Talk:Radha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ayana and Abhimanyu

I'm posting this here in order to address a request for further justifications for changes I made on 15 Dec.

First, I think that this article, like any on related subjects needs in the first place, to address and describe Radha, as understood by the majority of Hindus. This may not be quite in accordance with the way she is seen in certain groups. But this is an encyclopaedia, and any further information on such views should be added, as an addendum to the mainstream view of Radha. The Mahabharata forms a basic corpus of stories which can be understood to reflect a majority opinion.

The main point is this statement “According to some stories, she is married to Abhimanyu.” This was removed by me, and reverted to the original “According to some stories, she is married to the cowherd Ayana.”

According to the Mahabharata, Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna and Subhadra, and nephew of Krishna, is firstly, a generation later than Radha, but he is also explicitly married to Uttara, daughter of Virata. (Adi Parva and Drona Parva, within the MB). I've checked the synopsis for this Abhimanyu in some reference literature, and there is no mention of Radha there. As far as I am concerned, this Abhimanyu is the person generally known by the name.

I've done an internet search and found references to a possible marriage of another Abhimanyu ('Abhimanyu, the son of Jatila'), and Radha, e.g. at http://purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20020909.shtml . It seems that Ayana is another name for this Abhimanyu – see http://www.salagram.net/parishad129.htm where it says “... Ayana Ghosh, Abhimanyu, who is known as the husband of Radha...”.

There are many references to both names on the internet. Because Abhimanyu is more generally understood to be the son of Arjuna, I think a suitable solution would be that the name Ayana continue to be used here, but with a reference to the alternative name. I have modified the article accordingly.

Thanks. Imc 15:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Radha the Gopi / The Consort of Krishna

I've renamed the first section, on the important Radha, to Radha the Gopi. While ISKCON and similarly minded people would regard her as Krishna's consort, in the Mahabharata, and the older corpus of works, Krishna's wife is clearly Rukmini. There is currently a separate article on Radharani which would probably be a better place to develop the view of Radha as Krishna's consort. Imc 17:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radha is the same as Radharani, just different forms of the name. Thus I don't really understand the necessity to make different articles. Besides Krishna had many wives (although Rukmini is the most famous), according tome some legends even as many as 16108. There is no need to put Krishna in western monogamic worldview. However, it is not correct that ISKCON regard Radha to be Krishna's wife. Their relationships are considered to be of paramour. Lonehermit 21:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accept that Radha and Radharani are the same person. The point I'd make is that the articles are not on the same subject. One article is about Radha in the general corpus of Hindu scripture, in which she is another of the gopis. The other is about Radha in many Vaishnava traditions, where she is well on the way to becoming a deity herself. However, if you feel able to condense all that material in the Radharani article into an encyclopaedic format and reintegrate it into one coherent Radha article, please feel free to do so. Imc 20:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radharanis topmost position in the scriptures

I disaggre that Radharani's or Radha's (same person) topmost position is not there inthe scriptures. It is understood that whatever form the lord appears in, there is a corresponding Lakshmi form who acts as His eternal consort. When the Lord appears as a god, Lakshmi appears as a goddess. When the Lord advents as an ordinary human being, Lakshmi also descends upon this earth as an ordinary human being.

'Of all the manifestations of Lakshmidevi, Srimati Radharani is the Supreme Goddess, just as amongst so many avatars of Godhead, Krishna is the supreme Personality of Godhead.'

This is confirmed in the Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra, which states, 'Sri Radhika is the Supreme Goddess. Her very nature is Krishna, for her very existence is permeated by Krishna. Therefore she is known as Krishnamayi or one who is full of Krishna. She is known as Paradevata, for she is the Supreme Goddess. All other goddesses are subordinate to her. She is the Supreme Lakshmi and her transcendental effulgence surpasses all conceptions of brilliance. She is the supreme enchantress, for she enchants Krishna Himself, who is capable of charming millions of cupids.'

There are many other Puranas wher Her SUPREME position is described and in the Brihad Bhagavatamrita a book which is the ultimate essence of the essence of all the Vedas (Vedanta).

In reply to the anonymous contribution above, I would suggest that the scriptures are different for different traditions, and you are describing what is in a particular tradition. Imc 20:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Imc: Which scriptures for which traditions? The topic is Radha(rani) so it is a matter of Vaisnava scriptures and Vaisnava tradition. Not all Vaisnavas worship Her, that's another thing. The above comments about mainstream view, Mahabharata as 'reflecting majority opinion' (argumentum ad numeram; where did you get this idea from?), Rukmini, confusing two different Abhimanyus and Radha 'becoming deity' show lack of understanding. Do you really have to edit what is not your cup of tea? Jan

The original Mahabharata can be taken as 'mainstream' tradition, as opposed to the material developed by recent Gaudiya traditions. The development of the these traditions is widely known. I did not confuse the two Abhimanyus, another contributer did, and I elucidated it, if you care to read closely. Radha has developed into a deity, for instance of ISKCON, while she was only a gopi originally, and is still only a gopi to those who do not treat Gaudiya traditions as their own. Imc 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Radha as a Gopi?

I believe on the basis of whatever little I have come across in the scriputres, about Radha Rani, that she is above the Gopis. In fact there are some places where she is described to be in a plane way above the reach of any mortal. I understand the fact that the Gopi's are the greatest devotees of the Lord, but keeping in mind the fact that Radha Rani is described as not being different from Shri Krishna, one must not make the error of comparing Her with the Gopis.

As far as the Gopis are concerned, some of them were from Goloka and some others were in their previous lives the paramhamsas who had recognised Lord Rama as being the Supreme Personality of Godhead and then some of the rest were agniputras in their previous lives. At present, I am sorry to say that I do not have the exact names of the manuscripts where this information appears but I assure the community here that I will furnish it as soon as I am able to locate it. However, this might take considerable time.

Cleanup

This follows from the cleanup tag, which is still appropriate given the current state of the article. It still needs cleaning up. I've rewritten the introduction. I've commented out much of the current article because of various reasons; 1. some sections written in unencyclopaedic manner, and needs to be rewritten; 2. some sections need evidence, or explanation. There are further specific comments in the article body. The use of such terms as 'expansion' and 'pastime 'is specific to a particular school, and is not generally understood, and need explaining, together with context, or different terms to be used. Imc 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pirate link deleted

I have deleted a link to harekrsna.com. The site knowingly and persistently bootlegs book-length copyrighted text.

At <harekrsna.com/philosophy/acarya/writings.htm> (prefix that with "www") you will find more than 50 volumes of copyrighted books the site has no right to publish.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Major edit/rewrite 6 June 2007

I'm stating reasons for a number of obvious changes that IMO don't really need explaining any more than spelling errors. However, since they have been reverted when previously made, here goes;

• Karna's foster mother – this section was moved from the middle of the article, to the end, by me. Then the move was reverted. This section is about another person from the subject of the bulk of the article. If the article is about the name, then placing this character in the middle of it may make sense. Since it has become an article about a person, there is no need to interrupt the clarity of the main article with an interjection about another character with the same name. Perhaps this should be moved to another article; this would then require a disamb section at the top of the page.

Reply - I moved it back originally because (to near the start of the article) to avoid any confusion for people looking for the other Radha. A redirect notice seems more appropriate which I will do now. Gouranga(UK) 08:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Referring to her as Sri Radha, Srimati Radharani, or Radharani..

Leaving aside inappropriate use of honorifics, the Wikipedia reader should not be confused by the use of alternative names for the principal character. The title name should be used it the article; other names can be explained elsewhere.

Reply - Agreed, but still some reference Radha's primary honorific titles can be given in the intro. Gouranga(UK) 08:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Section Husband of Radha

although Radharani's first love is Krishna

Since she is already married according to these accounts, her first love was not Krishna, unless someone is going to say explicitly that it was an arranged marriage of some kind.

officially she is the wife of Ayanaghosa...

The word officially is unnecessary or inappropriate here. She is either his wife or she is not.

According to the texts mentioned in that section, Radha's first love was Krishna. they describe that as a baby she did not open her eyes for some time, untill the moment when Krishna visited her home as a young boy and then when she opened them the first person she beheld was Krishna. So yes, her first love is described as being Krishna, but then later in her life her family marry her to Abhimanyu, and then she has to see Krishna in secret. Probably this section needs to be more accurately sourced, but what was being said was not incorrect.

In terms of the second point, yes I agree that "officially" is not the best word to use in that context. Gouranga(UK) 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Other changes;

Copyedit.

From the intro; I changed the following phrase, which regards Radha as the original goddess Lakshmi to which regards her as the primary consort of Krishna. If someone wants to change it back, perhaps it could be written in a less confusing manner.

Reply - I've re-written this now. It was describing Radha being viewed as the original Shakti - but was not very clearly described as you have correctly pointed out. Gouranga(UK) 09:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The following italicised quotation (originally above the Quotations section) was removed. The first sentence is unclear, and is using 'vedic' in a manner different from that which is used in Wikipedia, and the article has already made it clear that Radha is not mentioned in the Vedas. The second sentence is an apologia for her not being recorded in the oldest literature, and needs to be cited. Information regarding Srimati Radharani is very scarce amongst general Vedic literature. Apart from a brief mention in the Srimad Bhagavatam her story is largely unmentioned in written detail until medieval times. Traditionalists give for reason for this being the esoteric nature of her position, thus details of her topmost devotion to Krishna was a closely guarded secret within Vaishnava circles.

Reply - I have amended this, and you are right a proper citation is required. Gouranga(UK) 09:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The word topmost (the topmost of the gopis); this is not standard English, in which topmost usually refers to a physical position, presumably it is a translation from another language; changed this to 'first'.

If topmost is not the best English, then foremost is the most accurate replacement. I have changed accordingly Gouranga(UK) 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed several instances of 'Her' to 'her'. Moved several names to standard Wikipedia form - Narada Muni, and others.

Moved paragraph on the name Hara to the section on her names. This name needs quoting in IAST Indic text; Hara is a name of Shiva, while haara is related to Hari.

Removed apparently irrelevant phrase from the Chaitanya section.

The section on Nimbarka – there already is a cite notice. The later sentences are full of suppositions, removed for rewriting clearly - Before this the existence of Radha had purportedly remained only in the secret meditations of very advanced devotees. It is believed by his followers that after being initiated into this knowledge by his preceptor, Narada, he was blessed by Radha and Krishna to reveal this knowledge to the world.

Names of Radha. I took out the following two epithets and explanations. Perhaps someone could explain these in simple sentences, and without the confused and inappropriate mention of Cupid. If this can't be done, the names should really not be here.

• Sarva-kanti - all beauty and luster rest in Her body & all the desires of Krishna rest in Her.
• Madan-Mohan-Mohini - the enchanter of the enchanter of Cupid. Krishna is said to be the enchanter of, and more beautiful than Cupid, the master enchanter. But Radha is the enchanter of Krishna, Madan-Mohan-Mohini.

Imc 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Imc, I think the article was due for some overall changes being made - I have gone through all your points and made amendments as described above in an attempt to improve it further. All the Best, Gouranga(UK)

Divinity of Radha

• 'Radha ... is the divine paramour of Krishna... '

She is not regarded as divine in all sources. The article should describe all traditions. In the MB, and I believe, in the Gita Govinda also, she is a gopi – that is, she is human, not divine.

I disagree because Krishna is regarded as a divine personality throughout Hinduism, and thus so are his consorts. Both the Gita-Govinda and Bhagavata Purana are devotional texts in which all elements related to Krishna are described in this way. Neither give the persepctive that the Gopis are standard milk-maids who Krishna just happened to be friendly with. A number of Sanskrit texts describe the Gopis as possesing the highest form of love of god. [1] Gouranga(UK) 09:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The above two posts were moved from the previous section by Imc 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm continuing the discussion here for clarity. If Radha is divine by virtue of her relationship with Krishna, then the same reasoning applies to Devaki, Vasudeva, Yashoda ... The point about her and the gopis is that in at least some of the original traditions, their humanity was the point of the story. The gopis represent humanity, Krishna represents divinity. This is my understanding of the Gita Govinda. The divinity of Radha is a more recent tradition, and has been developing with the development of the Krishna bhakti traditions. AFAIK, the Gita Govinda is the oldest reference to Radha as the 'principal' gopi, and from a quick glance at [2] (Victorian verse and therefore somewhat suspect for a dependable reference), there is nothing to suggest she is divine. Imc 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with using the word divine. Radha is not mentioned in the Mahabharata, so that's out and the nature of the Gita-Govinda is that it is highly open to one's own interpretation. The Bhagavata Purana describes all people in relationship to Krishna as divine in one sense (as eternally liberated souls) and certainly the Nimbarka and Gaudiya traditions venerate Radha as the supreme Shakti. In the context of Radha being the principle paramour of Krishna (the deity, avatar or God) I would assume it natural to describe her as divine as it would also be for Parvati and Lakshmi as consorts of Shiva and Vishnu? If you still feel this is incorrect maybe we could just say "principle paramour" and leave it at that? Gouranga(UK) 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Krishna Radha Relationship

Actually I have rasied this point in discussion of article Krishna; but I think it is more appropriate here.

This aspect is not discussed in this article. Actually many have misinterpreted about Radha-Krsihna reltionship. One need to understand that at age of ten Lord Krishna left Vrundavan and slayed Kansa. Janmastami : Janma-Leela of Lord Krishna

And when Krishna left Gokul permanently He was only seven years old. What is the real relationship between Radha-Krushna ?

Can someone write about this aspect? Simpledevotion 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)