In the Ganoddecsa-dipika, it is said that this gem is one of the Krishna’s eternal symbols and is always with him. However, when he appeared in human form in this world, the jewel disappeared and somehow found its way into Kaliya’s storehouse. Then s they were giving their treasures to the Lord as tokens of their gratitude, Kaliya’ wives also gave him the Kaustubha. This jewel also appeared within time at the dawn of creation during the churning of the milk ocean.

Then in the Ramanuja sampradaya the kaustubha is identified with Kulasekhara Alvar

My question may not be related to the subject of the article, but this statement –

“However, his kaustaba mani (gem) that he wears over his heart and which represents all jivas suddenly shone brightly”

I have read about the kaustaba gem in Srimad Bhagavatam, but never understood what it was or what it means.

Would you please explain a little more about the kaustaba gem? What does the word kaustaba mean? Why does it represent all jivas? Why does Krishna wear it over His heart?

“I would be more comfortable with the notion if I had ever heard Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhar Maharaja express the concept in those terms.”

Many times I personally heard Srila Sridhar Maharaj express this very concept. Once he told us that while on Parikrama in Vrindavan with Srila Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakur they observed a very famous Vaishnava king and his party doing dandabat parikram of Radha Kunda and Srila Guru Maharaj (Sridhar Maharaj)remarked to Prabhupad (Saraswati Thakur), “They also have so much regard for Srimati Radharani.” To which Saraswati Thakur replied, “Yes but their conception is just the opposite of ours. They revere and worship Srimati Radharani because She is the most beloved of Krishna whereas we worship Krishna because He is the most beloved of Srimati Radharani.” We also heard from Srila Guru Maharaj that Saraswati Thakur once said, “Vaishnava means who worships Vishnu. Those who worship Krishna are called ‘Karshnas’ and those who worship Srimati Radharani are called ‘Gaudiyas’.” And Srila Guru Maharaj also many times said “The Gaudiya Vaishnavas are the real ’shaktas’. As far as Srimati Radharani being the ’soul’ of Krishna this is of course a poetic description used by Sripad Tripurari Maharaj but is perfectly in line with the siddhnata of our sampradaya Acharyyas. Srila Sridhar Maharaj’s commentry on Brahma Gayatri Mantra expresses this concept perfectly.

V61: He who becomes her maidservant and serves her feet, binds Krishna always with the quality of his love.

Imagine her prema… And consider the superiority of that to a bhaktas prema. Her dasya as is our supposed dasya is described very well in this chapter. There is a scripture for you LivingEntity. We are shaktas… Even Krishnas boyfriends serve Radha indirectly by decorating his body to attract her glance.

Then, if Radha is the soul of Krishna, wouldn’t that make Radha as the Supreme Absolute above all other beings including Krishna?

No. She is his life and soul, but still he remains the Supreme person. Such is Gaudiya Vaisnavism, the supreme person is worshiping “another.” But then again the two are one.

I would be more comfortable with the notion if I had ever heard Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhar Maharaja express the concept in those terms.

Such is your faith.

Isn’t Krishna in the heart of Radha?
Would that not make him the soul of Radha?

Yes, certainly. Or you could say “two bodies, one soul.”

Are we getting a little carried away here with Shakta sentiment and thus putting Shakti above Shaktiman?

Jai Radhe!

Is this idea that Radha is the soul of Krishna a little on the bhava side and not so much on the actual Vedic siddhanta?

Not Vedic, but tattva-siddhanta. However our tattva is bhedabheda. Perhaps you could say she is and is not his soul.

In bhava, anything can exist, but is bhava always expressive of the Paratattva?

When speaking in terms of tattva there are different considerations than when speaking in terms of bhava.

Or is bhava a perception of reality distorted by prema?

I think it would be better to say that bhava ornaments reality.

I would be more comfortable with the notion if I had ever heard Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhar Maharaja express the concept in those terms.

Isn’t Krishna in the heart of Radha?
Would that not make him the soul of Radha?

Are we getting a little carried away here with Shakta sentiment and thus putting Shakti above Shaktiman?

Is this idea that Radha is the soul of Krishna a little on the bhava side and not so much on the actual Vedic siddhanta?

In bhava, anything can exist, but is bhava always expressive of the Paratattva?

Or is bhava a perception of reality distorted by prema?

Mahaprabhu is the soul of Krishna, Srimati Radharani, and thus he is conscious of Krishna as only she can be.

I have never heard it said in exactly the terms of Radha being “the soul” of Krishna.
I thought Krishna was the soul of Radha and all other living beings?

Can Swami please exlain?