if Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Vishnu

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

Here is an analysis of the Bhagavata verse by a Dvaita scholar:

It is standard practice when quoting a scholar, that you at least mention his name.

 

 

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-...nfo/2005-June/000865.html

This link doesn't work.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

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

 

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/30/28/en

 

anayārādhito nūnaḿ

bhagavān harir īśvaraḥ

yan no vihāya govindaḥ

prīto yām anayad rahaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

anayā — by Her; ārādhitaḥ — perfectly worshiped; nūnam — certainly; bhagavan — the Personality of Godhead; hariḥ — Lord Kṛṣṇa; īśvaraḥ — the supreme controller; yat — inasmuch as; naḥ — us; vihāya — rejecting; govindaḥ — Lord Govinda; prītaḥ — pleased; yām — whom; anayat — led; rahaḥ — to a secluded place.

 

TRANSLATION

Certainly this particular gopī has perfectly worshiped the all-powerful Personality of Godhead, Govinda, since He was so pleased with Her that He abandoned the rest of us and brought Her to a secluded place.

 

PURPORT

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī explains that the word ārādhitaḥ refers to Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. He comments, "The sage Śukadeva Gosvāmī has tried with all endeavor to keep Her name hidden, but now it automatically shines forth from the moon of his mouth. That he has spoken Her name is indeed Her mercy, and thus the word ārādhitaḥ is like the rumbling of a kettledrum sounded to announce Her great good fortune."

 

Although the gopīs spoke as if jealous of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, they were actually ecstatic to see that She had captured Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

 

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī quotes the following detailed description of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī's footprints, as given by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Śrī Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi: "At the base of the large toe of Her left foot is the mark of a barleycorn, below that mark is a disc, below the disc is an umbrella, and below the umbrella is a bracelet. A vertical line extends from the middle of Her foot to the juncture of Her large and second toes. At the base of the middle toe is a lotus, below that is a flag with a banner, and below the flag is a creeper, together with a flower. At the base of Her small toe is an elephant goad, and upon Her heel is a half-moon. Thus there are eleven marks on Her left foot.

 

"At the base of the large toe of Her right foot is a conchshell, and below that a spear. At the base of the small toe of Her right foot is a sacrificial altar, below that an earring, and below the earring a spear. Along the base of the second, third, fourth and small toes is the mark of a mountain, below which is a chariot, and on the heel is a fish.

 

"Thus all together there are nineteen distinguishing marks on the soles of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī's lotus feet."

[Yogkriya 0]

The original sanskrit verse, its translation and purport are different.

 

If you read carefully, there is no mention of anything related to her being a "gopi" and no mention of Radha. At the most, it just hints to a female devotee. This no mention is 'covered up' in the purport by saying that the author tried to hide Radha's name. What for? What's the reason to hide it? lol !

The translations are turned towards Gaudiya 'Baava and understanding' and to cover it up is given an explaination in the following purport! Simple as that.

Lord Shiva is also address as bhagwana and Ishwara!! (well of course outside Gaudiya sampradaya), And Hari and Govinda is also Vishnu. Go and read Vishnu Sahastranaama. And if you read the thousand names of Lord Shiva, that by the way Krisna himself chanted out to Yudhishthira, then the name Krishna is one of them ;-) I know this is controversial for you. And you can close your eyes on that part of Mahabharata.

 

This trend can be seen in many Prabhupada translations.

At one point he translates Rudra as Lord Sadashiva and determines Shiva's position based on a particular Rudra. Now there are thousands of Rudras ;-) Gaudiyas not bothered by it, just follow and propagate it. Not only propagate, but try to force their Bhaava up on others. The translations are not as-it-is-version of original sanskrit texts. Period.

And here I have come to another realization, that the stress on taking the translation 'from the acharya' and from ONLY the sampradaya is important because if you read the original verse without the 'bhaava or mood' aspect, then you might just as well, not have found any Radha in it!

 

Hari Bol !

 

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/30/28/en

 

anay?r?dhito n?na?

bhagav?n harir ??varah?

yan no vih?ya govindah?

pr?to y?m anayad rahah?

 

SYNONYMS

anay? — by Her; ?r?dhitah? — perfectly worshiped; n?nam — certainly; bhagavan — the Personality of Godhead; harih? — Lord Kr?s?n?a; ??varah? — the supreme controller; yat — inasmuch as; nah? — us; vih?ya — rejecting; govindah? — Lord Govinda; pr?tah? — pleased; y?m — whom; anayat — led; rahah? — to a secluded place.

 

TRANSLATION

Certainly this particular gop? has perfectly worshiped the all-powerful Personality of Godhead, Govinda, since He was so pleased with Her that He abandoned the rest of us and brought Her to a secluded place.

 

PURPORT

?r?la Vi?van?tha Cakravart? explains that the word ?r?dhitah? refers to ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??. He comments, "The sage ?ukadeva Gosv?m? has tried with all endeavor to keep Her name hidden, but now it automatically shines forth from the moon of his mouth. That he has spoken Her name is indeed Her mercy, and thus the word ?r?dhitah? is like the rumbling of a kettledrum sounded to announce Her great good fortune."

 

Although the gop?s spoke as if jealous of ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??, they were actually ecstatic to see that She had captured ?r? Kr?s?n?a.

 

?r?la Vi?van?tha Cakravart? quotes the following detailed description of ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??'s footprints, as given by ?r?la R?pa Gosv?m? in his ?r? Ujjvala-n?laman?i: "At the base of the large toe of Her left foot is the mark of a barleycorn, below that mark is a disc, below the disc is an umbrella, and below the umbrella is a bracelet. A vertical line extends from the middle of Her foot to the juncture of Her large and second toes. At the base of the middle toe is a lotus, below that is a flag with a banner, and below the flag is a creeper, together with a flower. At the base of Her small toe is an elephant goad, and upon Her heel is a half-moon. Thus there are eleven marks on Her left foot.

 

"At the base of the large toe of Her right foot is a conchshell, and below that a spear. At the base of the small toe of Her right foot is a sacrificial altar, below that an earring, and below the earring a spear. Along the base of the second, third, fourth and small toes is the mark of a mountain, below which is a chariot, and on the heel is a fish.

 

"Thus all together there are nineteen distinguishing marks on the soles of ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??'s lotus feet."

[madhavachari 0]

 

With all due respect madhavachari, you haven't disproved a thing.

 

The Gaudiya Vaisnavas accept the conclusions of the great mahajanas, such as Brahma, Narada, and Siva, etc. It is their opinion that Mahaprabhu is Krsna. It is also their opinion that counters the other conclusions you have made regarding Krsna and Visnu, and Srimati Radharani and Laksmi-devi.

 

We have firm faith in their conclusions. You obviously do not. So be it. Why continue to the point of "argumentum ad baculum?" You are not making any progress against Gaudiya siddhanta, so why continue?

 

My reply to this is that "why are Gaudiya Acharyas going against the Vedas and previous acharyas? Including their "own" Madhvacharya? Saying that you are part of the Madhva line is only accepted by yourselves, not by the Madhvas.

[madhavachari 0]

 

It is standard practice when quoting a scholar, that you at least mention his name.

 

 

This link doesn't work.

 

He signed the comment with how own name. Have you read it at all or are you too afraid to realize what the Bhagavatam verse really means?

[madhavachari 0]

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-June/000865.html

 

Here is the correct link Bhava Dasa.

[madhavachari 0]

 

If you continue to take the position of attacking Gaudiya siddhanta, then you should be prepared to provide sastric proof. And reversely if sastric proof, whether it be the srutis, smrtis, puranas, pancaratricis, tantrikas, etc. is provided to you, you should be humble enough to accept it. Let us discuss on those grounds. Then there may be some possibility of a meeting of the minds. Otherwise, the discussions will simply go around and around like a dog chasing its tail.

 

Do you accept what I have shown YOU so far? Are you humble enough to accept that Bhagavaram 11.5.32 does not refer to Caitanya? Read the analysis of the verse and then tell me if you still maintain that it refers to Caitanya. And if so, why?

 

Regarding the Radha issue, how can I quote vedic texts about her, when they do not exist?

 

And why should I even bother to try to prove that Krishna is the avatara of Vishnu/Narayana? It is just too well known by everyone who knows even a little about the Vedas!

[madhavachari 0]

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/30/28/en

 

anayārādhito nūnaḿ

bhagavān harir īśvaraḥ

yan no vihāya govindaḥ

prīto yām anayad rahaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

anayā — by Her; ārādhitaḥ — perfectly worshiped; nūnam — certainly; bhagavan — the Personality of Godhead; hariḥ — Lord Kṛṣṇa; īśvaraḥ — the supreme controller; yat — inasmuch as; naḥ — us; vihāya — rejecting; govindaḥ — Lord Govinda; prītaḥ — pleased; yām — whom; anayat — led; rahaḥ — to a secluded place.

 

TRANSLATION

Certainly this particular gopī has perfectly worshiped the all-powerful Personality of Godhead, Govinda, since He was so pleased with Her that He abandoned the rest of us and brought Her to a secluded place.

 

PURPORT

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī explains that the word ārādhitaḥ refers to Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. He comments, "The sage Śukadeva Gosvāmī has tried with all endeavor to keep Her name hidden, but now it automatically shines forth from the moon of his mouth. That he has spoken Her name is indeed Her mercy, and thus the word ārādhitaḥ is like the rumbling of a kettledrum sounded to announce Her great good fortune."

 

Although the gopīs spoke as if jealous of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, they were actually ecstatic to see that She had captured Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

 

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī quotes the following detailed description of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī's footprints, as given by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Śrī Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi: "At the base of the large toe of Her left foot is the mark of a barleycorn, below that mark is a disc, below the disc is an umbrella, and below the umbrella is a bracelet. A vertical line extends from the middle of Her foot to the juncture of Her large and second toes. At the base of the middle toe is a lotus, below that is a flag with a banner, and below the flag is a creeper, together with a flower. At the base of Her small toe is an elephant goad, and upon Her heel is a half-moon. Thus there are eleven marks on Her left foot.

 

"At the base of the large toe of Her right foot is a conchshell, and below that a spear. At the base of the small toe of Her right foot is a sacrificial altar, below that an earring, and below the earring a spear. Along the base of the second, third, fourth and small toes is the mark of a mountain, below which is a chariot, and on the heel is a fish.

 

"Thus all together there are nineteen distinguishing marks on the soles of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī's lotus feet."

Sorry, Pankaja. This is exactly what I am talking about. This doesn´t prove the existence your Radha. Only if you prior to reading this text have a Radha conception, then it is possible to read that into the verse. But all it talks about is that a gopi who adored Krishna was taken to a secluded place by Him.

[Yogkriya 0]

What is the source of Rupa Goswami's description of Shrimati Radharani's footprint and toes? He surely didn't physically see and study them himself? Where does this information come from? The existence of those signs is a possibility, but still, is there a recognized and reliable source of their existence?

 

 

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/30/28/en

?r?la Vi?van?tha Cakravart? quotes the following detailed description of ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??'s footprints, as given by ?r?la R?pa Gosv?m? in his ?r? Ujjvala-n?laman?i: "At the base of the large toe of Her left foot is the mark of a barleycorn, below that mark is a disc, below the disc is an umbrella, and below the umbrella is a bracelet. A vertical line extends from the middle of Her foot to the juncture of Her large and second toes. At the base of the middle toe is a lotus, below that is a flag with a banner, and below the flag is a creeper, together with a flower. At the base of Her small toe is an elephant goad, and upon Her heel is a half-moon. Thus there are eleven marks on Her left foot.

 

"At the base of the large toe of Her right foot is a conchshell, and below that a spear. At the base of the small toe of Her right foot is a sacrificial altar, below that an earring, and below the earring a spear. Along the base of the second, third, fourth and small toes is the mark of a mountain, below which is a chariot, and on the heel is a fish.

 

"Thus all together there are nineteen distinguishing marks on the soles of ?r?mat? R?dh?r?n??'s lotus feet."

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

What is the source of Rupa Goswami's description of Shrimati Radharani's footprint and toes? He surely didn't physically see and study them himself? Where does this information come from? The existence of those signs is a possibility, but still, is there a recognized and reliable source of their existence?

In eternal rasa, Sri Rupa Goswami has a very intimate relationship with Srimati Radharani. He knows these things very well, and the Acaryas have confirmed it. However, I am not willing to discuss those higher tattvas in an open forum like this.

 

Hare Krsna

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

Sorry, Pankaja. This is exactly what I am talking about. This doesn´t prove the existence your Radha. Only if you prior to reading this text have a Radha conception, then it is possible to read that into the verse. But all it talks about is that a gopi who adored Krishna was taken to a secluded place by Him.

This is only one piece of the picture taken out of context. Unless you have experience with the other pieces, how can you possibly understand it? Naturally it won't make sense. The other pieces are there, but you refuse to accept them. What can be said?

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

Do you accept what I have shown YOU so far? Are you humble enough to accept that Bhagavaram 11.5.32 does not refer to Caitanya? Read the analysis of the verse and then tell me if you still maintain that it refers to Caitanya. And if so, why?

 

Regarding the Radha issue, how can I quote vedic texts about her, when they do not exist?

 

And why should I even bother to try to prove that Krishna is the avatara of Vishnu/Narayana? It is just too well known by everyone who knows even a little about the Vedas!

Believe what you wish.

[Guest guest]

so one can pray directly to Radha as Divine Mother? Is it appropriate to call Radha our Heavenly Mother? Please answer.

[madhavachari 0]

 

Believe what you wish.

I am only telling you this, in case you are interested in the truth. And I really think that the stuff you do is both offensive and a waste of time. Face it, the Gaudiyas make outrageous claims which are not supported by any true Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita or Brahma-sutra. In fact, they are even doing that which is considered a heresy, worshipping an ordinary jiva as God.

 

And, any text that you can come up with is either recently fabricated or the translation is incorrect. As I showed in the example with the Bhagavata verse before.

 

Being a Srivaishnava, I know there are people in my sampradaya who believe that various acharyas, etc., were incarnations of various nitya-suris (or nitya-siddhas as you call them). But no Srivaishnava is required to believe in those things. It is entirely optional and many Srivaishnavas don´t believe in the alleged incarnations literally. Some saint or acharya may have exhibited qualities that reminded one of a certain nitya-suri for example. In that sense he embodied certain aspects of that divinity. But it is not a dogma in the same way that one cannot be a Caitanya Vaishnava without believing that he literally is "Krishna with the mood of Radha".

[madhavachari 0]

 

so one can pray directly to Radha as Divine Mother? Is it appropriate to call Radha our Heavenly Mother? Please answer.

 

 

NO

[Guest guest]

 

 

NO

 

then let me ask you, if I can't pray to Radha as my Heavenly Mother, can I pray to Lakshmi as my Heavenly Mother? or will I need to convert to Shaktism to connect with the Divine Mother. :(

[Yogkriya 0]

Well so u can't reveal the source!

What tatva are you talking about. It is an open book for me.

If Roop Goswami had his agya chakra open and realized, I can still believe, that he had a vision of Radha!! There are two problems here:

 

1. If this is the case, then this would be only his experience. If this is only RG's intimate experience with Radha, then how can other acharyas confirm it? It is not like seeing a physical object.

2. Another problem is that Iskcon/Gaudiyas DO NOT accept visions and experiences.

 

As I talked to one learned Iskcon devotee, i was told that realization / visions have no meaning, because then any one can claim that he experienced or saw something. So, you only quote from the scriptures.

Even Bhakti Vikas Swami has been cutting pasting a lot of information on the forum from books etc, but none of his own realization. So I understand that this is the way for you. This is not path of Yoga, where you can speak from realized experience. So just quote the necessary!

What is the bonafide source of this information?!!

Thanks!

 

Hari bol!!

 

 

 

In eternal rasa, Sri Rupa Goswami has a very intimate relationship with Srimati Radharani. He knows these things very well, and the Acaryas have confirmed it. However, I am not willing to discuss those higher tattvas in an open forum like this.

 

Hare Krsna

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

The original sanskrit verse, its translation and purport are different.

 

If you read carefully, there is no mention of anything related to her being a "gopi" and no mention of Radha. At the most, it just hints to a female devotee. This no mention is 'covered up' in the purport by saying that the author tried to hide Radha's name. What for? What's the reason to hide it? lol !

The translations are turned towards Gaudiya 'Baava and understanding' and to cover it up is given an explaination in the following purport! Simple as that.

Lord Shiva is also address as bhagwana and Ishwara!! (well of course outside Gaudiya sampradaya), And Hari and Govinda is also Vishnu. Go and read Vishnu Sahastranaama. And if you read the thousand names of Lord Shiva, that by the way Krisna himself chanted out to Yudhishthira, then the name Krishna is one of them ;-) I know this is controversial for you. And you can close your eyes on that part of Mahabharata.

 

This trend can be seen in many Prabhupada translations.

At one point he translates Rudra as Lord Sadashiva and determines Shiva's position based on a particular Rudra. Now there are thousands of Rudras ;-) Gaudiyas not bothered by it, just follow and propagate it. Not only propagate, but try to force their Bhaava up on others. The translations are not as-it-is-version of original sanskrit texts. Period.

And here I have come to another realization, that the stress on taking the translation 'from the acharya' and from ONLY the sampradaya is important because if you read the original verse without the 'bhaava or mood' aspect, then you might just as well, not have found any Radha in it!

 

Hari Bol !

 

 

Go suck on a lemon. I don't have the time or energy.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

For those actually interested, Sukadeva Goswami never mentions directly the name of Sr Radha, because otherwise he would go onto a trance. (for 6 months).

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

Actually all Sampradayas (not only Gaudiya) accept this verse in the Bhagavatam, Gaudiya Vaishnava is not a 'stand-alone' sect.

 

You have many misconceptions.

[Bhava dasa 0]

 

Well so u can't reveal the source!

It's not a matter of "can't".

 

 

So, you only quote from the scriptures.

Why do you have an objection to seeing quotes of scriptural authority?

 

We are challenged to produce Vedic scriptural evidence. We ask if quotes from the smrti-sastras are acceptable...the response is yes. However, when we produce them, they're dismissed as text only acceptable to the Gaudiyas--even though spoken by such personalities as Lord Brahma himself.

 

I find it odd that two individuals who appear to have so much objection to the supremacy of Radha & Krsna, are in the "Hare Krishna Discussions" forum. Why is this?

[Yogkriya 0]

Hare Ram!! Rude Krishna bhakta not able to say anything but "suck" words!

Why don't you think that Paramatma is also seated in my heart as he is in yours?

You surely read that out to others?

Lemon is actually not bad, nor is honey!! Very useful!!

I advice you the same. Maybe it will help you grow up one day?

 

 

Go suck on a lemon. I don't have the time or energy.

[Yogkriya 0]

I thought Bhava was trying to quote Roop Goswami on the source of his 'revelation'!!

Now Pankaja has changed the attention to Sukadeva Goswami!

Sukadeva didn't quote Radha specifically in this verse? He wrote that verse and he didn't mention that. This is original.

The purport and applied meaning appears later with the gaudiyas.

Do you have an earlier translation before Chaitanya period of the same?

This "otherwise" explaination is where the manipulation occurs!

 

 

For those actually interested, Sukadeva Goswami never mentions directly the name of Sr Radha, because otherwise he would go onto a trance. (for 6 months).

[Yogkriya 0]

The problem is - not the scriptures, but their interpretation.

You are tryin to find the word Radha there.

And since it is not there and you and implying that it is.

 

What is spoken by Lord Brahma?? Brahma spoke a lot of things!!

Do you accept that? NO! You don't even accept what Madhavacharya spoke!! And both are your Sampradaya senior most Gurus!! Brahma said that Radha verse?

Krishna also spoke a lot of other things that you do not accept! Which is of course not fair. You accept parts of Vedic scriptures and retranslate them with own purport. What was wrong with the original texts. Take Vedas as Vedas. Originals. Chaitanya Charitamrita is not Vedas. So it is indeed not a matter of 'can't' dear brother. It is a matter of 'can't' because you are bounded by certain policies and don't want!

 

Pankaja's venting out steam didn't help him to reveal the source either! Btw, Ramakrishna Paramhansa also used to fall into trance if someone said the word Kali and it was a known fact in Bengal.

 

 

 

It's not a matter of "can't".

 

 

Why do you have an objection to seeing quotes of scriptural authority?

 

We are challenged to produce Vedic scriptural evidence. We ask if quotes from the smrti-sastras are acceptable...the response is yes. However, when we produce them, they're dismissed as text only acceptable to the Gaudiyas--even though spoken by such personalities as Lord Brahma himself.

 

I find it odd that two individuals who appear to have so much objection to the supremacy of Radha & Krsna, are in the "Hare Krishna Discussions" forum. Why is this?

[Yogkriya 0]

Well, just as the whole forum on "Spiritual discussions" and "Newsletters and Journals

For posting regular newsletters related to Hindu philosophy" - is actually only the Hare Krishna forum! ;-)

 

 

I find it odd that two individuals who appear to have so much objection to the supremacy of Radha & Krsna, are in the "Hare Krishna Discussions" forum. Why is this?