Hello Prisni

[Guest guest]

Welcome back. Well I know you said, you have been lurking here for a

while, nevertheless I am still glad to see you back. By the way did

you take a look at the Radha Page put up by Devi Bhakta. We have been

waiting for your reply and feedback. Devi Bhakta have plans to add in

more information in the Radha page, but he have been busy with his

non-web obligations. We have miss you. Keep in touch okay!

 

Big big hug to you !!!!

[Guest guest]

måndagen den 16 december 2002 16.36 skrev "Nora:

> Welcome back. Well I know you said, you have been lurking here for a

> while, nevertheless I am still glad to see you back. By the way did

> you take a look at the Radha Page put up by Devi Bhakta. We have been

> waiting for your reply and feedback. Devi Bhakta have plans to add in

> more information in the Radha page, but he have been busy with his

> non-web obligations. We have miss you. Keep in touch okay!

 

Hi Nora.

I will check it out. But I really feel unqualified to write anything. There

are so many scholars in this world, writing so many things. So what can I say

to add to that? I cann't compete with them.

 

The Vaisnava bhakti tradition is a little bit different from other traditions.

It is not a tradition of scholarship it is not a tradition of ritual although

both elements are there. It is not possible to reach perfection in that

tradition through such efforts. Actually, there is no way to reach perfection

in that tradition through any similar effort. That has made some persons

believe that it is a mercy religion like Christianity, and if you just do

enough prayer, you will reach perfection. But that is not true either. The

bhakti tradition, when it has been transplanted into the west, sometimes

seems to have lost its heart, and instead become a scholarly saviour religion

in a way that I think might even feel alien in the view of hindu traditions.

 

I call it a pesonal transformation tradition. There is no effort needed than

total personal transformation. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is maybe

the hardest for the westerner, who is so used that action and/or study is the

key to anything.

 

For me Radha is Shakti. There is almost nothing more to say about it. It is

very easy.

 

I think the westerner might be much better off with a path that requires some

very complicated action and study, and that it is possible to advance in due

to such things. And to figure out what is the real truth about something, or

how to interpret something.

 

The vaisnava bhaki philosophy is very direct. There is nothing to interpret

behind it. It should be understood as it is. There are not even so many rules

to follow and things that are forbidden. What this means is that all the

philosophy, although necessary, is not it. The perfection does not lie in the

philosophy. It is a tool to get to some other point. So a scholar is in great

danger, since he might think that learning is the goal.

 

Of course, it can be hard to come to the understanding of nirguna brahman

(brahman without qualities) just like that, directly. One might need a lot of

philosophical understanding to reject all qualities. One might need to learn

everything about the gunas (qualities) to be able to understand saguna

brahman (brahman with all qualities) first.

 

Many people think the stories about Radha and Krishna are erotic stories

between a young boy and a young girl. But the Vaisnava understanding is

completely opposite. It is about sex life, in a way, but the sex life of

brahman, if that can be conceived. It is in the completely different end

compared to mundane sex-life.

 

I have read here that there are many dangers with performing tantric rituals

without a competent teacher. In the Vaisnava bhakti process there are not so

many pitfalls, but if there is one gigantic dangerous pitfall, it is thinking

that the affairs between Radha and Krishna are mundane sex. Just thinking

like that destroys all chances of advancement on the (Vaisnava) bhakti path.

And yet, all explanations of Radha are mostly about those affairs. That makes

the bhakti process so difficult to follow.

 

I therefore much more prefer explanations of Radha from her cosmogenic

function, as Prakriti, as Shakti. That is not so dangerous. There are

rituals, tantric rituals, that much more fits the mentality of modern

(western) man. There are rules, there are procedures, there are studies. And

by performing those one can advance in that process. Through all that one can

get a safe understanding of Shakti, and then, if one want to, one can go to

the understanding of the dealings between Radha and Krishna.

 

This understanding of Radha, is not alien to Vaisnavism. It is just kind of

out of fashion. Maybe it was not needed in India, where the cultural and

religious climate made a direct approach to bhakti feasable. But I think it

is now very appropriate for westeners who are mostly atheistic and have very

little understanding of the wonderful nature of the female cosmic forces of

Shakti (in lack of other words right now). And by dealing with Shakti, there

is very little chance of mixing it up with Christianity.

> Big big hug to you !!!!

 

Big hug to you too.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

sister, as you pointed out krishna is parabrahma and radharani is

parashakti; only people of little understanding/downright fools will

tell that their rasa leela is just mundane sex.

 

yogaman

 

 

, Prisni <pgd-prisni@a...> wrote:

> måndagen den 16 december 2002 16.36 skrev "Nora:

> > Welcome back. Well I know you said, you have been lurking here

for a

[Guest guest]

tisdagen den 17 december 2002 17.18 skrev "childofdevi:

> sister, as you pointed out krishna is parabrahma and radharani is

> parashakti; only people of little understanding/downright fools will

> tell that their rasa leela is just mundane sex.

 

Your are right. But then the problem comes with what it actually is a

description of.

 

I like the explanation done by shivaks51, about the inflating baloon and so

on. Whatever this really is, only looks like a mundane love affair, from a

perspective of living here, but it is really something else. We just can't

see what it really is. The real substance we can't see or understand.

 

Prisni

[Guest guest]

Hello Prisni

 

"But I really feel unqualified to write anything. There are so

many

scholars in this world, writing so many things. So what can I say to

add to that? I can't compete with them'

 

Neither does I, Prisni. I am neither a Scholar nor am I an experience

person by any standards as compared to some of the other members we

have here in the group, but that does not mean we cant write what we

think and feel about what we believe in. That is the basis of our

homepage and group, contributed by members who are passionate about

their faith. But we do have amongst us, reputable scholars.

 

Before you made your first appearance into Shakti Sadhana message

board, I really never look at Radha. Frankly I don't know what to

make of HER. I see her as a Goddess yes! But I find it hard to fit

her in. But you have change all that. I truly believe, perhaps Radha

Devi herself sends you to us particularly to teach me.

 

 

"For me Radha is Shakti. There is almost nothing more to say

about

it. It is very easy"

 

But there are a lot more to say about Radha, Prisni. In the Narada

Purana, at the highest level, Radha is one with Krishna. Radha abides

in the same body, as Krishna, and that there is no difference between

them. Krishna is the substance and Radha is the attribute. They are

inseparable as the milk and its color or the earth and its smell.

Radha too is being described as the visible and the invisible. In her

form as Sutika (mother of all), it is said that Radha gives rise to

five other goddess (some believe as her five manifestation) namely:

Laksmi, Durga, Savitri, Saraswati and the second form of Radha

herself. The text too asserts that the cowherdesses too sprang from

Radha body. They are her amsa (partial incarnations) there is a

related account in the Narada Purana to which the seven oceans are

born from Radha's Womb. These are some of the many information

about

Radha Devi gradually making its way into my understanding. And I

believe Devi Bhakta too feel that should be explored further and

should be in the Radha page. Radha deserve better !!!

 

 

"I therefore much more prefer explanations of Radha from her

cosmogenic function, as Prakriti, as Shakti."

 

I think my above statement explains it all.

 

Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

onsdagen den 18 december 2002 07.00 skrev "Nora:

> But there are a lot more to say about Radha, Prisni. In the Narada

> Purana, at the highest level, Radha is one with Krishna. Radha abides

> in the same body, as Krishna, and that there is no difference between

> them. Krishna is the substance and Radha is the attribute. They are

> inseparable as the milk and its color or the earth and its smell.

 

You are so right. There is a lot to say. When it comes to the understanding

of things that are beyond understanding, one can like look at it from

different directions, and get different descriptions depending on the

viewpoint. The complete is all that in one and much more, but as we cannot

understand that, we can maybe understand many different viewpoints.

One common understanding is that Radha is the inner "pleasure" energy of

Krishna, Hladini Shakti. But that is just one viewpoint, or model of

understanding. As you say, the substance and attribute understanding is

another, and then we have the understanding as efficient and material cause,

as support and supported (adhara and adheya), and as soul and body. It is

here where it gets quite intricate philosophically.

 

Actually, I don't know of any teachers of this philosophy, or any books that

describes it (except for the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, but who is teaching that

one?). Feminine oriented philosophy is kind of not in fashion today. (I say

feminine oriented, since it is a description of the feminine side of "God". )

> Radha too is being described as the visible and the invisible. In her

> form as Sutika (mother of all), it is said that Radha gives rise to

> five other goddess (some believe as her five manifestation) namely:

> Laksmi, Durga, Savitri, Saraswati and the second form of Radha

> herself. The text too asserts that the cowherdesses too sprang from

> Radha body. They are her amsa (partial incarnations) there is a

> related account in the Narada Purana to which the seven oceans are

> born from Radha's Womb. These are some of the many information

> about

> Radha Devi gradually making its way into my understanding. And I

> believe Devi Bhakta too feel that should be explored further and

> should be in the Radha page. Radha deserve better !!!

 

I am not usually into quoting, but I just stumbled on the following ones from

the Brahmavaivarta purana in this context:

 

"Durga, who is the mother of Ganesa, Radha, Laksmi, Sarasvati and Savitri are

the five forms of Prakriti at the beginning of creation"

 

and then

 

"All female beings are regarded as amsas, kalas or kalamsamsas of Prakriti."

 

A parallell quote from the BrahmaVaivarta Purana and the DeviBhagavata purana,

as it appears. (Prakriti=Radha, in the context of the Brahmavaivarta purana)

 

Prisni