if Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Vishnu

[Guest guest]

does this mean Radha is the Supreme Personality of Goddess Lakshmi?

[Guest guest]

So no one knows if Lakshmi is an expansion of Radha? If Vishnu is an expansion fo Krsna, according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then wouldn't that mean that Lakshmi (Vishnu's consort) is an expansion of Krsna's consort Radha?

 

or has this never been thought about before?

[madhavachari]

As far as the Vedas are concerned, there is no Radha but only Lakshmi, who is the service potency of Narayana. Together they are called Sriman Narayana. The divine couple, the inspiration for the ideas about Radha Krishna that developed later.

 

There is however, a figure called Nappinnai in the devotional texts of Sri Vaishnavism who is the favourite gopi of Krishna in Vraja lila. This is essentially the Radha of the Gaudiyas.

[Guest guest]

 

As far as the Vedas are concerned, there is no Radha but only Lakshmi, who is the service potency of Narayana. Together they are called Sriman Narayana. The divine couple, the inspiration for the ideas about Radha Krishna that developed later.

 

There is however, a figure called Nappinnai in the devotional texts of Sri Vaishnavism who is the favourite gopi of Krishna in Vraja lila. This is essentially the Radha of the Gaudiyas.

 

Thanks for your post. I am trying to understand the differences between Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Srivaishnavism, in regards to devotion to Radha vs. Lakshmi, and Krsna vs. Vishnu.

 

In Srivaishnavism, Lakshmi is the Supreme Goddess, and in Gaudiya Vaishnavism that title is given to Radha, Correct? so according to Gaudiyas how can Radha not be an incarnation of Lakshmi and still be Supreme?

[madhavachari]

Since there is not even any vedic pramana for Radha, it would be ludicrous to make statements such as, "Radha is the source of all goddesses, even Lakshmi"!

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Gaudiyas accept Radha as the source of all feminine manifestations, including Lakshmi.

[madhavachari]

 

Gaudiyas accept Radha as the source of all feminine manifestations, including Lakshmi.

 

Yes they do, but it is not Vedic.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Gaudiya's consider the Puranas and Agamas (Pancharatras) to be more relevant in the Kali yuga then the Vedas, as the Vedas have been mostly lost at present. Sri Vaishnava's also give high relevance to Divya Prabhandam, which is a more recent composition, and consider on par with the Vedas. Spiritual knowledge doesn't depend on what title or classification you give it.

[Guest guest]

 

Gaudiya's consider the Puranas and Agamas (Pancharatras) to be more relevant in the Kali yuga then the Vedas, as the Vedas have been mostly lost at present.

 

can you elaborate on this. Do you mean that there are missing Vedas (or portions of the Vedas)?

[Bhava dasa]

 

does this mean Radha is the Supreme Personality of Goddess Lakshmi?

Yes.

[madhavachari]

 

Gaudiya's consider the Puranas and Agamas (Pancharatras) to be more relevant in the Kali yuga then the Vedas, as the Vedas have been mostly lost at present. Sri Vaishnava's also give high relevance to Divya Prabhandam, which is a more recent composition, and consider on par with the Vedas. Spiritual knowledge doesn't depend on what title or classification you give it.

 

Divya Prabandhams are hymns of the Alwars, a lot about the pastimes of various avataras and the qualities of Sriman Narayana, etc.

Those hymns do not introduce new things which differ from the Veda.

Big difference.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Shri Madhvachariji, Radhe Krishna.

 

Yes, one can not derive shri krishna as supreme to Vishnu by way of interpretting vedaas. Indirect interpretations are made from Shrimad Bhagavatham as to Radha devi.

 

In shuka sthuthi,

 

Nirastha saamyathi shayenaradha sa

svadhaamani brahmani ramsyathe namaha

 

Here svadhamani is interpretted to refer Radha Devi.

 

A small help. Once I heard from the lectures of Mukkur swami about vaishnava lakshanaa - phrase I remember but not the purport.

 

"kokkai pol iruppan; kozhiyai pol iruppan; Uppai pol iruppan; Ummai pol iruppan"

 

Could you please explain the purport of this phrase which I heard long back but could not remember now?

 

Radhe Krishna

[Yogkriya]

This is a very important message in understanding the real stance of Gaudiyas / Iskcon on Vedas. No wonder the practices / scriptures / translations are not purely Vedic, but altered at different times by different authors...

 

 

 

Gaudiyas accept Radha as the source of all feminine manifestations, including Lakshmi. Gaudiya's consider the Puranas and Agamas (Pancharatras) to be more relevant in the Kali yuga then the Vedas, as the Vedas have been mostly lost at present. Sri Vaishnava's also give high relevance to Divya Prabhandam, which is a more recent composition, and consider on par with the Vedas. Spiritual knowledge doesn't depend on what title or classification you give it.

[Yogkriya]

I have repeatedly heard Iskcon vociferate that all Lord Shiva scriptures are in the mode of ignorance and are tamasic. And that is their classification. And the Bhagwatam comes under classification of Pure and satvik purana. Now I hear that titles and classifications don't matter !!!

Another double standard. :/

 

 

Spiritual knowledge doesn't depend on what title or classification you give it.

[Bhava dasa]

 

Since there is not even any vedic pramana for Radha, it would be ludicrous to make statements such as, "Radha is the source of all goddesses, even Lakshmi"!

Lord Brahma, the original distributor of Vedic knowledge, states:

 

 

 

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, residing in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, resembling His own spiritual figure, the embodiment of the ecstatic potency possessed of the sixty-four artistic activities, in the company of Her confidantes [sakhis], embodiments of the extensions of Her bodily form, permeated and vitalized by His ever-blissful spiritual rasa." (Brahma Samhita 5.37)

 

 

There are other references as well. Below are a few...

 

Brhad-gautamiya-tantra:

 

 

 

devi krsna-mayi prokta

radhika para-devata

sarva-laksmi-mayi sarva

kantih sammohini para

 

 

"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krsna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She possesses all attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."

 

Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.74-75):

 

 

 

krsna-kanta-gana dekhi tri-vidha prakara

eka laksmi-gana, pure mahisi-gana ara

vrajangana-rupa, ara kanta-gana-sara

sri-radhika haite kanta-ganera vistara

 

 

"The beloved consorts of Lord Krsna are of three kinds: the goddesses of fortune, the queens, and the milkmaids of Vraja, who are the foremost of all. These consorts all proceed from Radhika."

 

Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.77):

 

 

 

vaibhava-gana yena tanra anga-vibhuti

bimba-pratibimba-rupa mahisira tati

 

 

"The goddesses of fortune are partial manifestations of Srimati Radhika, and the queens are reflections of Her image."

 

Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila: 4.90):

 

 

 

‘sarva-laksmi'-sabda purve kariyachi vyakhyana

sarva-laksmi-ganera tinho hana adhisthana

 

 

"I have already explained the meaning of "sarva-laksmi." Radha is the original source of all the goddesses of fortune."

 

 

Radhe jaya jaya madhava-dayite!

 

Hare Krsna.

[madhavachari]

As I said, there is no vedic support for a Radha. They are all later texts or the evidence is allegedly in older texts, but they aren´t.

[Guest guest]

 

As I said, there is no vedic support for a Radha. They are all later texts or the evidence is allegedly in older texts, but they aren´t.

 

do you believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is a true text?

[madhavachari]

Yes, it is one of the sattvika puranas and it teaches eternal truths. But, there is no Radha in Bhagavatam even!

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, it is one of the sattvika puranas and it teaches eternal truths. But, there is no Radha in Bhagavatam even!

 

so you do not believe Radha exists?

[Bhava dasa]

 

As I said, there is no vedic support for a Radha. They are all later texts or the evidence is allegedly in older texts, but they aren´t.

Then it is fair to say that you are dismissing the smrti-sastras?

[Guest guest]

Madhavachari is the same person as Premananda who previously rejected Prabhupada's teachings in favour of Gadadhara Pran Das' "Gauranga Nagari" sahajiya teachings (having even received diksha from Gadadhara Pran Das). Gadadhara Pran was a disciple of Prabhupada who latter rejected Prabhupada in favor of Lalit Prasad, and then later rejected Lalit Prasad's teachings in favor of his own made up version of Gaurnanga Nagari belief.

 

At that time that Premananda was following him, he was a staunch defender and argurer in favour of Gauranga Nagari teachings, as can be seen if you search some of the forums or VNN. Now he has realized that he was wrong all those years propagating Gauranga Nagari teachings, and that his guru was bogus.

 

Later he went a took initiation from a Sri Vaishnava, and is now doing the same thing he used to do before (trying to show how all other people are foolishly following some made up religion, where as his is the real one). If history teaches us anything, it is only a matter of time before he gets bored with his new religion and switches to something else.

 

So take what ever Madhavachari says with a grain of salt. It's just that after a lot of mistakes, he now feels he really has the real stuff now.

[madhavachari]

 

Madhavachari is the same person as Premananda who previously rejected Prabhupada's teachings in favour of Gadadhara Pran Das' "Gauranga Nagari" sahajiya teachings (having even received diksha from Gadadhara Pran Das). Gadadhara Pran was a disciple of Prabhupada who latter rejected Prabhupada in favor of Lalit Prasad, and then later rejected Lalit Prasad's teachings in favor of his own made up version of Gaurnanga Nagari belief.

 

At that time that Premananda was following him, he was a staunch defender and argurer in favour of Gauranga Nagari teachings, as can be seen if you search some of the forums or VNN. Now he has realized that he was wrong all those years propagating Gauranga Nagari teachings, and that his guru was bogus.

 

Later he went a took initiation from a Sri Vaishnava, and is now doing the same thing he used to do before (trying to show how all other people are foolishly following some made up religion, where as his is the real one). If history teaches us anything, it is only a matter of time before he gets bored with his new religion and switches to something else.

 

So take what ever Madhavachari says with a grain of salt. It's just that after a lot of mistakes, he now feels he really has the real stuff now.

Would you mind telling us who you are first? Or don´t you have the guts?

I totally understand your mentality, you want to make me look bad because you can´t defeat my statements. Which is totally ridiculous. You fail miserably.

 

So what if I was a Gaudiya vaishnava before. As if I am trying to hide that. I never believed Chaitanya was God, only in a symbolic sense (personifying Radha Krishna bhakti). BTW, if you are a Gaudiya, you have to accept Gaura-nagari, because it is part of the tradition. I was never into that, but it is a part of the tradition in West Bengal particularly.

 

I agree with the parts of GV teachings that are genuine, and those I found in Sri Vaishnavism in their pure form.

 

Why should you take whatever I say now with a grain of salt? It doesn´t matter what I did before, if I am telling the truth now.

[madhavachari]

 

Then it is fair to say that you are dismissing the smrti-sastras?

 

No, why are you asking?

[madhavachari]

I am not on a mission to disprove Gaudiya Vaishnavism as some might be thinking here. There are many things that are true in GV. But those truths and others, which are lacking in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, are already present in Srivaishnavism. I am not the only ex-Gaudiya to convert to Srivaishnavism. Gaura Keshava dasa, a senior Prabhupada disciple, also converted to Srivaishnavism and he still is a SV, just like me. A friend of mine who is a sanskrit teacher and has translated the Bhagavad Gita, ex ISKCON member, also converted to Srivaishnavism.

 

We do not make up our own scriptures or twist their meaning to suit our own purpose. We are only interested in the spiritual reality, not theories or fairy tales.

[Guest guest]

 

I agree with the parts of GV teachings that are genuine, and those I found in Sri Vaishnavism in their pure form.

 

May I ask you a couple questions about Sri Vaishnavism? I am really curious to know more about this sect's teachings.

 

1. Do Sri Vaishnavas believe Vaikuntha is made of various sections (planets), for liberated beings of different stages? or is there just one Vaikuntha where all liberated jivas go?

 

2. Did jivas originally fall from Vaikuntha?

 

3. Will all jivas eventually reach Vaikuntha, even it takes millions of lifetimes?

 

Thank you for your answers.