Krishna and Romance

[gtam 0]

Please go through this website as it tells about Vyasadeva,Sukadeva and Lord Shiva's position in understanding Srimatiradhadevi.

 

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/vyasa_knows.html

 

I will have to agree on the fact that whether we accept it or not or have found several things in history to contradict it the truth is unchangeble.

 

Whether be it "the rasa pastimes or the words of wisdom told by the Lord in the form of Gita,the parental attitude of Yashodadevi,feelings of seperation by the gopis" when one starts enjoying them the joy is unexplainable.Then every object around you,every emotion,even movie songs sounds relevent.

If somebody says "cheezbadi hai musth ..."is attributed to the Lord and his spiritual qualities.

Thanks

 

[shvu 1]

 

Hi Dasha,

 

The issue in question is the dating of the person Krishna who was born and who died. We cannot talk about proving the Supreme source (Krishna as you call it), because it is impossible.

 

Regarding devotion, the issue of dates is totally unnecessary. Doesn't matter if the person Krishna, lived 5000 years ago, or 10000 years ago or is fiction. Since the devotee thinks of Krishna as the unborn, Supreme power and not as the person who lived and died, it is irrelevant.

 

What is my position ?

 

Some people have the misconception that Krishna is a historical character, the Bhagavatam is spotless, Radha was always there in the holy books, etc. I point out that, it is not true. Period.

 

I agree with you that,

 

1. Knowing a lot, does not mean anything.

 

2. Simplicity (like a child) is a good thing.

 

Cheers

 

[animesh 0]

Hi Shvu,

You are right. The beauty of creation does not prove the beauty of creator. But I used the word beautiful in the sense of "amazing".

 

Hi gtam,

If somebody says "cheezbadi hai musth ..."is attributed to the Lord and his spiritual qualities.

 

It seems you have not completed the sentence. Anyway, I was talking about entirely different song.

 

I went through the web-site mentioned by you. According to that site, it is possible that Vyasdeva did not know about Radha. Do you really believe that Vyasdeva who was present during the time of Krishna and who had many divine qualities including the power to give Sanjay divine eyes so that he could see the complete war of Mahabharat from Dhrishtrastr's palace did not know about Radha? I am not trying to say that you should not suggest such things. I am open to ideas. I am open to the possibility that Radha was not known to Vyasdeva even though Vyasdeva was present at that time. But if you suggest such a thing, then you are doubting the divine power of Vyasdeva. If you doubt that, then you are doubting things written by him. Because it is said that he wrote about many incidents even if he was not present there physically, or in other words, he used his divine power.

Which possibility do you want to accept?

[animesh 0]

The site also suggests that Madhya-lila and Gaudiya Kanthahara should be considered as authentic but it is not necessary to consider, as authentic, Bhagwat-puran written by Vyasdeva.

 

Do you believe in this?

Who wrote Madhya-lila and Gaudiya Kanthahara? From where the authors of these two became knowledgeable about things which are written in these two books? Since these books say that Vyasdeva may not know the meaning of Bhagwat, so we should rule out the possibility that the authors used the writings of Vyasdeva. So, we have to exclude the 4 vedas and the 18 puranas written by him.

[sushil_kanoria 0]

Hi Animesh,

It seems you have not read correctly, in the site it is clearly mentioned that "Vyasa may know or may not about radha"

Please go through it once again.

 

Hari Bol,

Sushil.

[shvu 1]

 

Hi Animesh and Sushil,

 

I read the article too. All the GV literature is just 500 years old. Brand new when compared to the older books. A lot of the content is brand new too, and is not to be found in any of the older books.

 

Now naturally the scholars from other Vaishnava Systems would have challenged them asking "What is this all about ?" The GV scholars came up with the idea of 'Vyasa may not have known...'.

 

They admit in one place that Vyasa had Divya Dristi and could see the past, present and future. That is how he wrote History from the time of creation, and could also write the Bhavisya Purana [future]. When it comes to Radha, they will switch modes, and say "Vyasa may not have known..." or "People then, were not worthy of uttering her name" and so on.

 

Vyasa recorded Krishna's life. He was not worthy of uttering Radha's name [apparently] and so he did not mention her anywhere. So there was no Radha for 4000 years. And then, someone [somehow] comes to know about Radha and was also worthy of uttering her name. And you know the rest. And since then everyone is worthy of uttering her name.

 

It is flattering to know that we are worthy of something that the great Vyasa and Suka were not worthy of.

 

Note that the article also says that the other scholars refused to accept this reasoning, which is natural. But people following the GV System do not have a choice. They HAVE TO accept all this as true, irrespective of whether they think it is true or false. Because that is their background.

 

Anyway even their reasoning, admits that there was no Radha is the old books. And they have amde an attempt to explain that in some way.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

Another tought...

 

Perhaps there are other secret characters hidden in Krishna's stroy whom Vyasa did not talk about because he was not worthy enough.

 

500 years from now, someone will suddenly uncover this character and from then on a whole new cult will be born. And history would have repeated itself.

 

Who knows ?

 

Cheers

[animesh 0]

Hi Sushil,

>It seems you have not read correctly, in the site it is clearly mentioned that "Vyasa may know or may not about radha"

Please go through it once again.

 

I have read it quite correctly. Whn you say "Vyasa may know or may not about radha", it means that you are doubting the knowledge of Vyasa. This means you are trying to say that his writings are not authentic, but perhaps the writings of GV are authentic.

[gtam 0]

Hi,

 

I understood the website in the following way.

Vyasadeva the renowned scholar got his knowledge from SriNaradamuni who frequents all the realms but known to be more in the Vaikunta realm.He has himself claimed that he would not be able to describe the Vraja pastimes.When he delivered the divine knowledge to Vyasa may not have gone indepth which does not mean he doesnot know that the vraja pastimes are the highest in the spiritual bhavas.

 

The article further mentions that the guru might know but may not mention even once, the knowledge gets transmitted to the disciples.Another aspect is the backgroung of Suka's birth he was already in the vraja realm so he substantiating about Vraja makes more relevence.Even he says he could not take Radha's name meaning none other than her could satisfy the Lord.

 

A particular father has an asset he passes it on to his son and his further enhances its value by working on it doesnot definitely exclude the father to have never had the asset.Every birth has its own purpose and great saints like them deliver us with their exclusive knowledge.

 

Even the Lord has taught in each of his avataras this aspect where in the Sri Ramayana he does'nt speak about "Gita" but exclusively in the "Krishnaavatara".

[vinc 0]

 

jayasriradhey,

 

the truth hurts you, does it ?

 

but getting angry, rebuking, and all such reactions cannot and will not change facts. They remain the same, irrespective of whether you choose to accept them or not.

 

shvu,

 

you were right. no one answered my questions.

 

[shvu 1]

 

When a person dies, the sense organs die along with the body. Which means, even if there is a soul that is still living on, it can neither see , hear or feel anything (Unlike in the movie Ghost). And memory being part of the physical structure, is gone with the body too.

 

So what is left to re-incarnate or to feel remorseful? Even if something is still living on, there will be no memory there to say "Oh, I made a mistake, by not believing the Gurus !"

 

I bet no one here remembers that they lived before, let alone remembering what they did, or whom they worshipped and how intensely. That is how it is going to be in the next life too, if there is one.

 

So there is no question of feeling remorse; or finding out the truth after death.

 

Cheers

[Dasha 0]

Hi shvu

 

It is explain in Bhagavad Gita that there are 8 elements in this material world:

earth, water, air, fire and ether are "gross" elements

mental, intelligence and ego are more subtle elements.

 

Memory do not reside in palbable elements but rather in mind or intelligence which constitute your subtle body and follow you in your next life.

 

There would be many reasons to explain why we do not remenber everything from our previous life, we can just see that we do not even remenber exatly what we did for sure yesterday at the same time.

 

Beside that there are so many account of person having come to remenber what they did or where in their previous life that it is not possible to deny that.

 

It is also not so difficult to understand that the difference between person is due to what they have done previously. If this is true in material life, it must be true from a life to another.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

Hi Dasha,

 

----

Memory, intelligence and ego are more subtle elements.

----

 

Yes, they are. But all three are related to the body. Brain damage can result in loss of memory, or intelligence as we know. And the brain dies alongwith the body. So how can memory possibly get carried on ?

 

And without memory, the ego [feeling of existence] is not possible. Without memory, we cannot think and we would be like in a Coma.

 

You, me and all the people we know don't remember any of our past lives. Several of the cases who claimed to remember, were proven to be fake or wrong.

 

Which brings us back to the question of what is left to re-incarnate, anyway ?

 

Cheers

[viji_53 0]

Dear shuv,

All the Gopis were given equal importance in the SrimadBhagavat. 31st chapter of 10th Canto of Bhagavat gives Gopi geetam sung by all the Gopis crying for the love of Krishna. Though Krishna played with Gopalas also, those Gopalas were not that crazy(single minded devotion) for Krishna as Gopikas. Krishna says to Gopikas He is indebted to them for their love to Him. I think Chaitanya Mahaprabu, took Radha as representative of Gopis & personified himself as Radha & attained Krishna through prema bhakthi. That is how Radha must have gained popularity. Any how any jiva can attain Krishna like Gopi(Radha for example)by premabhakthi. We must develop simple & pure devotion to Krishna for attaining HIM.

HariBhol!

[vanamali 1]

from my point of view:

 

Lord Rama is the example of the perfect man in matters of romance. He thought a man should only have one wife, and that of course was Maa Lakshmi- Seeta

 

Lord Krishna is the example of the perfect God in matters of romance. He never said no to anyone who was seeking his love and grace, even if the devotees numbered in the thousands. This is why Lord Krishna seems so accessible. No matter how unqualified you are (16,000 odd princess kidnapped by Narakasura and thus doomed to a life without marriage and of disdain by society and their families.- Even so they were accepted by Lord Krishna because of their love.)

[Guest guest]

"Vinc" wrote:

 

 

The Mahabharata is the original or the earliest source of Krishna. All the later works refer to the Mahabharata.

 

 

to which "Shvu" responded:

 

 

Since the Puranas did not appear until much later, they must have relied on the Mahabharata for any information on

 

 

 

What I found curiously absent, given the brazen conviction with which these remarks are made, is any sort presentation of evidence upon which they are based. Without evidence, the idea that the purAna-s are later to the mahAbhArata is merely unfounded conjecture. In my experience, the only people who adopt such views are those who want to believe in them.... i.e. they decide their views first and then adjust the arguments to support them.

 

In other words, these theories are the playthings of University Indologists who want to feel that they have the history of India penned down, rather than the truly humble scholar who can admit when he does not know the truth.

 

Vinc and Shvu, it is well known that traditional scholars take the purAna-s and mahAbhArata to be compilations of vyAsa. What is your evidence to suggest that some of these texts appeared "earlier" and others "later?"

 

Please note that by "evidence," I am referring to actual facts and not merely someone else's opinion. If you are capable of doing something more than blindly towing the party line of Hindu apologists and dry, secular academics, please do educate us.

 

 

More than frustrating, it is amazing that people paid so much of importance to rAdhA, even after knowing that there is no mention of her in the Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana, Hari Vamsha and the Bhagavatam.

 

 

And why, praytell, must any deity or consort of a deity be mentioned in these scriptures in order to earn a following? There are devotees of Venakateshwara, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Harihara, and many others all over India, and no one questions their beliefs because their ishta-devatas are not mentioned in the above scriptures.

 

Shvu, why is it that only the rAdhA devotees merit your ridicule? Can you explain that one to me?

 

FYI, while the sources you mention do not name rAdhA, references to her are easily found in the padma purAna, nArada purAna, and the brahma-vaivarta purAna, the former two being in the sAttvik class. Again, I am not clear on why the gauDIyas (whom I believe it is you are targetting), must apologize at all for their beliefs simply because one of their deities is not mentioned in a few scriptures arbitrarily selected by you.

 

Obviously, anyone with half a brain can note the texts upon which someone else bases their practices, and then arbitrarily select others which don't speak of that practice, and claim "hah, what's the big fuss, this may be mentioned in that text but it is not mentioned in these texts...."

 

Shvu, there is nothing particularly sophisticated about that type of criticism.

 

You make a claim to the effect "Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad." But you don't support that conclusion at all. Apparently, your sole criterion for making this determination is whether or not you are aware of dated references referring to it. Yet it is by no means obvious that you have personally scoured the length and breadth of India searching out Sanskrit texts; nor is it the case that the Indology community as a whole has done so.

 

Objectively speaking (which you are not doing, so allow me), when one has no secondary evidence older than a certain date (say, 700 AD) which refers to a specific text, one can only say that the the specific text is at least as as old as the age of the secondary texts referring to it.

 

This is not the same thing as saying that the specific text is only as old as the secondary texts referring to it. Surely, you can fathom this. Saying "I have no text referring to padma purAna which is older than 700 AD, therefore padma purAna is no older than 700 AD" is spurious reasoning. One could only make such an assertion if one could lay claim to having discovered ALL Sanskrit texts from all times and places, which obviously no one can do.

 

On the other hand, saying "text A is at least as old as 700 AD because other texts known to be as old as 700 AD refer to it" is a more conservative, scientific conclusion. It leaves open the possibility of the date being amended, without taking a position based on blind faith that no evidence ever existed or will exist supporting an older date.

 

Of course, it goes without saying that traditional scholars accept a much older date to the texts in question than you do, but then traditional scholars don't seem much interested in subjecting their beliefs to empirical scholarship. Then again, you yourself don't seem much interested in subjecting your beliefs to a little bit of common sense. So I guess we can't fault them, now can we?

 

 

Also note that Radha is not worshipped among the other Vaishnavas.

 

 

And similarly, the Lord of Tirumala is not worshipped by tattvavAdi-s or other vaiSNava-s outside rAmAnuja's sect, at least, not as a matter of doctrine. Though many vaiSNava-s may go there who are not rAmAnuja's followers, they do so only by social influence and not by consulting sAstra about who venkateshwara is.

 

Shvu, do you similarly criticize the worship of venkateshwara? You don't seem to be doing so here. Why not? More money is donated to that temple than to any temple of rAdhA. Why the personal vendetta against the gauDIya-s?

 

 

Let alone the romance and Radha, I personally don't know if Krishna himself was real or not !

 

 

You yourself have stated that "Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and all the later people are historical characters." What makes them historical while Krishna is mythical? If it is so obvious, can you enlighten us?

 

Is it:

-- a matter of age (i.e. does one go from historical to "mythical" after a certain time period has passed, thus making it likely that historical characters of today will be mythical characters of tomorrow).

-- a matter of leaving written records (in that case any illiterate person from the past is immediately mythical, by virtue of having left no written records of his existence)

-- or some other issue?

 

vinc finally wrote:

 

 

shvu,

 

you were right. no one answered my questions.

 

 

Well, I suspect that I won't get any answers to my questions. Because my experience has generally been that Hindu apologists and others brainwashed by unfounded assumptions inherent in the Indology community's scholarship are rarely prepared to defend their conclusions with anything resembling clarity of thought. No, I suspect that Shvu and Vinc were just hoping to get a few of the ISKCON fanatics all stirred up. But anyway, my objections (which, unlike the ones previous to it, are not based on any arbitrary assumptions but rather on the obvious flaws in Shvu's thought process) still stand. Let's see if he or Vinc are prepared to answer.

 

Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.

[Avinash 0]

Shvu and Vinc stopped posting here months back. It is highly unlikely that you will get any response from them.

[Guest guest]

 

Shvu and Vinc stopped posting here months back

 

 

 

It seems the shvu and vinc posts are more than 3 years old!

[Avinash 0]

In this thread, their posts are more than three years old. Though they posted many times after that (in other threads).

Such an old thread has been revived.

[Guest guest]

I definitely saw Shvu within the last few months here. He's around, if he wants to answer. Even if he declines, there are plenty of Shvu-clones out there. Let one of them step forward.

[Avinash 0]

Did you see any post from him? Or, did you see his name as one of the online users? When did you last see?

[Guest guest]

 

16,000 odd princess

 

 

 

bhagvatam 1.10.28 says: O friends, just think of His wives, whose hands He has accepted. How they must have undergone vows, baths, fire sacrifices and perfect worship of the Lord of the universe to constantly relish now the nectar from His lips [by kissing]. The damsels of Vrajabhūmi would often faint just by expecting such favors.

 

 

He never said no to anyone who was seeking his love and grace

 

 

 

Yeah, the prospects with Krishna are better :-)

[Guest guest]

Yes, I saw him post. But anyway, I wasn't really expecting a response. Shvu clones only know how to state an opinion. Proving it on the other hand is another issue. The best they can do for "proof" is refer to the Max Muellers and H.H. Wilsons of the world.

 

This is the pattern with Hindu apologists who blindly propagate theories which they don't understand.

 

[Guest guest]

Hmm, still no answers from the Shvu crowd. I guess they prefer "hit and run" to serious discussion.