Origin of radha - Page 2

That is an opinion of many scholars indeed. I prefer not to believe it, but they do have a point. 😳

Krishna appears in the Mahabharata as the wise, some might say cunning, counsellor of the Pandavas, whose timely and much-debated interventions in the great war lead the Pandavas to victory; even more memorably, perhaps, he appears as the charioteer of the Pandava prince, Arjuna, passing down those teachings that got enshrined in the part of the Mahabharata that came to be known as the Bhagavad Gita.

However, for a great many Hindus, the pre-eminent text of Krishna worship is the Bhagavata Purana, and most particularly its Tenth Book, which recounts the childhood exploits of Krishna, his adolescence, and his life in Vrindavan and the Vraj area amidst cowherds and milkmaids, the gopas and gopis. The Mahabharata, composed between the 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD, is based on stories that were known at least a thousand years earlier. This epic focuses on Krishna’s relationship with the Pandavas. The Harivamsa which is the first book to describe Krishna’s earlier life as a cowherd was added as an appendix to the Mahabharata only around the 5th century AD. Tales from the Mahabharata and the Harivamsa were incorporated in the Vishnu Purana which later metamorphosed into the Bhagavata Purana around the 12th century AD.

Krishna of the Bhagavata is the adorable prankster with a butter-smeared face. Krishna of the Mahabharata is a shrewd strategist covered in blood. One is the winsome cowherd. The other a wise charioteer. One lives in the village, surrounded by cows, cowherds and milkmaids. The other lives in the city, surrounded by horses, elephants, kings and queens. One is admonished by his mother and seeks adventure. The other gives advice to friends and family and goes on missions. One submits to the demands of Radha and 16,100 gopis, a relationship bursting with clandestine eroticism. The other fulfils his husbandly obligations to his eight senior and 16,100 junior queens. One can be seen playing the flute on the banks of the Yamuna, surrounded by women dancing in joyous abandon. The other can be seen in the middle of Kuru-kshetra on a chariot, whip in hand, blowing the conch-shell war trumpet, surrounded by the dead bodies of hundreds and thousands of warriors. The two Krishnas could not be more different from each other.

Many mythographers are of the opinion that the two Krishnas are two different folk-heroes forcibly put together. The Krishna of the Mahabharata was Vasudeva, leader of a tribal oligarchy while Krishna of the Bhagavata was Gopala, an adventurous herdsman who the Greek traveller, Magesthenes, identified with Hercules. Both Krishnas were then identified with Vishnu, God, as Hinduism moved increasingly towards theism.

In the complex web of stories about kings and dharma and social order, it is ironical that Krishna, the pivot of the narrative, is not a king. He is simply a Yadava nobleman (Yadavas were an oligarchy, ruled by a council of elders, and not a monarchy). Presenting himself in forms associated with the lower strata of the caste hierarchy (cowherd in the Bhagavata and charioteer in the Mahabharata) he talks about dharma, the institution and maintenance of social order, which has traditionally been the responsibility of kings and priests, the upper strata of the caste hierarchy. Krishna, the kingmaker not king, thus transforms the Bhagavata and the Mahabharata from merely a devotional or heroic tale into a highly political epic grounded in spiritual thought.

Link: https://devdutt.com/articles/butter-or-blood/

Originally posted by: proteeti

Brahma Vaivarta Puran. 😳

And she was later popularized by Vallabhacharya, Jayadeva, SriChaitanya, Chandidas and Vidyapati.

You mean Geet Govinda right? 

The one which has the shloka smaragarala-khandalam ? 

Harivamsa is more of a political backstory to eventual Mahabharata than anything else. While it might be added later, it does give a good picture of the alliances and loyalties of the land. It has portions of child Krishna but not as much as Pattnaik implies here. 

I think they were the same person because 1) no one pops into a story with a clear aim to defeat Jarasandha and build a unified empire without reason 2) Krishna was attacked 17 times by Jarasandha! Imagine a teenager going through all that and remaining mentally the same. It would've hardened him, toughened him, in ways perhaps even the Pandavas weren't.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

You mean Geet Govinda right? 

The one which has the shloka smaragarala-khandalam ? 

Brahma Vaivarta Puran is its own thing.

And Jayadeva wrote Geeta Govindam, which is a different masterpiece. 😳

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Harivamsa is more of a political backstory to eventual Mahabharata than anything else. While it might be added later, it does give a good picture of the alliances and loyalties of the land. It has portions of child Krishna but not as much as Pattnaik implies here. 

I think they were the same person because 1) no one pops into a story with a clear aim to defeat Jarasandha and build a unified empire without reason 2) Krishna was attacked 17 times by Jarasandha! Imagine a teenager going through all that and remaining mentally the same. It would've hardened him, toughened him, in ways perhaps even the Pandavas weren't.

Second point is valid and I don't really count his reasoning of the two are different as a reasoning because that's possible. 

But what is important is, bhagwat or vishnu puran did not even exist when mahabharat did. Things added later has less chances to be true, the reason why we discuss interpolations! 

Originally posted by: proteeti

Brahma Vaivarta Puran is its own thing.

And Jayadeva wrote Geeta Govindam, which is a different masterpiece. 😳

What's this text about btw? 

I know it because of this song by Chandrabindu called Geet Gobindo 😆

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Second point is valid and I don't really count his reasoning of the two are different as a reasoning because that's possible. 

But what is important is, bhagwat or vishnu puran did not even exist when mahabharat did. Things added later has less chances to be true, the reason why we discuss interpolations! 

Absolutely. Whoever wrote it did so from hearsay. Errors are bound to be there.

Interestingly, Balram does return to Brindavan once after the relocation. The Gopis play with him, supposedly mistaking him for Krishna. I don't see how that is possible since it is clearly said they were wildly different in coloring. My suspicion is that the adventurer might have been more Balram than Krishna, the theory supported by evidence of Balram's teerth yathra.

Harivamsa also gives you an accurate picture of the relationship between the brothers. It was completely unpleasant, with Balram at a point accusing Krishna of being a thief and a murderer. Krishna forgives his older brother again and again. He forgives his clan. The Yadavas were an ungrateful lot.

Originally posted by: proteeti

I have a subscription to Scribd and found BV online. I too have been looking for a searchable version because I really don't want to read the whole thing and actually write notes.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

What's this text about btw? 

I know it because of this song by Chandrabindu called Geet Gobindo 😆

Brahma Vaivarta Puran mainly deals with the love of Radha and Krishna. 😳

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I have a subscription to Scribd and found BV online. I too have been looking for a searchable version because I really don't want to read the whole thing and actually write notes.

Do you have the PDF downloaded kya? 😛