Radharani, God-Mother, clearly referenced in Sama- and Atharva Veda

[Frodo 0]

Commentators maintain that Rãdhã is rather of a recent origin and doesn’t have an antecedent and therefore, she has not been accepted by the Prasthãnatrayì – The Bhagavad-Gìtã, Brahmasútra and Upaniòads. Rãdhã was of course known since the days of Sãmaveda. The word ‘Rãdhã’ even occurs in Atharvaveda. But in Sãmaveda one finds the etymological derivation of the word ‘Rãdhã’. Thus rãdhã åabdasya vyutpattih sãmaveda. Nirúpitã that is the word Rãdhã defined by Sãmaveda.

 

Rã + Ã = RÃ = RÃDHÃ

Dha + Ã = Dhã

 

The word Rãdhã thus is a combination of four root letters:

 

Ra, Ã, Dha, Ã, each having its own significance.

Ra rephohi koti janmagham karma bhogam åubhãåubhaõ

à ãkãra garbha basañca, mëtyuñca rogaõ ucchrudet

Dha dhakãra ãyuòahan ucchrudet

à ãkãro bhava bhandhanaõ ucchrudet

 

This would mean that the Ra root in Rãdhã dispels the sins of a million births and liberates one from the consequences of evil deeds. The à root emancipates one from the cycle of birth and death and terminates diseases and death. The Dha root prevents loss of longevity and again à root frees one from the earthly bondage. It is, fascinating to note that such an apparently innocuous word has so much meaning packed into it. It is too good a word to be left alone – too many virtues cannot be left in abstraction. Rãdhã (the character) was therefore conceived, as a woman of stunning personal magnetism and charm along with all the virtues associated with the word.In Årìmad-Bhãgavata (10.30.28) we find Rãdhã as a concept as is evidenced in the following verse:

 

anayã rãdhito núnaõ bhagavãn harirìåvaraæ

janno vihãya govinda prìto jamanaya draha.

 

Perhaps she has worshipped the Lord with greater devotion, that’s why the Lord deserted us to favour her with exclusive company and attention. (Trans. Ayengar)

 

The background of this verse is an interesting episode in Årìmad-Bhãgavata, Canto 10, Rãsapañcadhyãya, where Årì Këòøa was dallying with the Gopì beauties. Suddenly Årì Këòøa disappeared leaving them dazed and disappointed. They couldn’t even make out as to what was their fault that the Lord deserted them. In their search for Årì Këòøa, they chanced upon a couple of pairs of footsteps. As they followed the track, at some distance they no that there were no more two pairs of footsteps, instead there was only one. And from the size of the footsteps, they guessed that it was the Lord’s. But where is the other pairs – the nimble, delicate and the small ones? On close examination it was found that the Lords footsteps had made deep imprints in the sand leaving little doubt that the Lord carried her himself and under the weight, his feet dug deep into the sand. Naturally the Gopìs were humbled to think that there was a greater devotee of the Lord, whom the lord favoured with exclusive audience.

 

Here, therefore, the context in which the word ‘Rãdhã’ is used, refers to a person who has attained the highest state of spiritual evolution – a great and profound selfless devotion which we call ‘Ãrãdhanã’. Hence the derivation ãrãdhyati këòøaæ anayã iti rãdhã (one who devoutly worships is Rãdhã) seems natural and convincing. Barbara Stoller Miller’s derivation – finding connections between Rãdhã and Indra seems rather too far fetched, like finding burglars under the bed.

 

But the question remains who this lady was – a great favourite of the Lord? Årìmad-Bhãgavata is silent about it. There are of course some oblique references which sound significant – such as ‘Lover of Këòøa’ ( këòøapriyã) and ‘Këòøa’s beloved’ ( këòøa preyasì) etc. Ancient commentators maintain that these epithets refer to Rãdhã, though Årìmad-Bhãgavata doesn’t formally acknowledge her as the chief consort of Këòøa. Therefore even though there is the description of Autumnal Rãsa (The autumnal dalliance of the Lord with Gopìs) we don’t find Rãdhã at the centre-stage.

 

Later on, however, ‘Rãdhã’ became the quintessence of Vaiòøava doctrine of devotion (Bhakti), surrender (Prapatti) and selfless service to God. It is said that Rãdhã is,

 

guøaihi ati varìyasì, hareæ atyanta vallabhã

 

The epitome of all virtues and the dearest to the Srì Hari.

 

It is significant to note that ‘Rãdhã’ has not been mentioned anywhere in Mahãbhãrata or even Harivaõåa Purãøa. But there is a mention of her name in Uttara and Patala Khaøîa of Padma Purãøa. Padma Purãøa is supposed to be a recent epic. The tantrik treatise called Pañcatantra Saõhitã, which is supposed to be older and more authentic than even the Purãøas, enshrine the name of ‘Rãdhã’. The earliest poet to make a reference to ‘Rãdhã’ was Hala in his Gãtha Saptaåatì around 6th century A.D.

The concept of ‘Rãdhã’, however, finds a detailed analysis in one of the eighteen famous Purãøas ( Aòóadaåa Purãøa), namely, Brahmavaivarta Purãøa, Part II. In the Khaøîa entitled Årì Këòøajanma Khaøîa i.e. ‘the Këòøa birth episode’, Maharòi Vyãsa writes thus:

 

këòøasyãrdhãùga sambhúta nãthasya sadëòì satì

goloka vasinã åreyam atra këòøajña

adhunã ãjoni sambhavã devì múla prakëti ìåvarì

 

The best among Goloka appeared here by Këòøa’s command. She (Rãdhã) is born of no mother and she (Rãdhã) who is the fundamental Prakëti (the female energy) is in her own right a goddess, and emerged from the better half of Këòøa’s being and moulded after his image. (Trans. Ayengar)

 

Further Vyãsadeva adds:

 

årì këòøasya tejasãrdhena sã ca múrtimatì satì

eka múrtihi dvidhã bhúvã bhedo vedanirúpitã.

 

Rãdhã embodies half the divine effulgence of Srì Krsna. They are both one body divided into two beings – such is the irrefutable decree of the Veda. (Trans. Ayengar)

 

The fact that their identities are one and the same reinforced by what he adds further:

 

iyaõ strì sa pumãn kimvã sã vã kãntã pumãn ayaõ

dvirúpe tejas tulye rúpenãñca guøena ca

parãkrameøaca budhyã vã, jñãnen sampadãpica,

púrate gamane naiva kintu sã vayasãdhikã …

 

In their looks, in their radiance, in their attributes, in their prowess, in their wisdom, in their intelligence and in their riches, they are so identical to each other that it is difficult to tell Rãdhã from Këòøa or Këòøa from Rãdhã and what is more is that she precedes Këòøa and is the older of the two. (Trans: Ayengar)

 

A hirbudhnya Saõhitã explains the need for such a creation. It is in order to create the universe the supreme God divided himself as Åakti and Åaktimãn as dynamic and potential energy. God who is the potential energy or the latent energy is to be lent Kinesis (motion) by Åakti (kinetic energy), His divine consort. Thus the supreme being embodied Himself as Puruòa (male energy) and Prakëti (female energy). Hence Årì Këòøa and Rãdhã respectively represented these two principles. Skanda Purãøa too corroborates the fact that Rãdhikã is a part of the Supreme Soul:

 

ãtmãtu rãdhikã tasya taiva ramanat asau.

 

That is, Rãdhikã is part of thy supreme soul (ãtmã) and thou dally with her (ãtmã saha ramati iti ãtmãrãma). He, therefore, is called Ãtmãrãma.

 

Thus the Parakìyã (the extramarital relation) which is usually ascribed to Rãdhã-Këòøa relation, which even some orthodox Vaiòøava saints look upon as a taint, is in fact a misnomer, studied in the context of what has already been said. Rãdhã, a part and parcel of the same Supreme Soul, is the ‘principle of ecstasy’. She is not anybody else’s wife, dallying with Këòøa in an extramarital situation. She is His Atmã. In Brahmavaivarta Purãøa we find that Këòøa and Rãdhã are not just anybody, but they are a regularly wedded couple, and their marriage had been duly solemnised by Brahmã himself (the first of the Hindu Triumvirate) as the priest.