One of my students asked me to address a challenge from a Christian monk: “Christ represents a life of morality and sacrifice and Krsna represents a life of indulgence and immorality. Thus it should be obvious which of the two better represents the Divine.”
A better question is how can we compare the perfect object of love with perfect love itself, other than in terms of how the two compliment one another? If there is a sacrificing aspect of the divine, there must also be a corresponding aspect of the Divine for whom the sacrifice is intended. For whom did Christ sacrifice? Only a vague conception of the Godhead gives rise the assertion that it is ourselves for whom Christ carried his cross. Yes, in theory the sinners of the world are the beneficiaries of Christ’s sacrifice, but it is God the father for whose pleasure Christ underwent the crucifixion, even when the father’s joy in this scenario lies in the salvation of sinners. Christ represents the intermediary between God and humanity, and his life aptly illustrates the fact that it is sacrifice by which we come to meet our maker. Thus in Christ the divine teaches us “the way” more than he does the goal.
Krsna on the other hand has more to do with the goal. Krsna represents the receiving end of our sacrifice, for whose pleasure it is undertaken. Nothing vague here, but at first glance this may appear problematic. The specificity inherent in the Krsna conception of the Godhead may appear to be a limitation, a partial expression of an indeterminate Absolute, or to the average Christian, an attempt to put a face on God the father who is more accommodating when faceless. This, however, is not what Gaudiya Vaisnavas have in mind when in ecstasy they utter the two syllables “krs na.” In our estimation it is lack of philosophical determination that limits the Absolute by describing it as indeterminate. Indeed, the Gaudiyas envision a very Catholic Infinite, infinite beauty, infinite charm, and even infinite form. Krsna is the beatific vision and more.
The specificity of the Krsna conception of Godhead is hardly a limitation. With regard to the way of sacrifice leading to love such specificity enhances our capacity to love or to sacrifice for the pleasure of the Godhead. The details concerning the Godhead found in the Krsna conception are compelling. Knowing them, what will one not do to secure his pleasure? Conversely, the more vague our conception of the Absolute is—the less positive content we know about the Godehead—the more we are limited in our effort to love God or the world around us. We are left with merely abandoning false love, the exploitation that poses as love in this world. There is not doubt love in refraining from taking, but there is little giving in such an approach. We may give to those in need, but as important and glorious as such noble acts are, they appear paramount only as long as our conception of the Absolute remains vague or faceless. As as much the Godhead takes shape we gain acquaintance with the world beyond the moral realm. At the same time, because living the moral life with compassion for others is conducive to the culture of the internal meditative love of God that grants entrance to the world beyond time and space, good and bad, etc., one pursuing it does not lack impetus to live ethically and compassionately in this world. Indeed, devotion to Krsna may provide more impetus for right livelihood than that derived from a vague conception of the Absolute or a faceless Godhead.
How then does the specificity of the the Krsna conception of Godhead limit one? Furthermore under scrutiny it is apparent that revelation, in speaking about the form, attributes, and pastimes of Krsna, is talking about an infinity of form and the rest. In the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita Krsna speaks of the splendor of the world as being representative of his person. Hearing this one is to imagine just what kind of person he is. How is it that the world is within his form? This is the question that Arjuna ponders and to which Krsna answers by manifesting a mystic vision of the unverse within himself. Reality is a person—Krsna
The Christ conception represents “the way” in the sense that the way is sacrifice, out of which love arises. The Krsna conception represents that for which we not only should but must sacrifice, compelled by the Godhead’s irresistible attributes, etc. depicted therein. At the same time, within the Krsna conception we find Sri Krsna Caitanya, the sacrificing half of the equation of love, Krsna endowed with Radha’s love for himself. In this manifestation of the Krsna conception we also find “the way” personified. Sri Krsna Caitanya did not die on the cross, but he did forego the love of Visnupriya, a love that was arguably more painful to renounce than enduring the pain of crucifixion. Bearing the cross of prema in seperation, Krsna comes to us as Sri Krsna Caitanya, a barefoot mendicant dressed only in loin cloth, homeless and enduring hardship. Not only is his sacrifice unbearable for those who understand it, the measure of his gift of prema given to the world is so great that it makes salvation seem insignificant in comparison.