Is Lord Krishna the Source of Lady Radha?

[Guest guest]

Or is She the Source of Him?

[Kulapavana]

these are material concepts (source of origin). Krishna and Radha exist eternally and simultaneously.

[Guest guest]

Krishna is the source of Radha, because He is Bimba or the original person and everything else, including Radha, is prati-bimba or reflected images. Since reflection cannot exist without the original, both apara prakriti and para-prakriti (Shri or radha) are subordinate to Krishna, being prati-bimbas.

[Guest guest]

these are material concepts (source of origin)***

 

How so?

 

Krishna and Radha exist eternally and simultaneously***

 

And your point? Even jada-prakriti is decribed as eternal and existing 'simultaneously' with Vishnu.

[Kulapavana]

was there a time when Sri Radha did not exist? how can there be an issue of "source" if all these personalities and beings are always there? sure, Krishna is the source of everything - it is a nice, general statement, but there is a lot more to it, and there are several ways to look at these relationships.

 

and what exactly do you mean by "origin" or "source"?

[Guest guest]

how can there be an issue of "source" if all these personalities and beings are always there?***

 

This is not an issue of time, because I know that's what you're getting at. Krishna is the source, because it is because of Him (bimba) that the world and all the beings, including Radha, exist as his reflected images or prati-bimbas. Without Him, they wouldn't exist, just as without the real sun, its reflection in the lake wouldn't exist. In that sense, the real thing is the source of the reflection.

 

When you look in the mirror, you see the reflection of your face. The source of that reflection is your real face. Even if your face is eternal (and thereby making the reflection eternal), yet the "eternal reflection" has a source in your real face. This is what origin means, and it's not necessarily related to time, because I am sure you're equating origin, source etc. with creation that takes place within the field of time, wondering on this account how eternal entities like radha can be 'created.'

[Kulapavana]

there is more to it than time. these things just exist together. the concept that a face cannot exist without the reflection. any idea like: without Him we could not exist is figurative speach and pure theory or speculation.

 

THERE IS NO KRISHNA WITHOUT RADHA AND THERE CANNOT EVER BE KRISHNA WITHOUT RADHA

[Guest guest]

I don't think so. Nor is it figure of speech. It is well established by Madhva and other acharyas that Vishnu is the original person and without Him, even Shri could not exist, which is why even Shri (who is nitya-mukta) has to do sadhana by acting as an instrumental cause of the universe, supporting jada as well as ajada prakriti in creating this world and the jivas.

 

OTOH, it is sentimental as well as illogical to say that Krishna can NEVER exist without Radha. By saying that, you're imposing a limitation on the all-powerful Supreme Lord. If Krishna cannot exist without Radha, that would mean Krishna is NOT an independent reality, his existence depends on another entity, thus reducing Iswara to the level of a mere jiva.

 

Regards,

Dvaitin

[Kulapavana]

when people create in their mind situations that never were, or never will be, that is called speculation.

 

yes Krishna is an independent reality, but Radha is an eternal and inseparable part of that reality. that is not a limitation in any way on the Supreme Lord, as She is a part of Him. just like there is no magnet with just one pole, there is no Krishna without Radha.

 

The absolute position of the male aspect of God is often emphasized to counteract the shakta worship tendencies in general population.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do you mean to say Radha is Krishna's potency or attribute? If so, it follows that an entity and its attributes are one. You cannot separate them. If you separate them, it is tantamount to saying, "The ball is red but different from its redness, it is round and different from its roundness" and so forth. Obviously, that's absurd. An entity and its potencies/qualities are one, because it is only by them the entity can be defined in the first place.

 

So if you consider Radha an attribute or potency of Krishna, it means you're suggesting that Radha and Krishna are one and the same. If so, either Krishna or Radha must exist, two entities cannot exist if there is oneness. So either Radha or Krishna must be non-existent if you consider one of them to be an attribute or potency of another.

 

Regards,

Dvaitin

[Kulapavana]

"Do you mean to say Radha is Krishna's potency or attribute? If so, it follows that an entity and its attributes are one. You cannot separate them."

 

yes, Krishna and His attributes are one. that is the belief in our sampradaya.

 

you are trying to fit the inconcievable into your framework of reference and concepts. that is nice, but you should realize the limitations of this approach.

 

like Clint Eastwood once said: "Man has to know his limitations" /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

I have perhaps reached mine. Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

If, as you say, Krishna and Radha are one, why does your sampradaya say that Krishna and Radha are lovers, for love implies more than one entity? I am just trying to understand this better, that's all. No need to get worked up. Haribol!

[Kulapavana]

I'm not worked up. Reaching my limit referred to the limits of my knowledge and understanding. These are very, very advanced topics. Way past reason and logic. How deep is your love for Krishna? At some point that is the limiting factor in understanding of such topics.