Worship of Govardhan

Question: Some devotees worship Govardhana as Krsna or Balarama and others worship Him as the best devotee of Krsna (Srimati Radharani). How should we worship Govardhana?
Answer: Govardhana Hill holds a very unique position. On one hand He is non-different than the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna and on the other hand He is a devotee of Krsna in santa-rasa (neutrality). As for the worship of Govardhana we are to worship Him as Krsna. This is what we have been shown by Krsna Himself and by our Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas. Some devotees also worship Govardhana-sila as both Krsna and Balarama but this is not a bona-fide conception.
One may be surprised to know that Govardhana is in santa-rasa and even more surprised to know that Radha-kunda is also in santa-rasa. But it is a fact, Radha-kunda, Govardhana Hill, Yamuna and many other entities in Vrndavana are in santa-rasa. Srila Sridhara Maharaja mentions this as follows:
The highest worship of Govardhana (Govardhana-sila) is performed with gunja-mala (small red, white, and black beads). The gunja-mala is the representation of Srimati Radharani. When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gave Govardhana-sila to Raghunatha Dasa Goswami to worship He did so with gunja-mala. Dasa Gosvami, our prayojana-acarya, worshiped Govardhana with gunja-mala and thus achieved the highest perfection in love of God. (For further details see Caitanya-caritamrta, Antya-lila 6.287-307)
Srila Bhakti Pramoda Puri Maharaja has written the following describing the Govardhana-sila and Gunja-mala as non-different from the Divine Couple, Sri Radha Krsna:
Some devotees worship Govardhana-sila as the best devotee of Krsna because Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami has referred to Govardhana as 'hari-dasa-varya.' These devotees take it that because Srimati Radharani is actually the best devotee of Krsna therefore Govardhana is Radharani and they worship Govardhana-sila as 'Girirani' and not as Giriraja - thus they do not offer Tulasi leaves to Govardhana. This is a novel idea, but it does not find support from our acaryas. (Note: We have not been able to find the term 'girirani' nor the term 'hari-dasi-varya' in any of the Gaudiya literature.)
Dasa Gosvami has written:
Govardhana is called "hari-dasa-varya" but it appears from this verse that it is Srimati Radharani Herself who has given Govardhana his illustrious title.
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura also mentions 'hari-dasa-varya' in Stavamrta Lahari, v.8 as follows, but there is no indication that he is referring to Radharani or that one should not offer Tulasi leaves to Govardhana:
Srila Bhakti Pramoda Puri Maharaja used to recall that when his Gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was staying at Candrasekhara Bhavan (Caitanya Matha) in Mayapura, which is considered non-different from Govardhana Hill, that he observed his guru daily offering fresh water and Tulasi leaves to Govardhana-sila. Example speaks louder than precept - our acarya has instructed us by the method of his own practice.
Of course, it is laudable to want to raise our glance and try to recognize the representation of our most worshipable object, Srimati Radharani, in doing this we should not neglect the example of our acaryas or neglect to give proper attention to the eternal ontological truths.
If we were to accept the proposal that Govardhana is non-different than Srimati Radharani, then ontologically what position would Radha-kunda hold? The lila of Krsna is a complete organic whole and each part compliments another - all rising in a great symphony to the culmination of madhurya-prema at Sri Radha-kunda. Radha-kunda is non-different from Srimati Radharani, the abode of pure love for Krsna. But if we accept Govardhana as equal to Radha-kunda then a discrepancy is created in the Lord's lila. When something is superior, it cannot have an equal, otherwise it is not superior. The superiority of Sri Radha-kunda as above all other spiritual abodes and places of lila is explained by Srila Rupa Gosvami as follows.
Govardhana Hill is indeed superior to other places in Vraja but it is not superior or even equal to Radha-kunda.
Quoting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, there is another example that shows us that Govardhana is not equal to Radha-kunda. Srila Sridhara Maharaja explains:
Indeed, if in the conception of Srila Sarasvati Thakura (whose conception is non-different from that of Raghunatha Dasa Gosvami) he had considered Govardhana as non-different from Srimati Radharani then he would not have suggested it as our place of residence. Pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange, his suggestion was that we should keep our position a little distant and below. That is the tenor of the proper approach to the highest domain. Dasa Gosvami and Sarasvati Thakura both revered the service section of the Lord's lila, thus they desired to reside at Govardhana and kept Radha-kunda as their most worshipable object
The fact is that even if devotees take shelter of Srimati Radharani in madhurya-rasa, if they neglect to accept the example of our previous acaryas, then their bhajana is not accepted by the Supreme Lord. Therefore, we should perform our bhajana following exactly in the footsteps of our acaryas.
In the lila of Krsna the residents of Vraja also saw Govardhana Hill as non-different than Krsna. They did not see Govardhana as Radharani. In fact Krsna manifested His form to the Vraja-vasis as Govardhana Hill for all to see (this was also seen by Radharani and other gopis).
Srila Sridhara Maharaja has mentioned the Govardhana-lila in the following way.
Srila Sridhara Maharaja also says,
If we want to sincerely serve Sri Sri Radha Govinda, then we have to accept Them as our acaryas have done - then the Lord reveals Himself as He is. We are not to conjecture what He is or try to capture Him and make Him an object of our imagination. As it is said, "It is folly to think that we can bring the infinite into our fist and make Him an object of our whim. He is an autocrat and therefore it is better to have a true glimpse of Him according to His will rather than to try to capture Him with our tiny brains." (Anonymous Monk)

The Maha Mantra

Question: Is there a difference between the Gaudiya Vaisnava conception of the maha-mantra and the conception of the maha-mantra found in other sampradayas, such as the Ramanujas, Madhvas, Nimbarkas and Vallabhas?
Narasingha Maharaja: Yes. In fact the Gaudiya conception of the maha-mantra is exclusive and stands distinct from all other sampradayas. The Gaudiya conception is exclusive in that it surpasses even the greatest expectations of the Vedas (liberation) and affords one the highest fulfillment of the ultimate goal of life. This is not simply party spirit propaganda or sampradaya jingoism, but an ontological fact.
The conception of the maha-mantra as a whole, as well as each of its constituent parts (Hare, Krsna and Rama), are uniquely different in Gaudiya Vaisnavism than in any other spiritual tradition of India.
The maha-mantra appears in the Kali-santarana Upanisad of the Krsna Yajur Veda wherein Lord Brahma is answering a question by Narada Muni:
The Kali-santarana Upanisad is one of the 108 Upanisads listed in the Muktika Upanisad, yet in some academic circles, scholars are of the opinion that the Kali-santarana Upanisad was written either by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu or one of His followers. Such scholars have no evidence for their claim other than their own opinion and that is generally not accepted amongst learned circles in India.
One enigma surrounding the maha-mantra is whether it begins with ‘Hare Krsna’ or ‘Hare Rama’. In the oldest surviving copy of the Kali-santarana Upanisad, dated circa 1740 CE with the commentary by the Advaitin scholar Brahmayogin Ramacandrendra Sarasvati of Kanchipuram, the maha-mantra is written as:
However, in numerous other editions of the Kali-santarana Upanisad the maha-mantra is written:
Presented below is a statement by Srila Sridhara Deva Gosvami Maharaja from which we might conclude that the 1740 edition of the Kali-santarana Upanisad quoted above was interpolated by Mayavadis. Since the Name of Krsna is superior to the Name of Rama, as stated by Srila Sridhara Maharaja, it stands to reason that the Vedas would present the sequence of the mantra ontologically, thus the Advaitin edition is suspect.
Commenting on this enigma, Srila Sridhara Deva Gosvami Maharaja has stated as follows:
The Names in the maha-mantra are Hare, Krsna and Rama. The followers of the Sankaracarya school, as well as those of the Ramanuja and Madhva schools, conceive the Name of Hare to be the vocative case of Hari. Thus for them ‘Hare’ means Narayana, ‘Rama’ means Ramacandra and ‘Krsna’ means the avatar of Narayana [not Krsna the avatari, or source of Narayana].
The followers of Sankaracarya have adopted this version of the maha-mantra and the Vaisnava sampradayas of South India have also adopted the same. ‘Hare’ in all these sampradayas means Hari, or Narayana. In all circumstances their way of thinking is about liberation (mukti) and not actually about bhakti (devotion). Moreover, the followers of Sankaracarya are sometimes found to chant the maha-mantra and give more attention to the maha-mantra than the Ramanuja sampradaya or the Madhva sampradaya. The Kali-santarana Upanisad and the maha-mantra are accepted by all these sampradayas, yet the maha-mantra is of little importance to them. Only the Gaudiya Vaisnavas stake everything on the maha-mantra.
Actually, according to one Madhva website, it appears that at least a certain section of their sampradaya has ‘lost the plot’ so to speak. The following is a contemporary Madhva quote:
The most obvious mistake in the above quote is that the Kali-santarana Upanisad clearly states ‘nasya vidhiriti’ – ‘there are no rules (vidhi) involved in chanting the maha-mantra.’ In fact the Upanisad guarantees liberation to anyone who chants the maha-mantra. Thus, one begins to wonder what’s been happening in the Madhva sampradaya over the past seven hundred years?
For the followers of Sankaracarya, the Name ‘Hare’ means Hari – He who takes away one’s karma, material desire and illusion (maya). For Ramanujas and most Madhvas, Hari is He who takes away all inauspiciousness and bestows all good fortune. But for Gaudiya Vaisnavas the conception of Hare is altogether different.
For the Gaudiyas, Hare is the vocative case of Hara, the internal pleasure potency of Krsna. Thus Hare means Srimati Radharani.
It should not be misunderstood that we are arguing or fighting over the proper meaning of the names in the maha-mantra. There is certainly room for different bona fide conceptions within the maha-mantra. Each with his conception may attain that particular destination.
In this regard Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada writes in his purport to this verse:
However, one must also remember that all realities are not the same, nor do all conceptions lead to the same destination.
It is often said as a reference that the maha-mantra first appears or manifests in the Kali-santarana Upanisad portion of the Vedas, but such a statement is not actually correct according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, who has stated:
The maha-mantra chanted by Gaudiyas is always chanted as:
Whereas other sampradayas might chant the maha-mantra for liberation, the Gaudiyas chant the maha-mantra out of devotion to please Krsna. Hari takes away material desires, maya, etc, but Hare, the internal potency (hladini-sakti/Radharani) captures or takes away the mind and heart of Krsna. Hara is the energy by which one can serve Krsna, and the only energy that can please Krsna. Krsna Himself is the reservoir of pleasure and Rama, or Radha-ramana, is the one who gives pleasure to Srimati Radharani.
The Gaudiya conception of Rama in the maha-mantra meaning Krsna, the giver of pleasure to Sri Radha, is also collaborated by Sri Bhaktisiddhanta as follows:
The Gaudiya conception of the maha-mantra is not something whimsical. It is authorized by bona fide acaryas and supported by guru, sadhu and sastra. It was also the preferred conception of chanting by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Furthermore, the Gaudiya conception of hearing and chanting of the maha-mantra transcends all types of liberation and ultimately reaches the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord.
Commenting on the maha-mantra in his Maha-mantrartha Dipika, Sri Jiva Gosvami reveals the meaning of each of the sixteen Names in the maha-mantra in consecutive order as follows:

Throughout his Maha-mantrartha Dipika, Sri Jiva Gosvami reveals the meaning of ‘Hare’ as Hara until the final verse wherein he says that ‘Hare’ means Hari – He who has stolen the heart of Srimati Radharani. In the first verse Radha steals the mind of Krsna, and in the last verse Krsna steals the heart of Radha. Indeed, Radha wears a locket with a picture of Krsna around Her neck, and Krsna wears a locket with a picture of Radha around His neck. These Two have stolen each other’s hearts and minds, thus one might suspect that Sri Jiva is alluding to the appearance of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in his Maha-mantrartha Dipika as the combined form of both Radha and Krsna. In any case, according to Jiva Gosvami, the divine pastimes of Radha and Krsna are written throughout the maha-mantra.
As for the other Vaisnava sampradayas, namely the Nimbarka sampradaya and the Vallabha sampradya, they too – like the Ramanujas and the Madhvas – do not follow the line of thinking of the Gaudiyas. Actually the Nimbarka sampradaya does not chant the maha-mantra of the Kali-santarana Upanisad at all. The Nimbarkas chant what they call the yugala-mantra:
In some learned circles it is thought that the Nimbarkas plagiarized Sri Caitanya and the Gaudiyas. Indeed, some scholars are even of the opinion that Kesava Kasmiri, who had been defeated by Sri Caitanya, fabricated the Nimbarka parampara and placed himself at its head.
According to verifiable sources, it appears that the yugala-mantra of the Nimbarkas was actually only introduced into their sampradaya in the 14th century by Harivyasa Devacarya (the third acarya in the Nimbarka line after Kesava Kasmiri) as it does not appear in any of their literature prior to that period.
The idea that the Nimbarka sampradaya is authorized to neglect the chanting of the maha-mantra in preference to the yugala-mantra is further suspect by the fact that Sanat-kumara, one of the original founders of that sampradaya, has said the following:
As for the Vallabha-sampradaya, they too do not chant the maha-mantra as part of their tradition, which seems rather ironic, knowing that Vallabhacarya took diksa-mantras from Sri Gadadhara Pandita and that he was also associated for sometime with Sri Caitanya directly. One cannot help but think that something very serious has gone amiss in that sampradaya. Currently the Vallabha sampradaya neglects the maha-mantra in preference of the astaksara-mantra, namely ‘sri krsna saranam mama.’ This mantra, not being found in the Vedas or in any authorized sastra, was purportedly invented by Vallabhacarya.
Our conclusion is that there are indeed differences between the Gaudiya Vaisnava conception of the maha-mantra and the conception of the maha-mantra found in other sampradayas. With the exception of those sampradayas that have deviated from the path of previous acaryas, (Madhvas, Nimbarkas and Vallabhas), these differences are primarily based on higher and lower conceptions in rasa (referring to the Ramanuja sampradaya) and not simply on who is right and who is wrong. Nonetheless, it should go without saying that any intelligent and pious person regardless of their professed sampradaya affiliation should accept the direction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to chant the maha-mantra, if they want to make substantial spiritual advancement toward the ultimate goal of life.