Talk:Radha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Ayana and Abhimanyu
I'm posting this here in order to address a request for further justifications for changes I made on 15 Dec.
First, I think that this article, like any on related subjects needs in the first place, to address and describe Radha, as understood by the majority of Hindus. This may not be quite in accordance with the way she is seen in certain groups. But this is an encyclopaedia, and any further information on such views should be added, as an addendum to the mainstream view of Radha. The Mahabharata forms a basic corpus of stories which can be understood to reflect a majority opinion.
The main point is this statement “According to some stories, she is married to Abhimanyu.” This was removed by me, and reverted to the original “According to some stories, she is married to the cowherd Ayana.”
According to the Mahabharata, Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna and Subhadra, and nephew of Krishna, is firstly, a generation later than Radha, but he is also explicitly married to Uttara, daughter of Virata. (Adi Parva and Drona Parva, within the MB). I've checked the synopsis for this Abhimanyu in some reference literature, and there is no mention of Radha there. As far as I am concerned, this Abhimanyu is the person generally known by the name.
I've done an internet search and found references to a possible marriage of another Abhimanyu ('Abhimanyu, the son of Jatila'), and Radha, e.g. at http://purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20020909.shtml . It seems that Ayana is another name for this Abhimanyu – see http://www.salagram.net/parishad129.htm where it says “... Ayana Ghosh, Abhimanyu, who is known as the husband of Radha...”.
There are many references to both names on the internet. Because Abhimanyu is more generally understood to be the son of Arjuna, I think a suitable solution would be that the name Ayana continue to be used here, but with a reference to the alternative name. I have modified the article accordingly.
Thanks. Imc 15:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Radha the Gopi / The Consort of Krishna
I've renamed the first section, on the important Radha, to Radha the Gopi. While ISKCON and similarly minded people would regard her as Krishna's consort, in the Mahabharata, and the older corpus of works, Krishna's wife is clearly Rukmini. There is currently a separate article on Radharani which would probably be a better place to develop the view of Radha as Krishna's consort. Imc 17:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Radha is the same as Radharani, just different forms of the name. Thus I don't really understand the necessity to make different articles. Besides Krishna had many wives (although Rukmini is the most famous), according tome some legends even as many as 16108. There is no need to put Krishna in western monogamic worldview. However, it is not correct that ISKCON regard Radha to be Krishna's wife. Their relationships are considered to be of paramour. Lonehermit 21:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I accept that Radha and Radharani are the same person. The point I'd make is that the articles are not on the same subject. One article is about Radha in the general corpus of Hindu scripture, in which she is another of the gopis. The other is about Radha in many Vaishnava traditions, where she is well on the way to becoming a deity herself. However, if you feel able to condense all that material in the Radharani article into an encyclopaedic format and reintegrate it into one coherent Radha article, please feel free to do so. Imc 20:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Radharanis topmost position in the scriptures
I disaggre that Radharani's or Radha's (same person) topmost position is not there inthe scriptures. It is understood that whatever form the lord appears in, there is a corresponding Lakshmi form who acts as His eternal consort. When the Lord appears as a god, Lakshmi appears as a goddess. When the Lord advents as an ordinary human being, Lakshmi also descends upon this earth as an ordinary human being.
'Of all the manifestations of Lakshmidevi, Srimati Radharani is the Supreme Goddess, just as amongst so many avatars of Godhead, Krishna is the supreme Personality of Godhead.'
This is confirmed in the Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra, which states, 'Sri Radhika is the Supreme Goddess. Her very nature is Krishna, for her very existence is permeated by Krishna. Therefore she is known as Krishnamayi or one who is full of Krishna. She is known as Paradevata, for she is the Supreme Goddess. All other goddesses are subordinate to her. She is the Supreme Lakshmi and her transcendental effulgence surpasses all conceptions of brilliance. She is the supreme enchantress, for she enchants Krishna Himself, who is capable of charming millions of cupids.'
There are many other Puranas wher Her SUPREME position is described and in the Brihad Bhagavatamrita a book which is the ultimate essence of the essence of all the Vedas (Vedanta).
- In reply to the anonymous contribution above, I would suggest that the scriptures are different for different traditions, and you are describing what is in a particular tradition. Imc 20:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Imc: Which scriptures for which traditions? The topic is Radha(rani) so it is a matter of Vaisnava scriptures and Vaisnava tradition. Not all Vaisnavas worship Her, that's another thing. The above comments about mainstream view, Mahabharata as 'reflecting majority opinion' (argumentum ad numeram; where did you get this idea from?), Rukmini, confusing two different Abhimanyus and Radha 'becoming deity' show lack of understanding. Do you really have to edit what is not your cup of tea? Jan
- The original Mahabharata can be taken as 'mainstream' tradition, as opposed to the material developed by recent Gaudiya traditions. The development of the these traditions is widely known. I did not confuse the two Abhimanyus, another contributer did, and I elucidated it, if you care to read closely. Radha has developed into a deity, for instance of ISKCON, while she was only a gopi originally, and is still only a gopi to those who do not treat Gaudiya traditions as their own. Imc 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Radha as a Gopi?
I believe on the basis of whatever little I have come across in the scriputres, about Radha Rani, that she is above the Gopis. In fact there are some places where she is described to be in a plane way above the reach of any mortal. I understand the fact that the Gopi's are the greatest devotees of the Lord, but keeping in mind the fact that Radha Rani is described as not being different from Shri Krishna, one must not make the error of comparing Her with the Gopis.
As far as the Gopis are concerned, some of them were from Goloka and some others were in their previous lives the paramhamsas who had recognised Lord Rama as being the Supreme Personality of Godhead and then some of the rest were agniputras in their previous lives. At present, I am sorry to say that I do not have the exact names of the manuscripts where this information appears but I assure the community here that I will furnish it as soon as I am able to locate it. However, this might take considerable time.
[edit] Cleanup
This follows from the cleanup tag, which is still appropriate given the current state of the article. It still needs cleaning up. I've rewritten the introduction. I've commented out much of the current article because of various reasons; 1. some sections written in unencyclopaedic manner, and needs to be rewritten; 2. some sections need evidence, or explanation. There are further specific comments in the article body. The use of such terms as 'expansion' and 'pastime 'is specific to a particular school, and is not generally understood, and need explaining, together with context, or different terms to be used. Imc 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pirate link deleted
I have deleted a link to harekrsna.com. The site knowingly and persistently bootlegs book-length copyrighted text.
At <harekrsna.com/philosophy/acarya/writings.htm> (prefix that with "www") you will find more than 50 volumes of copyrighted books the site has no right to publish.
Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.
The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."
O Govinda 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
