Two questions

[Guest guest]

Sri Lakshminrisimha Parabrahmane Namaha

Sri Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear members of the list, I have two questions to which I found no

answer while browsing the archives.

I would be grateful if you could give some authoritative answers.

 

1. Do various forms (like Krishna, Rama,...) of Sriman Narayana also

exist on Sri Vaikuntham or are they only on Vibhava lokas?

 

2. I've heard there are some Sri Vaishnavas who worship Smt Radharani

as the consort of sri Krishna.

I thought the worship of smt Radha was limited to northern part of

Bharat.

Is it really so and if so accepted by all acharyas or was I just

misinformed?

 

Thanks in advance for your help,

Namo Narayana.

 

Kristijan

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Kristijan,

 

You ask:

> 1. Do various forms (like Krishna, Rama,...) of Sriman Narayana also

> exist on Sri Vaikuntham or are they only on Vibhava lokas?

 

I suggest you think of it this way. Sri Vaikuntham is a place or state

where one's consciousness is infinite and operates unobstructed. You

therefore can perceive Sriman Narayana in all His infinitude. Now,

Rama and Krishna are various forms of this one reality. In Vaikuntha,

since there is no limitation to your consciousness, you would be able to

perceive all of these, as you wished. To cite a familiar example, remember

how Arjuna saw everything possibly imaginable simultaneously merging and

emanating from Krishna during the Vishvarupa darsana?

 

Or, using a more mundane analogy, wouldn't it be inappropriate to say that

the numbers "2", "3", etc., while being different, unique, numbers,

are *not* part of the entire "set" of numbers? The same way, all the

forms of Narayana can be seen and perceived once one's consciousness

is unhindered.

> 2. I've heard there are some Sri Vaishnavas who worship Smt Radharani

> as the consort of sri Krishna.

 

It depends on what you mean. Traditionally speaking, the name Radha is

rarely found (if at all [*]) in the older Puranas and the works of

Sri Vaishnava acharyas. The story of Radha as current in Northern

Vaishnavism is also not mentioned by the Alvars. Nowadays, however,

because of cross-pollenation, the Radha-Krishna stories are very

popular in South India and Sri Vaishnavas have also been infected by

their charm.

 

[*] There may be one minor reference by Desika in Yadavabhyudayam.

 

As far as "worshipping" Radha is concerned, if one identifies Radha

purely with Nappinnai of Tamil fame (Nila in Sanskrit), as some do,

ignoring North Indian peculiarities concerning her story of Radha,

there's no issue. But for the most part, Sri Vaishnava acharyas

generally do not attribute any real authority to these stories of

Radha, and do not treat her as someone of any historical or

philosophical significance. In other words, as anubhavam goes, the

stories are respected and read with delight, but as far as tattvArtham

is concerned, they are ignored.

 

This is my current understanding of this topic.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

In continuation of Mani's masterly summing up

re Sri Vesel's question,I may just add a few lines.

The only traditional reference to Radha in Sri

Bhagavatham is taken to be the phrase-

<anaya-radhito> in the Rasakrida chapter.When

Krishna disappears suddenly and the gopis go

in search of him they find indication that one

girl seemed to have been with him.That phrase

with the possible pun on the letters "radh"

is taken as the hint that the favorite of

Krishna's was Radha.

 

The later Brahma Vaivarta Purana deals extensively

with Radha and even details their marriage.

 

EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

aDiyEn

BHARAT

[Guest guest]

Dear Mani:

 

There is also a cultural aspect to the Radha story that is orthogonal

to the draviDian notion of morality. Radha as in the north

indian story was married, where as all references to gOpikAs (whose

anubhavam AnDAL recreated for herself) in south indian scheme of

things indicate that they were unwed.

 

That the relationship of ultimate love

between Krishna and those enchanted by him (as exemplified by

thirumangai mannan) was not governed by social (and mores-bound)

barriers is true; However, strangely, in south indian social

orthodoxy, the idea of a married woman's all encompassing

relationship with Krishna, without any barriers whatsoever, is

clearly anathematic.

 

The Azhwaars themselves (primarily nammazhwaar and thirumangai

azhwaar) extol the state of total dependence, akin to that of a woman

with respect to her loved one (which can be the only basis for our

relationship to the Lord).

 

I, for one, have always been enchanted by the rAdha story simply for

the barriers that it breaks and the notion of limitless love that she

shares with Krishna.

 

sridhar

[Guest guest]

Dear friends, I am happy we are getting information from Sri Bharat

regarding this important issue.

 

I would like to add some of my views and doubts on this subject. I am very

interested to find out more regarding Radha. I tried to talk to HH

Rangapriya swamy, NT Srinivasaieyengar, and my Uncle garudachar (who in

fact cited this verse from Yadavabhudaya) :

 

devaki danuja sthuna divyam dhama vrajankanam rama radhadhayascheti rashi

bhedaihi na bhidyase

 

this is in 10 sarga - 71st verse of Yadavabhudaya of Sri Vedanta Desika.

 

This is means that Lord is the one and same whether associated with Ramaa

(Ramaa : Sri) or radha and other consorts, or (being born of) devaki or the

pillar (as in nrsimhavatara) or living in vaikunta or vraja (brindavan).

 

However, I looked into Uttamoor viraraghavacharya's note below the appayya

dikshita commentary :

 

He mentions :

neelayah parampadastha nitya mahisheetvat tat tyagena radhadi uktih shloke

 

which means (according to me) : Neela is associated with Krishna eternally

as consort in paramapada; Hence here the consorts Radha etc. are

mentioned to indicate that consorts such as Radha are in this bhooloka,

rather than in Vaikunta. Or else Neela adi etc. could have been used

instead of Radha adi etc. This probably indicates that Radha is more of a

jiva (of course an extremely elevated one) since she had the special favour

of Krishna in Bhagavatham.

 

I would appreciate if Sri Bharat can find shlokas in Brahma vaivarta to

support or contradict this view of Radha being a Jiva or an epithet of

Lakshmi. In general I want to know textual testimony regarding the concept

of Radha, who according to gaudiya vaishnavas is the highest form of

Lakshmi, since they accept several hundreds of Lakshmis.

 

According to Srivaishnava scholars, Radha is not identical to Lakshmi or

Nila and in fact be taken as an elevated Jiva, due to lack of testimony

otherwise.

 

In fact Nila in bhagavata is kumbhakasya putri - ie. yashoda's brother's

daughter - Nila, who got married to Krishna.

 

This Radha-Lakshmi hierarchy issue is interesting since, Baladeva Vidya

Bhusana, a great gaudiya vaishnava scholar quotes in his prameya rathnavali

(at the end of his book "The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, with commentary

on baladeva vidya bhushana" appendix II, p 19 (available from munshiram

manoharlal das publishers - (gangaram & sons in bangalore MG road)),

 

quotes of Baladeva Vidya Bhusana explained :

 

Sri no doubt is Rukmini in Krishnavatara as given in vishnu purana -

rukmini krishna janmani; However, as per atharva upanisad there is a

difference in Lakshmi's avataras the text of atharva upanisad states :

 

atha sriyah tat yatha purusha bhodhinyam atharva upanisadi gokulakhye

mathur mandale iti upakramya dve parshve chandravali radhika cha iti

abhidhaya paratra "yasyah amshe lakshmi durgadika shaktih" -

 

meaning : As regard the avatara of Lakshmi, we have it stated in the

Atharva Upanisad that there is difference in her avataras also. Beginning

with "in the region of Mathura called Gokula," etc, the text goes on to say

"the two sides of Visnu are CHandravali and Radhika" and then it mentions

the lower avataras, by saying "Laksmi, Durga and the rest are her partial

avataras"

 

Further Baladeva VidyaBhusana quotes : Gautamiya tantra :

 

Devi krishnamayi prokta radhika paradevata sarva laksmi mayi sarva kanthih

sammohini para :

 

which means:

 

Radhika is said to be the highest deity, the Goddess full of Krishna; all

Lakshmis are her avataras, she is the source, she is full of all prosperity

and every beauty; and is the enchanter of all.

 

Further, regarding the divine abode, a rig mantra says : "yatra bhuri

sringa ayasah" referring to the divine abode of visnu as having cows with

big horns. Here, HH Rangapriya swamy said we can always include goloka as

an extension of vaikunta since vaikunta descriptions are manifold in

various texts.

 

MY QUESTION :

 

The Radha - Lakshmi issue from a VIsistadvaitic perspective has to take

into account the quotes of Baladeva Vidya bhusana and give out its view of

such statements. I could not find the original work "atharva upanisad".

Baladeva vidya bhusana cites, and He mentions that it is "purusha bodhinyam

atharva upanishadi" which means that the name of the upanisad is purusha

bodhini? I dont know such an upanisad. I have texts for atharva sikha

upanisad and atharva sira upanisad. Both do not have such a statement

mentioned here. Further I checked into gopala tapani, gopala uttara tapani

and krishnopanishad, from which a number of statements are taken to support

his brahma sutra bhasya. Radha is not mentioned in those, but definitely

there are numerous citations to Rukmini as the consort of Krishna. I would

like to understand visistadvaitic view on this. Further, I dont know what

is gautamiya tantra and whether that is considered authentic by

Visistadvaitins.

 

One other clear view from visistadvaitic perspective is that "brahma

samhita" accepted by only Gaudiya vaishnavas is not accepted by

visistadvaitins and further it is not even in pancharatra samhita as

available. Further, Baladeva Vidya bhusana basically takes views, as he

openly states in his work, from Sri Ramanuja sampradaya, MAdhva sampradaya,

Vishnu swamy and nimbaraka. However, He is stays very close to Sri

Ramanuja sampradaya, even though they mention Madhva as their one of their

preceptors!!.

 

My quest in this is only to find the real difference in view points between

these schools. As Sri K.P Sridharan mentioned, the transgressing of all

norms and dharmas to express deep attachment to Krishna as depicted in

Radha stories is of key importance to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I remember in

chaintanya charitamrta, it is clearly mentioned that "love as in matrimony

is sort of constrained due to an inherent duty consciousness in the

relationship; however, when there is no agreement (like marriage) love can

be very pure and limitless" When we take this in the context of spiritual

world, this is what is indicated by Radha- Krishna love.

 

I would like to hear from erudite scholars here some details and textual

assessment from Visistadvaitic point of view.

 

adiyen

 

Krishna Kalale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Bharat [sMTP:kbharat]

Tuesday, August 31, 1999 7:56 AM

bhakti

Re:two questions

 

In continuation of Mani's masterly summing up

re Sri Vesel's question,I may just add a few lines.

The only traditional reference to Radha in Sri

Bhagavatham is taken to be the phrase-

<anaya-radhito> in the Rasakrida chapter.When

Krishna disappears suddenly and the gopis go

in search of him they find indication that one

girl seemed to have been with him.That phrase

with the possible pun on the letters "radh"

is taken as the hint that the favorite of

Krishna's was Radha.

 

The later Brahma Vaivarta Purana deals extensively

with Radha and even details their marriage.

 

EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

aDiyEn

BHARAT