position of shrimati Radha rani in Sri Vaishnava (Ramanuja) Samprdaya

[Guest guest]

Jai Sri Krishna

 

I understand that Sri (Ramanuja) Vaisnavas worship Bhagavan largely in mood of awe and Reverence hence their priority of murthies such as Laxminarayan and Rukmini Krishna in worship. But Gopee bhav or sweetness is still there as Sri Andal a mojor figure in this Sect was absorbed in Bhagavan in mood of Sweetness.

 

However i have not come acrross any reference to Srimati Radha Rani in particular in Sri Vaishanva Sampradayam Despite the huge emphasis on other aspects of the lords shakthis such as Sri, Bhu and Nila. Radha worship is generally associated within the worship and theology of Gaudiya and Nimbarka Vaishnavism. And to some extent In Pusthtimarg, where she is reverently called Swaminiji.

 

Threfore What is the official position held in the Sri Vaishnava Sampraday concerning Radha. Thanks

 

[Guest guest]

Due to Her not being explicitly mentioned in the vedas or even bhagavata purana by name, the srivaishnava position on Radha is not clear. Some commonly held positions are

 

A. That She is Neela Devi (Nappinnai)

B. That She is a highly elevated jiva due to lack of evidence to the contrary.

[Guest guest]

see the suggestion uhave made Vanamalai that

"That She is a highly elevated jiva due to lack of evidence to the contrary"

 

i have come acroos before. This contradicts the teology of gaudiyaa where she is shakti and not jiva. they actualy say that radha is the source of Mahalakshmi.

[Guest guest]

Smt. Radha is a fictitious character, to describe the potency of Lord, one who represents the most highest form a devotee ever loved by Lord Himself to the extent, He cannot control Himself appearing in the form She likes rather than the more usual four armed form as Mahavishnu present in all the Jiva as the Supersoul. Two armed form of Lord Shree Hari as Sree Krishna is supposed to be more Higher form that He gives Darshan to His most favorite devotees only. The fact that He appears in two armed form to Radha all the time, is to make others understand how He can be attracted through one's total devotion and Pure form of Love. Radhe is SreeLakshmi or viceversa depending on how Baghwan appears for that moment. While Gaudiya Vaishnavas worship exclusively Radha and Krishna, other Vaishnavites and Saivites worship all forms of Lord and His Potency, as Mahalakshmi and Shree Hari, but in such temples and sangham its also a common practice in South India to perform "Radha Kalyanam" where Sree Krishna is wedded to Radha during the ceremony.

Raghavan

[Guest guest]

"Smt. Radha is a fictitious character, to describe the potency of Lord"

 

my duty is to say to you that this concept for us gaudya vaishnavas is blasphemy and that brings to the conclusion that also krsna is ficticious

 

radha is krsna.. radha is the supreme servant personality of godhead, krsna is the supreme enjoyer personality of godhead

 

from radha's personality all forms of service and love for god come

[vanamali]

>>> see the suggestion uhave made Vanamalai that

"That She is a highly elevated jiva due to lack of evidence to the contrary"

 

>>> i have come acroos before. This contradicts the teology of gaudiyaa where she is shakti and not jiva. they actualy say that radha is the source of Mahalakshmi.

 

In Gaudiya Theology, Radha is given the importance that Lakshmi is given in Sri Sampradaya. In addition, Lakshmi's love for Sri Hari is also downplayed, saying that it is much less than Radha's love for Him.

 

In Sri Sampradaya, it is Sridevi who joins the jivas with Bhagavan, and She is the one who has the utmost love for Him, and also is the Supreme Goddess

------------

 

I must also mention that being a jiva in Sri Vaishnavism, does not preclude one from being "shakti" ie. a Devi and Consort of Sri Hari.

 

Lakshmi is a jiva according to one school of Sri Vaishnavism, and is ishvara tattva according to another.(please forgive me if I have not stated this properly) But both agree that Sridevi is the highest goddess.

 

Anyway, the important thing is that both sampradayas worship sri hari. Don't focus too much on differences. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

----

 

Raghavan, for Gaudiyas, Krishna is the source of incarnations, rather than Sriman Narayana, and Radha is the supreme Devi rather than Lakshmi. So I don't think it's useful to say that Radha is "fictional." Perhaps a better word would be "symbolic" as she is both real (as a Person) and representative of the ultimate devotional state just as Sridevi is the ultimate Devotee in Sri Sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

"In Gaudiya Theology, Radha is given the importance that Lakshmi is given in Sri Sampradaya"

 

no it is different..

 

radha is not a companion of krsna.. radha IS krsna

[Guest guest]

I guess this guest did not understand what I am trying to say. By saying fictitious, I mean symbolic (as rightly put by Vanamali) and this is truth and this does not mean that I also said Krishna is Fictitious. Krishnaa's presence as transcendental physical form is evidenced by Vyasa and He lived in that form with people while Radha did not. Radha is a concept to describe Lord's potency and thats why she is said to be non-different from Lord. Various stories of Radha is primarily to describe association of a pure devotee with Lord and how Lord can be attracted through devotional service and Love.

It does not make any sense to be blatantly emotional and call others as wrong without proper understanding of what the other individual is saying.

Raghavan (For some reason login page is not working for me)

[vanamali]

>>>"In Gaudiya Theology, Radha is given the importance that Lakshmi is given in Sri Sampradaya"

 

>>>no it is different..

radha is not a companion of krsna.. radha IS krsna

 

are you saying that in gaudiya theology, radha is isvara tattva? I am not so sure.

 

Even if so, one school of sri vaisnavism would be in agreement about sridevi's position (at least partially)

 

anyway... jaya sri krishna

[vanamali]

the orig. question has been answered, I hope. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

 

Radha is a concept to describe Lord's potency and thats why she is said to be non-different from Lord.

 

 

 

I think guestji got it more or less right. Sri Radha is not just a concept but a Person, and is only as "symbolic" as you and myself are i.e. She is a Person just as all of us are; just illustrates the inconceivable nature of the Lord in that His sakti is a Person though non-different from Him. btw the aspect of non-difference is also said for jivas but that does not mean that all the jivas are "symbolic" or whatever.

 

p.s. Srila Vyasadeva is considered a saktivesa avataara, i.e. an empowered jiva not visnu-tattva. Krishna presence in this physical realm was as Krishna and Radha as Radha; why is there any confusion unless you want to propagate the theory that all the stories are actually allegorical.

[Guest guest]

Radha is not a concept. Although her name does not appear in SB, her words do. Her name appears in the Padma Purana and other authentic puranas and more to that she is realised and attained by the great devotees in the gaudiya,Nimbarka and VishnuSwami groups. You can also realise her if you want. Laxmi is an expansion of Radha or if you like Radha might be considered to be an expansion of Laxmi. But they are the same person enjoying different pastimes.

Radha Kunda dasa

[Guest guest]

I guess this guest did not understand what I am trying to say. By saying fictitious, I mean symbolic

--exactly what i have understood... it is blasphemy

 

Krishnaa's presence as transcendental physical form is evidenced by Vyasa

--vyasadeva wrote also bhagavat purana 10th canto where's also srimati radharani

 

"Radha is a concept to describe Lord's potency and thats why she is said to be non-different from Lord. Various stories of Radha is primarily to describe association of a pure devotee with Lord and how Lord can be attracted through devotional service and Love."

--i think that you with insufficient devotion and realization are improperly discriminating what part of scriptures is real and what part is symbolic or allegoric. I think it is risky for your spiritual advancement

 

It does not make any sense to be blatantly emotional

--irrational is the word... you are irrational in making such statements, i simply said that what you said is considered a blasphemy by a great part of krsna's followers in the world. Simple information

 

 

[Guest guest]

"are you saying that in gaudiya theology, radha is isvara tattva? I am not so sure."

 

of course... in gaudya tattva lord is "radha-krsna", not "krsna"

 

when we chant hare krsna, hare is radhe, the internal loving potency of krsna

 

so a krsna's potency is non different by krsna so she's krsna

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

 

of course... in gaudya tattva lord is "radha-krsna", not "krsna"

 

 

 

Is "krsna" any different from "radha-krsna"? If you mean from the rasa point of view, then of course it is fine but not from tattva point of view.

 

 

so a krsna's potency is non different by krsna so she's krsna

 

 

 

This needs more clarification. There has been considerable debate on this issue recently here: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/...

You can see both points of view; suffice to say what you mean is not the consensus and clearly gaudiya tattva is not as simple as "Radha is vishnu-tattva" etc.

[Guest guest]

Is "krsna" any different from "radha-krsna"?

••the proper understanding of krsna is not different by understanding him in his environment with his associates. So krsna without goloka, or mathura, or dwaraka means nothing.. to separate krsna from his lilas is like separating krsna from his qualities and acivities.. impersonalism, then mayavadism.

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

I am not sure what to make of your reply; first you say that Lord is "radha-krsna" and *not* "krsna" making some differentiation in the two and then say that Krsna is not different from His lilas; Krsna includes all that what you list so what's the difference of opinion.

Anyway, if this has to be discussed then please use another thread or continuation of older related threads (will be more convenient if you sign your posts)

[Guest guest]

--exactly what i have understood... it is blasphemy

 

>>> Just as Ramacandra is "symbolic" of the perfect ruler (ie. setting an example to be followed) Radha is also "symbolic" of the perfect devotee. This also means that indeed, Radha IS the perfect devotee, and Rama IS the consummate perfect ruler. Radha's objective existence is not violated when she is seen as the ultimate devotee and role model for pure love for Krishna.

 

--i think that you with insufficient devotion and realization are improperly discriminating what part of scriptures is real and what part is symbolic or allegoric. I think it is risky for your spiritual advancement

 

>>> It is not necessary to insult others for having less of devotion and realization when in reality only Krishna and highly advanced devotees can be judge of that.

 

>>> It does not make any sense to be blatantly emotional

--irrational is the word... you are irrational in making such statements, i simply said that what you said is considered a blasphemy by a great part of krsna's followers in the world. Simple information

 

-- It may seem blasphemous if some say that Radha was not a real historical figure. Nevertheless, some do hold that view as again I say Radha is not specifically mentioned in Bhagavatam, however much Gaudiyas think her name is there in a subtle/hidden form.

 

However, neither Raghavan nor I am saying that Radha was not a real historical figure. We are saying that Radha is both a real Person, and a role model as a Person who has perfect prema bhakti. Anything wrong with that?

 

-------------------

 

>>> Is "krsna" any different from "radha-krsna"?

••the proper understanding of krsna is not different by understanding him in his environment with his associates. So krsna without goloka, or mathura, or dwaraka means nothing.. to separate krsna from his lilas is like separating krsna from his qualities and acivities.. impersonalism, then mayavadism.

 

--- Krishna in any dham is no less Krishna. If Krishna appeared in Japan right now, He is no less God than if He is in vrindavan, mathura, dvaarakaa, vaikuntha... Krishna apart from His leelas is still Krishna. Doesn't mean He is nirguna brahman all of a sudden.

[Guest guest]

following your message:

 

if you use "symbol" in this way, maybe it would be better to use "example"

 

to discriminate what's allegoric and what's real is risky, simple.. if i do it i risk, if you do it you risk...

 

again i have said that for gaudya to think that radha is not existing like a rela personality is blasphemous..

 

krsna in any dham is also the source and the sustainer of any dham.. he can have his dham everywhere, because goloka vrindavan is actually everywhere, omnipervadent because a devotee can see it everywhere and a materialist never sees it even if situated in "vrindavan up india"

 

to think krsna out of his lilas means to take away the activities of krsna from krsna. Take out also the features (guna) and you'll easily have nirguna..

[Guest guest]

>>> to discriminate what's allegoric and what's real is risky, simple.. if i do it i risk, if you do it you risk...

 

--- I do not consider myself to decide what is purely allegorical and what is "real." I like to study the writings of previous acharyas. My original reply to this thread is that in Sri Vaishnavism, Radha is either Neela Devi or an elevated jiva. That is NOT the Gaudiya position, NOR am I saying it is.

 

Yes, "exemplary" is a better word to describe my view of Radha in this case.

 

I admit I am not familiar with the idea of thinking of Krishna WITH or WITHOUT leela- I am not sure what this means, or the argument behind it. Suffice it to say that Krishna is there, He is real, we are real, the Devis are real, and all love each other unmeasurably.

 

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

 

to think krsna out of his lilas means to take away the activities of krsna from krsna. Take out also the features (guna) and you'll easily have nirguna..

 

 

 

Please do not use such material calculations in the spiritual realm. In the gaudiya tattva Krishna is *never* (by never i mean never, even as brahmajyoti) without sakti. The two are inseparable in all circumstances. The nirguna Brahm without sakti is just an imagination of advaitins. In gaudiya siddhanta nirguna means without material gunas and the transcendental gunas (or sakti) are inherant part of Krishna; i think this has been made repeatedly clear. So when we say Krishna it includes everything (sakti/lilas whatever) and when we say "Radha-Krishna" we also specifically denote the rasa aspect of sakti.

 

Anyway, please use a new thread if this particular thing has to be discussed. The original question has already been answered by vanamaliji.

[Guest guest]

Anyway, please use a new thread if this particular thing has to be discussed.

 

i am not interested.. it was only instrumental for the subject. If krsna is non different from his leela and dhama, let us imagine if he's different from srimati radharani

 

only this

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

I must point this out. I find it strange as to why are you so eager to search impersonalism in others' conceptions. How is there remotely any chance of the devotees of Krishna to be impersonalists. Even if it be agreed that there is some misconception, why do you apply your strange reductionist logic to show impersonalism in worship/attachment of Krishna. Kindly realise that impersonalism is principally as regards the ultimate goal that one has in the mind, and not due to any imperfect understanding of God (which everyone's is, in some way or the other, who is not a pure devotee).

[Guest guest]

we are discussing between devotees with the precise purpose to focus our goals to krsna...

 

if we have some misconceptions it is because our goal is not so pure..

 

 

[vanamali]

if we have some misconceptions it is because our goal is not so pure..

----------

 

The gopis in bhagavatam were unaware of Krishna's godhood at least at the beginning. Does that mean their goals were not pure?

 

Of course we are not great devotees like the gopis of brindavan, but at least realize that krishna takes those who love him, and does not necessarily care about having all the correct theological points memorized.

 

But if there is more to be learned, then we should of course try to learn.