durga is more of vishnu-shakti than shiva -shakti

[sambya]

 

The concept of Kapila`s sankya philosophy and Taoism maybe more or less is the same. In my country, the Philippines, we have the concept of malakas(male- meaning strong) and maganda(female-meaning beautiful)-said to be mankind`s origin. Just like Adam and Eve in the Bible. In short the concept and philosophy of Durga & Krsna/ Radha & Krsna as the cause of the universe is a universal one. In that case, then nobody I think has the monopoly to state that he/she alone knows absolutely the Absolute Truth.

 

hardly . kapila samkya is not same with adam and eve . adam and eve merely deals with fascinating mythologies for providing explanation of origin of human race. samkhya is a deep and seroius philosophy attempting to solve the mysteries of the cosmos itself.

 

secondly samnkhya is not same with durga & krishna / radha & krishna concepts.

 

samkhya was the original philosophy describing the phenomenon of purusha prakriti . later , almost all sects adapted this to their own understanding , which resulted as prakriti being interpreted as durga or radha and purusha as shiva or vishnu.

[melvin]

 

hardly . kapila samkya is not same with adam and eve . adam and eve merely deals with fascinating mythologies for providing explanation of origin of human race. samkhya is a deep and seroius philosophy attempting to solve the mysteries of the cosmos itself.

 

secondly samnkhya is not same with durga & krishna / radha & krishna concepts.

 

samkhya was the original philosophy describing the phenomenon of purusha prakriti . later , almost all sects adapted this to their own understanding , which resulted as prakriti being interpreted as durga or radha and purusha as shiva or vishnu.

 

Kapila is one of Lord Krsna`s incarnations. His mother`s name is Devahuti.

----

[sambya]

 

Kapila is one of Lord Krsna`s incarnations. His mother`s name is Devahuti.

 

yes , according to bhagavat and vishnu purana .

[bhaktajan]

1]–Originally Posted by Deathless:

“I would just like it if some of Lord Vishnu's worshipers would stop degrading the other devas and devis, as if it were some alternate way of praising Vishnu.”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

Deathless, did you mean to say,

“ . . . as if it were NOT some alternate way of praising Vishnu.” ?

‘Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

...............................................................................................................

2]–Originally Posted by Deathless:

“Lord Vishnu's worshipers would stop degrading the other devas and devis”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

‘Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

This notion that, “Lord Vishnu's worshipers degrade the other devas and devis”

Is such unmitigated supra-convoluted misdirection to the enth-degree!

The Vaishnavas accept the hierarchy of the Family tree of the devas [Dityas] that begins with Lord Brahma, which includes the biggest ‘Adityas’.

I totally doubt that your views even conceive that the “devas and devis” signify that these very same “devas and devis” that, Deathless refers to, are real living and breathing, thinking, willing & feeling celestial beings [personages] –rather, my observation is that Deathless ultimately conceives that his “devas and devis” are symbolic principles rather then real-life principals.

Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.

...............................................................................................................

3]—Originally Posted by Sambya:

“what is mainstream sources according to you ? bhagavat ? charitamrita and brahma samhita ?”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

Q.“mainstream sources???”

A. Vyasadeva & Amar chitra katha.

‘Sambya, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

[melvin]

 

1]–Originally Posted by Deathless:

“I would just like it if some of Lord Vishnu's worshipers would stop degrading the other devas and devis, as if it were some alternate way of praising Vishnu.”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

Deathless, did you mean to say,

“ . . . as if it were NOT some alternate way of praising Vishnu.” ?

‘Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

...............................................................................................................

2]–Originally Posted by Deathless:

“Lord Vishnu's worshipers would stop degrading the other devas and devis”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

‘Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

This notion that, “Lord Vishnu's worshipers degrade the otherdevas and devis”

So unmitigated supra-convoluted misdirection to the enth-degree!

The Vaishnavas except the hierarchy of the Family tree of the devas [Dityas] that begins with Lord Brahma, which includes the biggest ‘Adityas’.

I totally doubt that your views even conceive that the “devas and devis” signify that these very same “devas and devis” that, Deathless refers to, are real living and breathing, thinking, willing & feeling celestial beings [personages] –rather, my observation is that Deathless ultimately conceives that his “devas and devis” are symbolic principles rather then real-life principals.

Deathless, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.

...............................................................................................................

3]—Originally Posted by Sambya:

“what is mainstream sources according to you ? bhagavat ? charitamrita and brahma samhita ?”

Bhaktajan, who quotes qualified mentors:

Q.“mainstream sources???”

A. Vyasadeva & Amar chitra katha.

‘Sambya, I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure.’

 

Bhaktajan, your argument with sambya will get you nowhere. Sambya is a very intelligent devotee of Rama/Krsna. He can easily beat you black and blue anywhere.

[bhaktajan]

Deek!

 

For your edification, Gilligan, I am a very ignorant & fallen devotee of Rama/Krsna.

 

So, professor, please don't B.S. me --I wasn't born yesterday.

 

Are you much more fallen than me?

 

If so, I'm hip to you.

 

If not, then, ACT LIKE IT!!! [iOW, I know how to distinguish what's what ---because I senority as a friend & wellwisher of the brahmanas]

[hindustani]

Sarva mangal mangalye

Shive Sarvarth Sadhike

Sharanye Trayambke Gauri

Narayani Namostute,

Jayeti Manglakari

Bhadrakali Kapalini

Durga Shiva Kshma Dhatri

Swaha Sadha Namostute.

[raghu]

 

The Matsya does not have such a classificaton. The exact classification of Sattva Puranas comes from Padma (which classifies itself as Sattva, of course).

 

The Matsya does accept a classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. What you are likely referring to is the fact that it does not list which ones go where. But it does accept a three-fold classification scheme which is what I was referring to earlier.

[raghu]

 

most hindu terms and words cannot be translated correctly in english . we take the nearest equivalents to them. take for example the word dharma . how can one translate this word in english . it is a multi dimensional word with many deep meanings.

 

That is precisely my point. Whether "demigoddess" or "goddess," any translation betrays some inaccuracy and possibly some bias on the part of the translator.

 

 

in hinduism the supreme is described as :

 

brahman , baghavan , narayan ( to vaishnavs) vishnu( to vaishnavs ) etc

 

all these words have their female counterparts . durga is reffered as : brahmamayi , bhagavati , narayani , vaishnavi etc

 

 

Where in the shruti-s is Durga equated to Brahman?

 

 

durga doesnt fall in the catogary of 'subordinate devas' . she shares no characteristics with such devas . she is eternal , without birth or death which is not the case with the devas you are suggesting .

 

All jIva-s are eternal, without birth or death. But the positions of the devata-s are less than that of Brahman. Durga's position is also less than that of Brahman. In the Kena Upanishad 3.1-11 and 4.1-2 explain how the devas like Indra, Agni, etc were confronted by the fact that their victory was due to Brahman and that they were all powerless before Him. The same Upanishad also explains that Uma reveals this fact about Brahman to the devas. Uma is not Brahman, and this is very obvious from context.

 

 

and if you still prefer to call her demi god or half god then admit that vishnu and krishna to be imperfect ( half of them turns demigod ) .

 

non-sequiturs

 

 

what is mainstream sources according to you ? bhagavat ? charitamrita and brahma samhita ?

 

For example, the veda-s, the principal upaniShad-s, and vedAnta-sUtra which are the sources for the philosphies of Vaishnava vedAnta schools like those of madhva and rAmAnuja.

[sambya]

 

.........I am a very ignorant.........

 

SELF REALIZATION INDEED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sambya]

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by kaisersose

The Matsya does not have such a classificaton. The exact classification of Sattva Puranas comes from Padma (which classifies itself as Sattva, of course).

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

The Matsya does accept a classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. What you are likely referring to is the fact that it does not list which ones go where. But it does accept a three-fold classification scheme which is what I was referring to earlier.

 

thats what kaisersose said . read his post again

[sambya]

 

Where in the shruti-s is Durga equated to Brahman?

in shrutis mostly brahman is glorified . durga , krishna and rest all came in the puranic age( obviously mention was there but they were not situated as the highest truth) . in case you dont know my stand on such topics then i should mention that i never glorified durga to prove her supremacy over the rest. i believe as the supreme being both personal and impersonal at the same time beacuse he is infinite. and a sadhak gets to see only that portion of the supreme that he wishes to see.

 

still for your satisfaction i'll give you an example from kenopanishad :

 

after a war bwteen the devas and asuras ended the devas emerged victorious . but due to ignorance they thought themselves to be independent and ommnipotent , which they were not. they were all powered by supreme brahman. so to teach them a lesson brahman appeared in front of them in form of purusha . indra send agni to know his identity .when agni went there purusha asked " who are you ? what power do you have?" agni replied , " im agni , i have the strentgh to burn evrything on earth. " to this purusha replied " lets see how you burn this blade of grass ! " . agni tried to his best but failed . then came vayu who also failed to blow away the grass miserably. when indra himself came forward the chracter dissapeared and there appeared the divine form of uma - haimavati ( tasminnevakashe striyam jagaam vahushovamanaam umam haimavatim ). then this uma haimavati described to indra the primal power of brahman over all things.

 

now by this story three inferences can be drawn :

 

1--it clearly shows that uma or durga is non different from brahman .

2 -- it clearly ranks devi as seperate of the ordinary devas.

3 --it establishes devi's unity with purusha(identified as vishnu in later texts) also .

 

its also said " tvishirapshu goshu ya purusheshu " means -- one who gives birth to indra , purusha and cows.

 

 

Uma is not Brahman, and this is very obvious from context.

how is that ? brahman first came as purusha and then it got changed to uma . it shows perfect nondifference.

 

 

For example, the veda-s, the principal upaniShad-s, and vedAnta-sUtra which are the sources for the philosphies of Vaishnava vedAnta schools like those of madhva and rAmAnuja.

 

 

 

 

 

like to know which school do you follow ? gaudiya ? im sorry but upanishads and vedanta doesnt glorify krishna but brahman . purusha doesnt mean krishna .

 

 

 

All jIva-s are eternal, without birth or death. But the positions of the devata-s are less than that of Brahman. Durga's position is also less than that of Brahman. In the Kena Upanishad 3.1-11 and 4.1-2 explain how the devas like Indra, Agni, etc were confronted by the fact that their victory was due to Brahman and that they were all powerless before Him.

 

If you follow pure advaita then there is no existence of durga or krishna in the first place.

 

if you follow vaishnavism then there is no reason for you to be happy . brahman is not same with krishna(even vaishnavs dont see brahman as being same with krishna)

 

if you follow gyan mishra bhakti like me i have no problems with you because in that case you wont be sectarian.

 

 

also i would like to ask a serious question . DO YOU BELIEVE OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE ISLAM , CRHISTIANITY AS EQUAL PATHS TO GOD ?

[hindustani]

Are we here to prove which god or godess is superior or closeby to any god or demi type?Mind you such discussion will surely burn our good karmas hence I am refraining any comments and advise best of applicable sence here,rest all yours.

[melvin]

 

Are we here to prove which god or godess is superior or closeby to any god or demi type?Mind you such discussion will surely burn our good karmas hence I am refraining any comments and advise best of applicable sence here,rest all yours.

 

I`ve been trying to warn them to desist in arguing further whether durga is more of vishnu-shakti than siva-shakti. It will only inflame more the sentiments of those whose sides( vishnu or siva )they belong.

------

[hindustani]

I am observing that many good gyani members are not posting nowadays and such thread must be a reason of it,who are we to judge God or Godess?My direct question to those who discuss in such thread is,do his kid listen to him all the time?Do they have any voice in society and society accept what he says?Can Moon rise or set as per their wish or the sun?Can they stop time?If their answer for all above is "no"then judge your capacity and stop such bullshit posting,such posts not only spoil this holy forum but creates a bad impression of forum and its members,stop it please.

 

I`ve been trying to warn them to desist in arguing further whether durga is more of vishnu-shakti than siva-shakti. It will only inflame more the sentiments of those whose sides( vishnu or siva )they belong.

 

[melvin]

 

Deek!

 

For your edification, Gilligan, I am a very ignorant & fallen devotee of Rama/Krsna.

 

So, professor, please don't B.S. me --I wasn't born yesterday.

 

Are you much more fallen than me?

 

If so, I'm hip to you.

 

If not, then, ACT LIKE IT!!! [iOW, I know how to distinguish what's what ---because I senority as a friend & wellwisher of the brahmanas]

 

Bhaktajan, maybe you just don`t know who I was when I joined the hip hop movement? Hahaha

 

------

[hindustani]

And it is equally sinful to curse any person or his path of devotation,please start beliving in live and let live formula.We shall only know who is right or wrong after our death,today what we are due to our past birth karma and that is real astrology-all planets set in our horoscope is due to this,if I want good karma for my next birth and keep intact whatever my positive karma for present life I shall never involve myself in discussion like this in such comparison of which God is ...etc etc,may God bless us.

[sambya]

 

I am observing that many good gyani members are not posting nowadays and such thread must be a reason of it,who are we to judge God or Godess?

 

i didnt start the thrread to stir up an argument . i merely stated some facts in the evolutionary process of shakti tatwa from a perspective of history .read the thread once more to verify me. but the discussion took a different turn towards proving superiority and stuff .

 

i showed number of quotes in support of durga , not to prove that she is the highest but only to show the orthodox gaudiyas that shastras doesnt necessarily elevate only krishna to the highest position.

 

i believe in advaita and hence cant accept one particular god to be the supreme over the rest.

 

moreover , being the follower of ramakrishna vivekananda thought i cant accept all the rubbish that gaudiyas traditionally hurls on other dieties .

[raghu]

 

in shrutis mostly brahman is glorified .

 

And Vishnu is that supreme Brahman. What does it mean to you when the Rig Veda 1.2.22.20 refers to the "paramam padam" of Vishnu? It does not get much clearer than that. What does it mean to you when the Katha Upanishad describes the path of attaining Brahman and then in that same context speaks of the "end of the journey, the Highest place of Vishnu" (Katha 3.9)?

 

Are you telling me that Vishnu is supreme, and yet there is some Brahman that is more supreme? Or that Brahman is not supreme?

 

There is no evidence in the shruti to suggest that Vishnu is different from Brahman and every reason to believe otherwise. Except of course, from a few obscure and inconsistent smritis like the ones you quoted. Even the shvetAshvatara can easily be interpreted from a Vishnu angle for the sake of consistency, while assuming a Shaivite interpretation makes it contradict other pramAna-s like the Katha, the Rig Veda, etc.

 

 

still for your satisfaction i'll give you an example from kenopanishad :

 

after a war bwteen the devas and asuras ended the devas emerged victorious . but due to ignorance they thought themselves to be independent and ommnipotent , which they were not. they were all powered by supreme brahman. so to teach them a lesson brahman appeared in front of them in form of purusha . indra send agni to know his identity .when agni went there purusha asked " who are you ? what power do you have?" agni replied , " im agni , i have the strentgh to burn evrything on earth. " to this purusha replied " lets see how you burn this blade of grass ! " . agni tried to his best but failed . then came vayu who also failed to blow away the grass miserably. when indra himself came forward the chracter dissapeared and there appeared the divine form of uma - haimavati ( tasminnevakashe striyam jagaam vahushovamanaam umam haimavatim ). then this uma haimavati described to indra the primal power of brahman over all things.

 

now by this story three inferences can be drawn :

 

1--it clearly shows that uma or durga is non different from brahman .

2 -- it clearly ranks devi as seperate of the ordinary devas.

3 --it establishes devi's unity with purusha(identified as vishnu in later texts) also .

 

its also said " tvishirapshu goshu ya purusheshu " means -- one who gives birth to indra , purusha and cows.

 

 

how is that ? brahman first came as purusha and then it got changed to uma . it shows perfect nondifference.

 

It shows nothing of the sort. This is an example of the sort of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from the modern-day, neo-advaitins who throw words around like "veda,upanishad,atman," and "brahman" with no idea as to what they are talking about.

 

There is nothing in the Sanskrit of the Kena Up. that equates Uma with Brahman. On the contrary, it was Uma who had to appear and explain Brahman's position to Indra and the rest. Uma is obviously different from Brahman. Otherwise, the idea that Indra would have to ask her about Him is nonsensical. Nowhere in the text does Uma identify herself as Brahman. Nowhere in the text does it say that Brahman "got changed into Uma." There is nothing in the Sanskrit that can even be remotely interpreted that way.

 

Have you even read the Kena Upanishad? Apparently not. Can you people not at least trouble yourself to check your sources before you start throwing them around as supposed "proof" of your views?

 

 

like to know which school do you follow ? gaudiya ? im sorry but upanishads and vedanta doesnt glorify krishna but brahman . purusha doesnt mean krishna .

 

Accepting that Krishna and Vishnu are the same Deity (no reason to believe otherwise for most Hindus as far as I know), then you are grossly incorrect. For me to accept your statement as correct, you will have to explain away the multiple statements in the Vedas and Upanishads (some of which I just quoted above) which speak of Vishnu's supreme position.

 

 

If you follow pure advaita then there is no existence of durga or krishna in the first place.

 

if you follow vaishnavism then there is no reason for you to be happy . brahman is not same with krishna(even vaishnavs dont see brahman as being same with krishna)

 

if you follow gyan mishra bhakti like me i have no problems with you because in that case you wont be sectarian.

 

Several points:

 

1) People like you are mostly attracted to what you think advaita is on the premise that it is "non-sectarian" (i.e. bland, formless, impersonal, etc). But factually, the basics of advaita philosophy are not sound. For example, if brahman alone exists, then what about mAyA? Does it exist, or does it not exist? How can brahman be supreme and yet come under the influence of mAyA? If world is unreal then how can anything we do lead to mokSha? If brahman is without attributes then why do advaitins ascribe attributes to it like sat, cit, Ananda? And the doubts go on and on.

 

2) I don't know where you get your information about "Vaishnavism," but it is obvious that you do not understand the basics of Vaishnava vedanta.

 

3) Same goes for your concept of "gyan mishra bhakti." I am sure you think you are following something, but I see no evidence from your postings that you even understand what bhakti or "gyan" is.

 

 

also i would like to ask a serious question . DO YOU BELIEVE OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE ISLAM , CRHISTIANITY AS EQUAL PATHS TO GOD ?

 

No.

 

Now I woud like to ask you a question. Do you believe leaving the caps lock key on makes up for the lack of substance in your posting?

[raghu]

 

moreover , being the follower of ramakrishna vivekananda thought i cant accept all the rubbish that gaudiyas traditionally hurls on other dieties .

 

Ahh, now the cat is finally out of the bag. And here I thought you claimed to be a believer in Advaita. Being a Vivekananda follower, you must surely agree with his view that "you will get closer to heaven by football than by the Gita," right? So why all this talk of scripture and philosophy? Just go tone up your biceps and feed the Gods in the street!

[bhaktajan]

Bhaktajan: .........I am a very ignorant.........

Sambya: SELF REALIZATION INDEED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bhaktajan: how did you come to that understanding? You quoted the honest opinion of a Vaishnava.

................................................................................................

Hindustani: “ . . . many good gyani members are not posting nowadays and such thread must be a reason of it . . .”

Sambya: “ . . .i didnt start the thrread to stir up an argument . i merely stated some facts in the evolutionary process of shakti tatwa . . .to show the orthodox gaudiyas . . . i believe in advaita and hence cant accept . . . all the rubbish that gaudiyas . . .”

Bhaktajan to Sambya:

A] It shows nothing of the sort. This is an example of the sort of intellectual dishonesty” ---seems like my opinion too matches that of other learned Vaishnavas.

B] "It is obvious that you do not understand the basics of Vaishnava vedanta." ---seems like my opinion too matches that of other learned Vaishnavas.

C] "You are being obtuse –I do not know if you are doing it intentionally or not. ---seems like my opinion too matches that of other learned Vaishnavas."

................................................................................................

Bhaktajan to Hindustani:

The word 'Purusha' means, 'person' --

just as people are persons with unique personas animated by the presence of a Spirit-soul;

and just as animals & beasts & fowl & fish & jungle abhoriginals are material bodies animated by the presence of a Spirit-soul;

and just as Demi-gods like Lord Brahma have unique personas animated by the presence of a Spirit-soul;

So also a mono-theistic Almighty God has the unique right to his one any only unique birth right: to be recognised as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or, "as the Supreme Personality of Personlism".

Vyasadev compiled the Vedas for posterity –so we accept the sampradaya that descends from Vyasadev and therefore also we accept Vyasadev’s verdict and version as it is written.

The bhagavata-purana contains more than 570 shlokas that delineate all the devatas, Manus, Maharajas, vamsas and all the other great personalities of the Bhagavatam and their relationship(s).

 

These relationships are further exponded in the puranas etc. The material and spiritual lives, pastimes, wives and children and adventures take have occured [since Brahma was born] are seperately explored and revealed to us in the various puranas etc --so we are obliged to gather the data and arrange it in order [as per the personalities in them] and decorate them on a family tree.

 

The Gods of the Vedas are the descendants of the first born person, Brahma. Brahma is the first progenitor and engineer and assembler of the cosmos –Lord Brahma is the overseeing superintendent of the cosmos in the form of a person, literally.

Brahma populated the universe via his grandchildrens’ grandchildrens ad infinitum to this day.

The personalities that populate the Vedic scriptures come from an antiquity pre-dating western lore and hieroglyphics.

[sambya]

 

Ahh, now the cat is finally out of the bag. And here I thought you claimed to be a believer in Advaita. Being a Vivekananda follower, you must surely agree with his view that "you will get closer to heaven by football than by the Gita," right? So why all this talk of scripture and philosophy? Just go tone up your biceps and feed the Gods in the street!

 

i thought to replying individually to each of your points but after reading the second post i changed my mind .its useless . i think ive understood your stand .

 

there nothing to be out of the bag . i have always declared that in this forum and there has been lot of discussion already in this forum on such topics(ramakrishna vivekananda ) . and im convinced that this discussion would lead us nowhere. it has happened before .

 

but all i can say is ignorance is the cause of hate . and the guru( i wont name him) who highlited these points(leaving the rest out) did not ever study vivekananda or ramakrishna , which is quite evident from the misinformation that he persents in his sayings. i would request you to actually read though ramakrishna's sayings (the best book would be the gospel of ramakrishna) and try to grasp the meaning of it . remember im saying this not to make you convert or stuff like that.

 

when you blasphemise anyone you must have proper knowledge about the person .

 

and obviously the two quotes that you gave was cleverly extaracted from a big speech deliberately ommiting the rest . misinterpretations are inevitable if you go by such methods of qouting.

 

if you are comfortable in a sectarian belief than who am i to say anything ? you are well situated in your sectarianism .its your freedom of thought . but most vaishnavs like to believe of themselves as broadminded liberal persons and yet blasphemise other faiths . i try to adress them not you .

 

in your case ive nothing to say . you are convinced of your narrowmindedness and happy with it , like the addicts who feel blessed on drugs . sadly untill you are out of the drug you cant realise your position.

 

godbless , bye.......................

[coolrishu]

nice conversation

i think sambya you get most from this "post"

it was really interesting

but you are right because your question is simple........but really the answers are too many and pathetic ones

[coolrishu]

interesting gupshup

[kimfelix]

Some of the personal stuff is a bit of distraction but thank you for all these posts, many of which have been most enlightening. Just a couple of points to add, which occurred whilst I was reading.

 

1. The threefold classification of Puranas does seem to be a part of the Vaishnava view and is found in the Padma Purana, as cited above. There is also a threefold division based on gunas to be found in the Garuda Purana (Brahma Khanda, 1.45-53) but there the three lists are rather different to those given by the Padma. Having read quite a bit of Puranic literature I would say that the guna classification is not sustainable as there is so little difference between works that are said to be tamasic and those judged to be sattvic--apart perhaps from the Deity they revere.

 

2. Radha is not a late invention of the Geeta Govinda. Her name is not mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana but she is mentioned in the Mahashiva Purana and in the Brahmavaivarta Purana.