merge into God and lose his identity. There are innumerable instances in which a liberated soul, failing to become God, also refused to become God's devotee. The only option then open to him is aptly described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32):

ye 'nye 'ravindākṣa vimukta-māninas

tvayy asta-bhāvād aviśuddha-buddhayaḥ

āruhya kṛcchreṇa paraṁ padaṁ tataḥ

patanty adho 'nādṛta-yuṣmad-aṅghrayaḥ

O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet.

Dr. Radhakrishnan has used the expression "self-conscious man." We do not object to this term if it indicates a state of consciousness of the self in which a person realizes he is an eternal servant of God, Kṛṣṇa. Lord Caitanya came to teach this truth. Once the jīva realizes he is an eternal servant of Lord Kṛṣṇa, he ends his life of misery. He becomes liberated by that realization. And later he understands that liberation personified is standing nearby, waiting to serve him and all other eternal servitors of the Supreme Lord, Kṛṣṇa.

The devotee never prays for the jñānī's sāyujya-mukti, for it is an impossible proposition. By sāyujya-mukti the impersonalists mean relinquishing one's identity, or individuality. This is nothing less than spiritual suicide. In this regard, I reproduce Dr. Radhakrishnan's comment on the Bible:

The doctrine of the Incarnation agitated the Christian world a great deal. Arioes maintained that the Son is not the equal of the Father but created by Him. The view that they are not distinct but only different aspects of one Being is the theory of Sabellius. The former emphasized the distinctness of the Father and the Son and the latter their oneness. The view that finally prevailed was that the Father and the Son were equal and of the same substance; they were, however, distinct persons. ("Introductory Essay," p. 35).

These words vaguely describe the philosophy of "simultaneously one and different"; therefore we acknowledge it.

According to the above-mentioned Brahma-saṁhitā text, Lord Kṛṣṇa is the original Supreme Personality and all the incarnations are His partial expansions. But the Lord's incarnations are never in the category of the jīvas. Śrīla Vyāsadeva has also expounded this truth in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.3.28): ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam. "All the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead." In other words, not only do the incarnations appear, but Lord Kṛṣṇa, the source of all incarnations, also appears, both as Himself and as an incarnation. These esoteric subjects are understood by the Lord's devotees, not by others, even though they may be erudite sholars.

Therefore, when Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that Lord Kṛṣṇa is an ordinary mortal, or at best an extraordinary one, he is certainly confused. Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the highest Absolute Truth, unsurpassable and perfectly divine. It is impossible to think of Him as impersonal and formless. He is indeed the transcendental, primeval Lord, the embodiment of eternity, absolute knowledge, and bliss.

In the Bhagavad-gītā (10.12), Arjuna substantiates this truth about Lord Kṛṣṇa's absolute, supreme divinity. How is Dr. Radhakrishnan to appreciate Lord Kṛṣṇa's transcendental qualities and personality, since even the demigods fail to comprehend them? The word ādi-deva, meaning "the original, primeval Lord," indicates that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the origin of all the Viṣṇu expansions. The Puruṣa-sūkta prayers in the Vedas glorify Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, yet Lord Kṛṣṇa is the ultimate source of even this Viṣṇu expansion. Indeed, the Brahma-saṁhitā expressly declares that Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is merely a partial expansion of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Thus the Absolute Truth Dr. Radhakrishnan accepts as eternal and beginningless is, in fact, Lord Kṛṣṇa, but somehow this escapes him.