Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RadheRade1657


    She left the planet in intense separation from Krishna on the banks of the Yamuna. The Sakhis then drowned her body in the Yamuna according to her orders. She then incarnated as Satyabhama devi and was married to Krishna in Dwarika.


    After Krishna left she wandered around as if she were mad. Yes, she embraced trees especially tamal trees (dark colored trees that were the same color as Krishna) thinking them to be Krishna.


    Very sad, very very sad.

    There is a nice song by Narottam das Thakura on this matter. You can hear it by going to the following page: http://kksongs.org/audio/sri_krsna_virohe.mp3


    This is the meaning:

    1) Whenever Radha is suffering in separation from Krsna and I am unable to give any solace, my heart breaks for I am unable to tolerate seeing Her condition so pitiful. Then I am fully prepared to give up my life for the sake of Their happy reunion.

    2) If I were ever to give up the lotus feet of Sri Radhika, I would become totally devastated in an instant. For Her sake, I am prepared to tolerate the pain and the agony of death hundreds of times.

    3) When will I be able to serve such a divine pair of lotus feet as Radha's? Alas, I beg you all, oh residents of Vraja, please be merciful to me now! When will you take me in the transcendental forests of Vrndavana?

    4) Oh Vilasa Manjari! Oh Ananga Manjari! Oh Rupa Manjari! Please lift me up and bring me close to your own lotus feet, thus bestowing upon me the quintessence of eternal spiritual perfection!

    That's terrible! Poor Radha :( That's so sad. How long after He left did She die? I can't even imagine what the Gopis must've went through after She died :( I always wear a pendant of Her lotus feet... those poor feet that wandered around the forests of Vrindavan longing for Sri Krishna to come back so they could run to Him :(

    Radhe Radhe!

  2. Whenever I try to put up a custom avatar, I get the message "This is not a valid image.", and I don't know why. I make it the appropriate size, and the picture isn't innapropriate or anything (it's Krsna at Radarani's lotus feet). So, why is it that I can't put the picture up? Any suggestions? :confused:

  3. Haribol friends!

    Does anyone know what happened in Srimati Radharani's life after Sri Krishna left for Mathura? How did Her "death" occur? Did She stay in Vrindavan? Did She wonder around India from temple to temple? What did She do after He left? Does anyone know? I've heard that She saw everything around Her as being Krishna and used to embrace even trees upon seeing the Lord that resides within them. Is that true? If you can tell me anything about what She did after Sri Krishna went to Mathura, I would deeply appreciate it! Thanks guys!

    Radhe Radhe! ;)


    The god of the Bible is a "jealous god," as he himself states in the Old Testament: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me, for I the Lord am a jealous god...."

    The god of the Old Testament is partial to some races over others. He favors the Hebrews (for no obvious reason - many still doubt him throughout Exodus) over the Egyptians.

    The god of the Hebrews/Christians is partial and cruel. According to Exodus, he makes pharaoh stubborn in the face of Moses' demands that the Hebrews be released, just so he can attack the people of Egypt with plagues, locusts, etc. He even strikes down their first-born children just to make a point! This sounds like rakshasa behavior.


    We're talking about Jesus, not Yahweh. In many lost gospels, Jesus talks bad about Yahweh and the rule of the Old Testament. The Gnostic Christians didn't believe in Yahweh, and would definitely agree with you that he was a demon or rakshasa. They actually believed in multiple gods and incarnations of God, since they didn't believe in Yahweh's rule, for example, Mother Mary, the Virgin Sophia, and (in Manichean sects) the Buddha, along with Jesus. They thought that the Father that Jesus talked about was someone completely different from Yahweh. I tend to follow their teaching, since I don't like the message of the Old Testament, but I do like the message of Jesus.



    As devious as our rakshasa friend was, however, he could not help but be disappointed with the Hebrews. After all, there were limits to their desires for expansion - they were content to have escaped Egyptian slavery. These were not the violent and dominating race he was secretly hoping for, and so the rakshasa arranged for a new variation of the religion - Christianity - which was forged under the violent tutelage of Roman persecution. So well had the Christians learned the lesson of violent persecution that they were quick to take up those reins once the Roman Empire fell out of power, inaugurating centuries of religious suppression and intersectarian conflict that rage throughout Europe even to this day.

    So, just because someone does something bad in someone else's name (without that person asking them to) makes the person whose name they're doing it in bad? Jesus said things like "Treat others as you would like to be treated.", "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay one's life down for one's friends.", "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the beam in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye," when you yourself do not see the beam in your own eye? You who do this are hypocritical. First, take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of the eye of your neighbor.", and "Let anyone who is among you that is without sin cast the first stone at her." This is the law of Jesus. The men of the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions didn't follow these laws. They were just trying to increase their power and hid behind religion and superstition in order to do it. It wasn't Jesus or Jesus' message that committed these atrocities. It was men hiding behind religion and their greed.


    That period of time was very brief. But who knew Srimati Radharani's name during the time of Krsna's manifest lila? Who on Earth knew it before?


    Around two hundred years passed from Krishna's death to the time when the Bhagavatam is traditionally said to have been put into writing (although there's some controversy regarding both the date and the author). So how do we know that Sri Sukadeva Goswami's father didn't hear the name of Radharani from his father who, in turn, heard it from his father, who heard it from his father? It could've been as popular a name as Krishna's by that time for all we know. I mean, hardly anyone knew or cared about, for example, Vincent VanGogh when he was painting, but now, around 150 years later, everyone knows that he was a painter and he is now a household name!


    Yes, I was simply clarifying what you were saying.

    As I was explaining though, Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura is not one of these fake "gurus". Rather he was a pure devotee.

    Krishna is pleased if you learn about him through his pure devotee, although he has the full capacity to impart instructions to you also, as he is the chaitya guru.

    So for me it goes both ways, I will be benefited by reading his commentaries (I will be able to understand better) and Krishna will be pleased.


    Jai Nitai!



    I hope you don't think I was insulting Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura! I absolutely love his teaching and I think that he was a very pure devotee of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna! And, yes, I do agree that Radha and Krishna are extremely pleased when you take any step to learn more about Them, especially if you go to a guru, who is usually a teacher of Their wisdom. I hope you didn't get the wrong impression! I was just saying that I think that Sri Krishna is just as pleased with us when we read His words without commentary as He is when we do, and that sometimes some gurus (definitely not including Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura!) impart the wrong knowledge to devotees, or don't follow the message themselves.

    Jai Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura!

    Jai Sri Sri Radhe-Krishna! ;)

  7. Beggar: So since the Uddhava Gita is part of the Srimad Bhagavatam, what reason would there be to make another book out of it? The answer is that a separate book is made to stress the commentaries. This is done in both the personal and impersonal approach.

    RadheRade-I don’t think it’s made to stress the commentaries. I think it’s made to spread Krishna's message to the average-joe who just go to a bookstore and sees it, and thinks “Oh, this is interesting.” Not every bookstore carries the Bhagavatam. I had to get my Bhagavatam online, b/c there aren't any Vaishnava bookstores around here. What you say is like saying “Why do people publish the Bhagavad Gita separately when it’s included in the Mahabharata? To stress the commentaries.” But that’s not the case, since some versions of the Gita don’t even come with commentaries. It’s to spread the message of Krishna to everyone, not just people who are willing to read the massive Mahabharata.


    B: The point about Srimati Radharani's name not being mentioned in the Tenth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam (as a rhetorical question) went right over your head. You've accepted a member name that includes Her name. From the viewpoint of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas and therefore Srila Prabhupada's Krsna Book, the entire Srimad Bhagavatam culminates in the Rasa Lila. Then the Rasa Lila itself culminates in Krsna leaving with a special Gopi and then what ensues. Yet in the entire Srimad Bhagavatam, including the Tenth Canto, Her Name is never mentioned except in an indirect, hidden way. Srila Sridhar Maharaj explains that there are two reasons that Sukadava Goswami did not mention Her Name directly. The first and external reason is that that many in the audience at Naimasaranya were of an impersonal inclination and therefore not yet qualified. The second, internal reason is explained in an interesting way by Sripad B. G. Narasingha Maharaja

    RR- I mentioned the second “internal reason”… that’s the one I used if you would‘ve looked at my post. I’d never heard about the impersonalist thing. But, if that were the case, why would He even expose Krishna’s name to them?


    B: So here we can see that the explantion of the reasons of why Srimati Radharani's name was not spoken to the sages by Sukadeva Goswami is coming to us through our gurus. We can also see that the second, internal reason comes from the tika or commentary of Srila Jiva Goswami. This was Jiva Goswami's unique realization and there is clear evidence that such an explanation was not revealed previously in the guru parampara.

    RR- People already assumed that He left with Radharani, though. His commentary is extremely interesting on why Her name was left out, but people already knew that She was the most important of all the gopis and the most devoted. So, since they already know that, it’s reasonable to think that anyone reading it would assume that it was Radha. That’s why people were devoted to Her even in the Middle Ages. It’s like in the Gospel of John, how he never says the name “Mary”, but when he says “the mother of Jesus”, people who have only read that gospel already know that her name is ‘Mary’ from oral tradition.


    B:Your explanation is wrong. Srila Sukadeva Goswami heard the Srimad Bhagavatam from his father while he was in the womb. His father, Srila Vyasadeva saw these pastimes or lilas of Bhagavan Sri Krsna in a devotional trance after receiving instructions from his guru, Sri Narada Muni, directly.

    RR- So, you're saying that no one know Radharani's name from the time of Krishna to the time of Sukadeva Goswami? All you said was that his father saw the lilas in a vision. That doesn't mean that people didn't know the name of Radharani before that. Isn't the MahaMantra supposed to be ancient? Well, how would people even know Radharani's name "Hara" if She wasn't known of at that time? I hardly think She'd be given a title if people didn't know who She was.


    B:The commentaries or tikas are the realized explanations of our previous acaryas or gurus. So if we follow your logic you are essentially saying, "Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having a guru coming in a line of gurus, I just don't think they're absolutely necessary."

    RR- I don't care if someone has come from this line of gurus or that line of gurus. If someone's teaching makes sense, I don't even care if they're an initiated guru or not, I still listen to it. So, no. If someone told me an insight that they had about a verse of the Bhagavatam or the Gita, even if it was the first verse they'd ever heard from them, I'd still listen, and, if it was sensical, I'd follow it. That would be someone's commentary other than a guru's, which I would appreciate and listen to.


    B:Whether or not some ISKCON gurus are or were qualified or not is relevant in this context. And as Srila Prabhupada has told us, the fact that there is Fools Gold and people are cheated by it, doesn't mean that real gold does not exists. That persons are cheated by Fools Gold points out that real gold does exist

    RR- I was just trying to show that just b/c someone claims the title of guru doesn't always mean that they're perfect.


    It will only be possible if we are self realized ourselves.

    I know for myself that I am not on that platform yet so therefore it is neccessary for me to have those commentaries.


    What about people who get information from "gurus" who aren't self-realized? I mean, a lot of the reason why people even have a problem with ISKCON is because there have been several gurus who weren't self-realized and hurt people. Don't get me wrong, I like having commentaries, I just don't think they're absolutely necessary.


    But if the name "Radha" is never uttered by Sukadeva Goswami in the Srimad Bhagavatam, how do you know Her name? How does Sri Guru fit into this picture?

    How do we know Her name was your question? How did Sukadeva Goswami know Her name? Thousands of years of oral tradition. What you replied to wasn't to you. Guru fit into the reply I made to that person.


    If Radhe Radhe can answer this question, he will defeat his own argument.


    I don't see how. I still don't think that you MUST have a commentary to read a holy scripture. Even if I used a commentary to help ME, that doesn't mean that someone else who reads the same passage couldn't receive the wisdom to understand it by Sri Radha-Krishna's grace and mercy. Understanding the passage is caused by the compassion of Radha and Krishna toward Their devotees. Even with a commentary, without the grace of Radha-Krishna, we can't understand a single word of the scriptures.


    Well then RadheRade1657, Let's see if you can answer these two questions: Why is Srimati Radharani's name not mentioned by Sukadeva Goswami in the Srimad Bhagavatam? And since it is a fact that Her name is not mentioned, how do we know it was Srimati Radharani who left the main rasa dance with Krsna?

    I've HEARD that it's b/c he was in such a high state that if he would've written, heard, said, etc... Her name, he would've gone into samadhi and wouldn't have finished the Bhagavatam. I don't know if that's true, it's a hypothesis that someone invented. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but I think I remember reading that the most devoted gopika left w/ Krishna, and the word "Sraddha" (devotion) was being used as code name for Radha.


    I don't know Radhe Radhe, commentaries by qualified personalities help so much. We can't understand everything by our limited intelligence. And there are no doubts about the character of Vishvanatha Chakravarti thakura. He can hardly be compared to any other commentator in the universe.


    I have read Sarartha Darsini- his commentary book on Srimad Bhagavatam and I have seen so much deeper into the bhagavatam then previously.





    I didn't say that commentaries were bad, but I think that we can meditate on the passages without commentaries. I have great respect for Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, and I think that he was very holy and the perfect example of a devotee of Sri Radha-Krishna, but I don't think that it's impossible to understand a holy book without his commentary.

    Jai Radhe-Madhava!


    The book, The Uddhava Gita of Krsna-Dvaipayana Vyasa, translated by Bhumipati Dasa contains the tika or commentary by Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and Summaries and purports by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. The real insight and realizations are coming from Chakravarti Thakura and Sarasvati Thakura, who are our gurus, and the the sweetest nectar is there. It is impossible to understand the real meaning of the Uddhava Gita without their mercy. Also some of the translations of the Srimad Bhagavatam, of which the Uddhava Gita is part, are the subject of disputes by the personalist and impersonalist sections. There are many verses of the Uddhava Gita that are used by the impersonal philosophers to support their position. In that way it is similar to the Bhagavad Gita.

    Since the Uddhava Gita was spoken some 5000 years, and first put into writing some 700-900 years, before either of these gurus were born, I don't think that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand it without them. It might help to have someone who's spiritually-qualified to interpret the verses, but it's certainly not impossible to understand without them. Sometimes people almost make it like the guru IS Krishna. It is Krishna, and Krishna only, who allows us to understand the meaning of His words. The guru can act as a conduit through which He clarifies it. The guru isn't God. Radha-Krishna are God. The guru CAN be Their representative, but isn't ALWAYS Their representative.

    Jai Radhe-Madhava!



    As long as we already understand Radha-Krishna's postion, what does it matter if we read a translation by someone who doesn't? I mean, we already know that Radha-Krishna are the Ultimate Reality, so why should it matter if we read God's words as translated (NOT INTERPRETED) by Ambikananda or Prabhupada?

    The 'it' it references is the universe. Look:

    "We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On which it abides and unto which it returns on that which is present in all things."


    "We meditate on the transcendent reality from which this universe emerges. On [the Transcendent Reality] [the universe] abides and unto which [the universe] returns on [the Transcendent Reality] which is present in all things."

    I also don't address my friends as "Oh my friend, Joey, son of James, I offer my conversation unto you."(O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You.) And, while I'm still talking to him, start talking to him like I'm talking to another person, and say, "I talk to my friend Joey, because he is my friend and he makes spaghetti for me without meat in it because he knows I'm a vegetarian, even though he really likes eating meat." (I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes.) So, really, I don't talk to my friends in either way. I think that both translations are off... they were probably speaking in a much more natural way than either of the translations show.

    I don't think she's trying to omit some of His titles so that it's "more acceptable" to non-believers, but because it makes it more easily readable. That story is just that, a story.

    Radhe Radhe! Jai Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai ki Jai! :)


    Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 TRANSLATION: Swami Ambikananda Saraswati and Thomas Cleary The Uddhava Gita: The Final Teaching of Krishna, Introduction


    I don't see much difference. The same message is taught in fewer words. The bulk of what was left out was Uddhave reciting names of Krishna and talking in poetic language (e.g.-"It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being." vs. "which revealed to Brahma the Vedas") . As long as it gives the same message, what does it matter?

  16. Hey Indulekha! :)

    I don't think it's right to sacrifice anything to God or a form of God. I was just saying that at least at Kalighat the animal is killed fast, unlike in the slaughterhouses where they're tortured they're whole lives and then horribly mutilated for hours. I think that all killing is terrible. God wants all things to live in peace and harmony, not to kill each other... especially not in His (or, in the case of Kali Maa, Her) name!

  • Create New...