Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#10/DT Nt Pg#41 - Page 29

This is just for sharing and information

Sri Radha’s name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Sri Radha. Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit Maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word “aradhana”.

In other Puranas the descriptions of Sri Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana. The circumstances involving the recitation of these Puranas did not limit Shuka Muni to seven days, and thus the Rishis of Naimisharanya were able to accomodate Sri Shuka Muni’s entering nirvikalpa samadhi.

For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence as to the divinity of Sri Radha. Any text that has the name of Sri Radha within it will be disregarded in favour of one’s own opinion. One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards), or that the particular verses will be called as interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either).

As far as the rasa-lila, it occurred when Lord Krishna was eight years of age, but to the gopis the Lord appears as a youth of sixteen years old. The Lord manifests His form according to the desire of the devotee. We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years. The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic. For the Lord it is not difficult to manipulate time and space, for they are His energies. Lord Krishna also expanded into numerous forms during the rasa lila, as well as in Dwaraka. Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history.

Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities. Whether it be Krishna’s marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna’s lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience.

All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna. Some schools may not give special significance to these forms of the Lord, but they certainly accept such worship as authorized. Vishnuswami, Ramanuja, Vallabhacharya, and Chaitanya all accept the transcendental position of Sri Radha. Though some think the worship of Radha is of recent origins, this is not the case. It is true that in recent times the importance of Radha worship has been especially stressed by Sri Chaitanya, but it is interesting to note that the “radha kalyana” festival is most common in South India, where there is little influence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings. The madhurya-rasa (conjugal relationship with the Lord) is nothing new or sectarian. Great devotees such as Sri Andal have sung extensively about this madhurya-rasa.

Originally posted by: Sweetypie34

This is just for sharing and information

Sri Radha’s name is not mentioned directly in Srimad Bhagavatam because Sri Shuka Muni, being the topmost rasika bhakta, would enter nirvikalpa samadhi by just once hearing the divine name of Sri Radha. Such a state of unconscious bliss would last for many days. Parikshit Maharaj had just seven days before his death, thus Shuka Muni avoided directly uttering the name of Radha, and instead hinted about Her by the word “aradhana”.

In other Puranas the descriptions of Sri Radha are given directy, especially in Sri Brahma-vaivarta Purana. The circumstances involving the recitation of these Puranas did not limit Shuka Muni to seven days, and thus the Rishis of Naimisharanya were able to accomodate Sri Shuka Muni’s entering nirvikalpa samadhi.

For those who have a preset conception, it is useless to cite evidence as to the divinity of Sri Radha. Any text that has the name of Sri Radha within it will be disregarded in favour of one’s own opinion. One will conclude that such texts are either of recent time periods (without actually having any proof in this regards), or that the particular verses will be called as interpolation (again without having proof in this regards either).

As far as the rasa-lila, it occurred when Lord Krishna was eight years of age, but to the gopis the Lord appears as a youth of sixteen years old. The Lord manifests His form according to the desire of the devotee. We find in Srimad Bhagavatam a description of the rasa dance. There it is mentioned that it lasted for the period of one kalpa, which in our calculations would be millions of years. The activities of the omnipotent Lord are inconceivable and beyond mundane logic. For the Lord it is not difficult to manipulate time and space, for they are His energies. Lord Krishna also expanded into numerous forms during the rasa lila, as well as in Dwaraka. Such topics cannot be understood by one who tries to judge Krishna in terms of material history.

Those who accept Krishna as an ordinary person will naturally have difficulty in accepting His supernatural activities. Whether it be Krishna’s marrying 16,108 wives, or Krishna’s lifting of Govardhana hill, neither can be accomodated in terms of material experience.

All of the great bhakti schools in India accept the transcendental existence of Radha and Krishna. Some schools may not give special significance to these forms of the Lord, but they certainly accept such worship as authorized. Vishnuswami, Ramanuja, Vallabhacharya, and Chaitanya all accept the transcendental position of Sri Radha. Though some think the worship of Radha is of recent origins, this is not the case. It is true that in recent times the importance of Radha worship has been especially stressed by Sri Chaitanya, but it is interesting to note that the “radha kalyana” festival is most common in South India, where there is little influence of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s teachings. The madhurya-rasa (conjugal relationship with the Lord) is nothing new or sectarian. Great devotees such as Sri Andal have sung extensively about this madhurya-rasa.

I am not questioning your beliefs at all. You misunderstood me.

Anyways I would still like to know if you have read Srimad Bhagavatham and Brahmavaivrtapurana. If you havent. I recommend, please read them, the entire books atleast once.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

I am not questioning your beliefs at all. You misunderstood me.

Anyways I would still like to know if you have read Srimad Bhagavatham and Brahmavaivrtapurana. If you havent. I recommend, please read them, the entire books atleast once.

I have read bhagvatam in all version whether it's story or its sloka ..written by ved vyasa..Just because Ved vyasa wrote and it's old text we can't say everything written true.There are lot of hidden true exists..One belief and truth exists of life can't be concluded by books.Same bhagvatam written by Prabhupada too which some belief.I read books but books doesn't change one belief and custom.

This is what I say and many will believe this.From where Ved vyasa get information from Narada.Narada got from Krishna.But why everything should be told when writing one story or history of bhagvatam.Every religion north or south follows different.One can't force to say read this and that ..to change the opinion.

What I misunderstood as per you s I don't go by my grandparents or prohit..I go by facts ,which custom follow and as I say all books written old or new by humans just by information they get and it's not they are living evidences who saw private stuff in a person life to say this is what happened.

Vishnu sahasranama sloka given to yudhishthir during war field specifies only about Lord krishna and Rukmini , satyabhama..for that we can't say krishna has no other wife right.

Just because I believe or some believe Shri Radha exists they don't believe the rk serial ..There are facts...in Vrindavan , barsana..hence ppl believe it

I saw some clips of the episodes on IG and this show is literally a comedy show now. 😀

Sambh gets fooled by chote bachhe Krishna and Radha and Radha sees her other form Kishori romancing another form of Krishna called Manmohan. It's as if Krishna did some maya or something on everyone to get Radha back into his life. 😂

Originally posted by: Life_Is_Dutiful

I saw some clips of the episodes on IG and this show is literally a comedy show now. 😀

Sambh gets fooled by chote bachhe Krishna and Radha and Radha sees her other form Kishori romancing another form of Krishna called Manmohan. It's as if Krishna did some maya or something on everyone to get Radha back into his life. 😂

Now it's like same as you said.. hehe..I really wish some girl get a guy like swastika krishna..Kitnaa lucky..he is ready to do anything for his girlfriend.

Originally posted by: Sweetypie34

I have read bhagvatam in all version whether it's story or its sloka ..written by ved vyasa..Just because Ved vyasa wrote and it's old text we can't say everything written true.There are lot of hidden true exists..One belief and truth exists of life can't be concluded by books.Same bhagvatam written by Prabhupada too which some belief.I read books but books doesn't change one belief and custom.

This is what I say and many will believe this.From where Ved vyasa get information from Narada.Narada got from Krishna.But why everything should be told when writing one story or history of bhagvatam.Every religion north or south follows different.One can't force to say read this and that ..to change the opinion.

What I misunderstood as per you s I don't go by my grandparents or prohit..I go by facts ,which custom follow and as I say all books written old or new by humans just by information they get and it's not they are living evidences who saw private stuff in a person life to say this is what happened.

Vishnu sahasranama sloka given to yudhishthir during war field specifies only about Lord krishna and Rukmini , satyabhama..for that we can't say krishna has no other wife right.

Just because I believe or some believe Shri Radha exists they don't believe the rk serial ..There are facts...in Vrindavan , barsana..hence ppl believe it

You posted a long article from somewhere talking about Bhgavatham mentioning Radha as Aradhana,

The article also talks about Brahmavaivartapurana

And Andal's madhurya rasa.

And radha kalyanam in south India.

Of these only Brahmavaivartapurana part is true that it extensively covers Radha and her relationship with Krishna.

Some gurus including chaitanya mahaprabhu and from a specific vaishnava sampradaya believe radha is hidden by suka. Other vaishnavas dont

I am from south India I have never seen Radha Kalyanam or Radha in any of the popular / major Krishna temples here other than Iskcon. And Iskcon originated in US not south India.

We have Sita Kalyanam to Rama, we have Lakshmi Kalyanam to Vishnu, we have Parvati/Sati/ Devi Kalyanam to Shiva. Meenakshi (parvati) kalyanam to Sundereshwar (Shiva) Padmavati (Lakshmi) Kalyanam to Balaji/ Perumal (Vishnu)

Valli And Devasena's kalyanam to Karthikeya

And Rukmini Kalyanam to Krishna as well as Ashthabharya Kalyanam to Krishna individually

Kalyanam means marriage.

There is no Radha Kalyanam to Krishna in south

Andal is a famous devotee of Krishna similar to Meerabai.

Her songs on Krishna are very famous and she speaks of herself as a loving devotee like Meera who chose Krishna as her husband.

That is the madhurya rasa of Andal. She talks of Rukmini satyabhama ashtabharya and 16108 women rescued by Krishna but never Radha. Her songs say that you accepted their love and took them as wife, accept my love too and take me as your devoted wife.

Her songs are sung as Bhajan like Meera Bhajan

So if your article is saying Andal speaks of Radha's love for Krishna that is not true. Andal sings of her own love for Krishna whom she has taken as her husband.

My point is very simple when someone says its written in that book x happens, then I say show me the book and quote so that I can check for myself if what you have said is true.

I also gave you example of MB that people believe it is written in it that bhima washed draupadi's hair with blood. So I ask show me in which MB it is written. And they say dont know my grandma said it is written so it has to be true but grandma doesnt know how to read. i saw in tv serial it is true. Tv serials are crap.

Similarly you quote some random article which talks of Andal with reference as truth of Radha. Then give me that song or bhajan or some proof of it.

I dont have any say whatsover on anyone's belief about Radha or her existence. Its none of my business. By all means please maintain your beliefs I am not questioning them at all.

But I do have problem when people make blanket statements on scriptures and temples like

All Puranas mention Radha.

They dont because there are puranas that do not even have Krishna how will Radha be there then. They are shakta and shaivya purana talking of Shiva Parvati leela and have nothing to do with Krishna at all.

Then there are purana that are least concerned with Krishna's childhood and focus on his life from Kansa Vadh. Like Garuda Purana (that focuses on death and funeral) Agni Purana Matsya Purana Vayu Purana also do not mention her. I have read these purana and the only Radha name that occurs in one of them is Karna's adoptive mother Radha.

By the way Vraja leela and Vrindavan is just one paragraph in Vishnu purana. And Raasleela is one single sentence. The entire Krishna narrative is focused on Mathura and Dwarka and Radha was not part of this life. Mahabharat too, Radha has no role there unlike what Siddharth Tewary showed.

Brahmavaivarta Purana is the one which has Radha and Krishna relationship in detail. Some more have one or two verses on her.

So when you say Radha is mentioned in puranas, then say that Radha is mentioned in these specific puranas. Dont say some guy says she is present in all purana but hidden or invisible in some.

Radha if at all she existed was part of just a few years of Krishna's childhood and is only mentioned some later puranas which cover this part of his life. That is a fact.

Similarly the statement

Radha is worshipped all over India and is part of every Krishna shrine

No she is not. North India is not whole India, it is one part of India.

All Krishna temples do not have Radha. They just do not. It is a fact. Rest of India has Rukmini Satyabhama and Ashtabharya

It is like Sumedh fans saying what is in Rk TV serial was must be true ......

Please tell me is it not showing nearly 80 percent lies.

You know it is a lie because you have read several versions of Srimad Bhagvatham and in all of them Radha stayed back at Vrindavan and never came to Dwarka. Or would you say Radha is living invisibly in dwarka.

There are already a lot of teenagers who blindly believe whatever RK is showing is true.

10 years down the line they will confidently come and fight with me that Radha lived in Dwarka. And i will tell them please read all the text including Srimad Bhagvatham and all the puranas

You can believe in Radha and worship her, Ypu can say her life is explained in Brahmavaivarta Purana, You can say she is worshipped in temples in North India Braja and Barsana and Isckon, you can say Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was her devotee that is true.

What you cannot say is that Radha is there in all the scriptures, she is not. That Suka or Vyasa hid her hence not mentioned no they did not because there was no need to hide her or Radha is worshipped in Krishna temples all over India, no she is not. Because that is just not true. Whoever says it doesnt matter, it is just not true.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

You posted a long article from somewhere talking about Bhgavatham mentioning Radha as Aradhana,

The article also talks about Brahmavaivartapurana

And Andal's madhurya rasa.

And radha kalyanam in south India.

Of these only Brahmavaivartapurana part is true that it extensively covers Radha and her relationship with Krishna.

Some gurus including chaitanya mahaprabhu and from a specific vaishnava sampradaya believe radha is hidden by suka. Other vaishnavas dont

I am from south India I have never seen Radha Kalyanam or Radha in any of the popular / major Krishna temples here other than Iskcon. And Iskcon originated in US not south India.

We have Sita Kalyanam to Rama, we have Lakshmi Kalyanam to Vishnu, we have Parvati/Sati/ Devi Kalyanam to Shiva. Meenakshi (parvati) kalyanam to Sundereshwar (Shiva) Padmavati (Lakshmi) Kalyanam to Balaji/ Perumal (Vishnu)

Valli And Devasena's kalyanam to Karthikeya

And Rukmini Kalyanam to Krishna as well as Ashthabharya Kalyanam to Krishna individually

Kalyanam means marriage.

There is no Radha Kalyanam to Krishna in south

Andal is a famous devotee of Krishna similar to Meerabai.

Her songs on Krishna are very famous and she speaks of herself as a loving devotee like Meera who chose Krishna as her husband.

That is the madhurya rasa of Andal. She talks of Rukmini satyabhama ashtabharya and 16108 women rescued by Krishna but never Radha. Her songs say that you accepted their love and took them as wife, accept my love too and take me as your devoted wife.

Her songs are sung as Bhajan like Meera Bhajan

So if your article is saying Andal speaks of Radha's love for Krishna that is not true. Andal sings of her own love for Krishna whom she has taken as her husband.

My point is very simple when someone says its written in that book x happens, then I say show me the book and quote so that I can check for myself if what you have said is true.

I also gave you example of MB that people believe it is written in it that bhima washed draupadi's hair with blood. So I ask show me in which MB it is written. And they say dont know my grandma said it is written so it has to be true but grandma doesnt know how to read. i saw in tv serial it is true. Tv serials are crap.

Similarly you quote some random article which talks of Andal with reference as truth of Radha. Then give me that song or bhajan or some proof of it.

I dont have any say whatsover on anyone's belief about Radha or her existence. Its none of my business. By all means please maintain your beliefs I am not questioning them at all.

But I do have problem when people make blanket statements on scriptures and temples like

All Puranas mention Radha.

They dont because there are puranas that do not even have Krishna how will Radha be there then. They are shakta and shaivya purana talking of Shiva Parvati leela and have nothing to do with Krishna at all.

Then there are purana that are least concerned with Krishna's childhood and focus on his life from Kansa Vadh. Like Garuda Purana (that focuses on death and funeral) Agni Purana Matsya Purana Vayu Purana also do not mention her. I have read these purana and the only Radha name that occurs in one of them is Karna's adoptive mother Radha.

By the way Vraja leela and Vrindavan is just one paragraph in Vishnu purana. And Raasleela is one single sentence. The entire Krishna narrative is focused on Mathura and Dwarka and Radha was not part of this life. Mahabharat too, Radha has no role there unlike what Siddharth Tewary showed.

Brahmavaivarta Purana is the one which has Radha and Krishna relationship in detail. Some more have one or two verses on her.

So when you say Radha is mentioned in puranas, then say that Radha is mentioned in these specific puranas. Dont say some guy says she is present in all purana but hidden or invisible in some.

Radha if at all she existed was part of just a few years of Krishna's childhood and is only mentioned some later puranas which cover this part of his life. That is a fact.

Similarly the statement

Radha is worshipped all over India and is part of every Krishna shrine

No she is not. North India is not whole India, it is one part of India. Rest of India has Rukmini Satyabhama and Ashtabharya

TV serial was showing it......

now take RK serial and tell me is not showing nearly 80 percent lies.

You know it is a lie because you have read several versions of Srimad Bhagvatham and in all of them Radha stayed back at Vrindavan and never came to Dwarka. Or would you say Radha is living invisibly in dwarka.

There are already a lot of teenagers who blindly believe whatever RK is showing is true.

10 years down the line they will confidently come and fight with me that Radha lived in Dwarka. And If I tell them please read all the text

they will say no how can text be true. Text is false only siddharth tewary is honest.

Good...thanks for gyan hehe...Think whatever u need...simply super...

You can't tolerate means I can't flaunt and tell this person said so .so I need to change.This is social forum all has rights to post whatever they believe..

You have badly hurt my custom and belief , facts..no one ll tolerate and stop saying my custom as lies..

Senseful ppl won't do it

When I say this info I share that's it...How many bhagvatam written read it's my process..stop insulting and it's enough gyaan u gave and you r no one to simply whatever I post to start commenting on it..if it's your freedom then it's freedom to post my thought too..

If ppl believe Radha exists they follow rk serial..this shows .. good joke..Radha is there many believe it..It's our God ...you can't insult our God

You keep your point with you..why it's burning you and if I follow Shrimat Radha I m following serial..good..I know what to read and what not to..

Again I m saying don't preach me and you are no ibe to do it.. cornering me is not good..

We our custom celebrate Shri Radha and when I say I m just sharing what's your problem..we do Radha kalyana..that's it .Stop commenting on others belief and custom..you first read properly..I said just info..you can't force me or tease or insult others..stop here by that's it..This is insulting my tradition and for a good human being it's not good to insult in one believe ..

You have enough insulted me and my custom..further God is seeing..

You are not God to teach and if I see you repost or recommend it's called immaturity.

Stop interfering everything I post and give your teaching on books and I m not kid and matured woman..

Everyone opinion belief can't be same and you are not my Guru..stop it..it's very hurtful and cornering me ..

Next time if u bash me....I can just say onething..forcing is not Belief ..it's fanatism..God ll not exists in such ppl

When we say Radha Kalyanam, immediately the divine images of Radha and Krishna spring to mind. While for those who are steeped in spirituality and devotion, the concept of Radha Kalyanam gives inspiration, for laymen a question may arise as to why we ordinary human beings have to conduct the divine union of Gods? But an explanation of the real meaning behind this grand celebration will perhaps clear the air: The ancient Hindu philosophical wisdom postulates that Jeevatma is nothing but a creation of Paramatma and is destined to re-unite with Paramatma and Radha Kalyanam is nothing but a meaningful way of celebrating this reunion.

Radha represents the Jeevatma which is nothing but a creation of Krishna, the Paramatma and Radha Kalyanam is the re-union of the Jeevatma (Radha) with Paramatma (Krishna). We ordinary human beings by this simple act of performing Radha Kalyanam are actually glorifying the world’s most potent spiritual wisdom namely “ADVAITA”, which says Jeevatma and Paramatma are one and the same!

A description of Radha Kalyanam may best be exemplified by the 35-year glorification of the concept by a group of dedicated people in the bustling suburb of Perambur in Chennai. And that brings us to the stellar institutions of Sri Geetha Govinda Mandali and Sri Kamakshi Mandali.

Hello,friends what’s going on !!! We are free to interpret our religion the way we like .

No one can force us !!
God is universal n omnipresent .

Belief is belief. I don't think Chillii is disputing that.

She is talking about saying that Radha is mentioned in all puranas which is not accurate. The ones she is mentioned in are post Jayadeva.

I'm quite happy to believe in Brahmavaivarta Purana, actually, since it says Radha was Panchali 😆. Sadly, I'm forced to admit the entire text is fan fiction.