Is Radha brah***?

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

namaste,

An interesting bit of information came up in another thread:

Then who is Radha?
The answer is Radha is KRshNa svayam. His internal bliss potency, alhAdini shakti.

One acharya gave a very nice explanation.
Once all the devas went to Shri KrshNa in Golok and said, Lord, by Your grace we know so much, You perform all these leelas and we see that, You play roles to protect the good and destroy evil, we see that. All this is what You do for the world, it is Your compassion.
Yet we don't really know You as You. We want to know Who You are.
So KRshNa said that is not very easy - Understanding Me.
Then He created His 'Sva' , Himself from His left and a beautiful fair maiden was seen. This is Radha.

..Which makes me wonder and air my own long-held (but very personal) belief about Radha, that is--

1) Radha (to make matter simple by using the popular Vedantic usage) is none other than "Nirguna Brah***" as contrasted with Krishna the "Sagun B".

2) This is why Radha - Her persona or even the name - is a perfect blank, nowhere to be found - in the whole of the Mahabharata. But still, some tradition made it a point to remember on Radha. Why?

3) This only suggests that Radha played a role in Mahabharta - which is a central one - but not recorded because of the very nature of Her role.

4) This also explains in what ways the Bengali (a synonym otherwise for Devi place of influence) Vaishnavism is distinct from, say, South Indian Vaishnavism.

5) So, the question is-- if this is true, then is this something privy to inner circles of Vaishnava initiates in the particular Vaishnab tradition?

6) As for my own "long held" belief, this has to do purely with Vedic understanding and the roles of Krisna and Radha according to it. However, the Vedantic terminology should suffice for the view-point I am trying to make here.


So my idea is just to float this thread, not to cause any consternation or confusion. Or am I just raving (as usual )?

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste kAlicharan..

Radha character is a controversial character of purana. Some say she was a lover of Krishna, some say she was incarnation of bhakti devi and some say (including me as well) radha character was introduced by some Bengali poet and besides there's not even a single mention of radha in entire Mahabharata, Vishnu purana and bhagavata purana. So it's hard to believe but I personally imagine radha as bhakti which is one with brahman (with upadhi). When such bhakti gets perfected by wisdom of Brahman, the distinction between Krishna(formless Brahman), radha(Bhakti) and the self gets merged in nirguna brahman.

Radha is brahman, Krishna is Brahman, all is Brahman. So this self after ceasing of upadhi must be Brahman

[Jaskaran Singh]

Radha character is a controversial character of purana. Some say she was a lover of Krishna, some say she was incarnation of bhakti devi and some say (including me as well) radha character was introduced by some Bengali poet....

rAdhA predates jayadeva, as she is mentioned in brahmavaivartapurANam and the devIbhAgavatam (or was it the mArkaNDeyapurANam, I get them confused sometimes), even Indologists agree.

[datta]

I have some question regarding Radha because my non-Hindu friends kept mocking me about Krishna's relationship with Radha. I read through this topic and understood that Radha is a physical manifestation of parakiya rasa. This brings up the question that they ask me often which they read in some Bengali writer's literature (especially Krishna Charitra) which says that Radha was Krishna's aunt. I was wondering if this idea came from this writer or was it in the air from before (probably from the Puranas)?

I personally believe more of the Itihasas (Ramayana and the Mahabharata) and the Vedas, which gives me a feeling that if Radha isn't mentioned in any of those, then I would just forget it. If Radha isn't mentioned in one of those, then it feels like one of the author just had a dream and dreamt of this. Please clear this confusion as to where Radha originated and his familial relationship with Shri Krishna. I was also wondering if Radha is at all synonymous, or another name for Rukmini. Looking through the internet, I found that the first painting of Radha seems to be this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radha#...a_Madhavam.jpg by Ravi Verma. If this is the case, then do we not know the character of Ravi Verma, how his paintings bear derogatory meanings.

[shian]

I hope Datta get help, that is will increase our knowledge
But we can see the people, we can give them good answer, what is need
But there is some people who ask for mocking only, not to know more, but only to mocking us
After we explain the answer, if he not honest and still mocking, so just leave him, its impossible to waste your life time to make him statisfied, and not all people have afinity with our own method....

[knowThyEnemy]

Namaste all,


I have a somewhat different take on Krishna-Radha than what has been discussed so far. I apologize in advance if my post hurts the readers' feelings but my intention simply is to convey what I understand.


IMO the devotional imagery of Krishna-Radha is simply a fine work of Arts formulated by sages of Bhakti tradition, that attempts to explain the relationship between God and devotee, or tries to help the devotee strengthen that relationship.


Sri Krishna in this imagery represents God (Saguna Brahman) whereas the gopis (as a group) represents human souls. The music from the flute represents the manifest world, the one that gopis (humans) sense. The gopis are mesmerized by this music and try to find out who is playing the flute- this imagery represents humans wondering about this world, about themselves, and about the source where it all came from, just as what we are all doing here at HDF (yes, we ARE the 'gopis' ).


Radha represents that gopi who has figured out (realized) what is going on. That is, this gopi (soul) has achieved enlightenment. She still hears Krishna's music but is now full aware that she is as much Brahman as Krishna is. This is what the imagery means when it shows Krishna and Radha together.


But that is not all. Radha now also knows that Brahman is Ananda swarupa. This fact is conveyed in the imagery by showing Krishna and Radha dancing together in bliss.


Keeping all this in mind, now when we see the attached photo (link below), it would be an error on our part to only see Krishna as BhagwAn. Krishna and the enlightened Radha are now one. The whole photo is now one BhagwAn, Sri RadhaKrishn.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eLvl9X2Rxr...+Krishna+1.jpg


I also like the explanation provided by smaranam ji at #3


IMO the sages of Bhakti decided to show Krishna as a teenager (young adult) and Radha as His girlfriend, to arrest and hold our attention. The boyfriend-girlfriend imagery attracts people. We go and watch bollywood movies because we know that there will be a hero in the movie and there will be his girlfriend. When they get married, the movie ends. The directors know that when the boyfriend-girlfriend part is over, people will leave


Jai Radhe Krishna

[smaranam]

namaste,

..Which makes me wonder and air my own long-held (but very personal) belief about Radha, that is--

1) Radha (to make matter simple by using the popular Vedantic usage) is none other than "Nirguna Brah***" as contrasted with Krishna the "Sagun B".

2) This is why Radha - Her persona or even the name - is a perfect blank, nowhere to be found - in the whole of the Mahabharata. But still, some tradition made it a point to remember on Radha. Why?

3) This only suggests that Radha played a role in Mahabharta - which is a central one - but not recorded because of the very nature of Her role.

Hare KRshNa

RAdhA is KRshNa's prema (prema shakti, alhAdini shakti). The Divine Love that KRshNa is made of and is the Source of, is RAdhA. This is why when the Devas say "We want to know You, putting aside what You do for the world -- paritrANAya sAdhunAm vinAshAya cha dushkRtAm, dharma sansthApanA...", KRshNa shows them His prema.

This prema has absolutely no traces of anything in this material world, it is devoid of any desires of the individual (which can be defined as kAma). This prema always strives to bring happiness to KRshNa. This is RAdhA. KRshNa Himself is always bringing peace and happiness to those who surrender to Him or live in His shelter (sharaN). At the same time, He revels in His own prema - RAdhA.

Any desire for the individual's benefit is called kAma, and this kAma is a topsy-turvy poor perverted reflection of prema. Prema has nothing to do with what people sometimes mistakenly call love in this world.

bhajo shri kRshNa chaitanya prabhu nityAnado
hare kRshNa hare rAm shri rAdhe govindo

jayo rAdhe govindo ~ rAdhe govindo

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Hare Krishna Smaranam-ji and HLK-ji,

I was weary of (using) Vedantic parallels (but did in order to keep the discussion accessible). So let me try to stretch it a further still.

Can we see Radha as the Ananda that is also filled with Sat(ya) and Chitta?

Since if Radha is of Prema and that is not of this world (or even of those devas' worlds who are asking the question), then Radha is of Bliss or Ananda swarupa. Indeed as we know, Ananda includes within herself Sat and Chit.

This is some stretch of Vedanta, perhaps, or may be I should just drop employing any intellectual parallels at this point.

[smaranam]

Can we see Radha as the Ananda that is also filled with Sat(ya) and Chitta?

Since if Radha is of Prema and that is not of this world (or even of those devas' worlds who are asking the question), then Radha is of Bliss or Ananda swarupa. Indeed as we know, Ananda includes within herself Sat and Chit.

Hare KRshNa, KalicharaNji,

You are right. You are quite close. Shri KRshNa is [the Source of & made of] that Anand, alhAd - happiness, and RAdhA is His alhAdini Shakti -- that aspect of His innermost potency of happiness, that potential that brings forth that Anand in full, of which living entities experience or possess in tinier amounts.

Shri KRshNa is the ShaktimAn, in full possession of, owner of this Anand potency (power, energy, capacity...)
RAdhA is the alhAdini Shakti of the ShaktimAn.

Shri KRshNa is the Source and Owner of Sat, of Chit, and of Anand.
His other shaktis are a transformation of the alhAdini shakti and they
a) manifest this world -- as DurgA (Sat shakti)
b) bring forth sentience and intelligence, hence knowledge -- chit and samvit -- Saraswati

The AchArya tell us that while RAdhA is LakshmI [i.e. vaibhav i.e. Anand, internal potency of happiness], DurgA is the external potency of creating the variegated world, and therefore She (DurgA) is called the mAyA Shakti of BhagvAn (yA devi, sarva-bhUteshu vishNu-mAyeti shabditA -- O Goddess, You Who pervade all beings and are known/described as the mAyA of VishNu).

In this way,
1. umA (pArvati, durgA),
2. ramA(lakshmI, shrI) and
3. vANI (saraswati, shAradA)
are shaktis of BhagavAn VishNu.
While DurgA is His sister, JagannAth ashTaka (by Adi ShankarAchArya) describes KRshNa (JagannAth) as "ramA-vANI ramah:" (verse 3)

ram�-v�n�-r�mah sphurad-amala-pankeruha-a-mukhah
[KRshNa is] the storehouse of bliss for Lakshm� and Sarasvat�; His face a spotless fullblown lotus.

govinda bolo hari gopAla bolo rAdhA-ramaNa hari govinda bolo
govinda bolo hari gopAla bolo mAdhav mukunda hari govinda bolo...

[smaranam]

P.S. Your classification of Radha-KRshNa as NirguN-SaguN Bramhan is not quite right however.

KRshNa is NirguN. KRshNa is Brahman. period. Brahman is always nirguN (devoid of material modes of nature) and guNAteeta (beyond material modes of nature). (SaguN Bramhan is an idea introduced by ShankarAchArya).

Brahman is of the nature of sat-chit-Ananda, and these potencies of Brahman possessed in infinite amount are His ShaktI s.

Thus RAdhA is the Anand-component-shakti, alhAdini shaktI of this Brahman which is nirguN. She is fountain-head of all shades of ramA (LakshmI).

It was a great pleasure discussing this subject with you, KalaicharaNji. Thanks for bringing it up.