Krsna plus Srimati Radhika's inner mood and gaura-kanti (golden complexion) is Sacinandana Gaurahari.
A very beautiful and imaginative way to describe Hari indeed. No sruti text, however, describes Hari in that way. Only some Pañcaratras that cannot be considered Vedic.
He wanted to give raganuga bhakti and especially rupanuga-bhakti, the service to Srimati Radharani. We have no direct relationship with Krsna. Our svamini is Srimati Radhika. Our relationship is with Her, and Krsna is Her most beloved.
Badarayana Rsi himself states in Vedanta-sutras (2.4.42-46) that the theory of saktis cannot be employed to describe how Hari performs His pastimes. No ‘service’ to these saktis can be taken as serious, as these lilas are far beyond this ingenuous explanation.
If one is stating that he has no direct relationship with Hari he is accepting a second Hari, or something that is different to Hari to be related with. This is an utmost absurd, as Hari is one without a second. No lilas’ partners can be worshiped as Hari, or are to be considered as a second Hari, or as Hari’s soul, etc. Badarayana Rsi (Vyasadeva) himself strongly refuses such imaginative and falacious thesis in his Vedanta-sutras.
Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:
He wanted to give raganuga bhakti and especially rupanuga-bhakti, the service to Srimati Radharani. We have no direct relationship with Krsna. Our svamini is Srimati Radhika. Our relationship is with Her, and Krsna is Her most beloved.
Badarayana Rsi himself states in Vedanta-sutras (2.4.42-46) that the theory of saktis cannot be employed to describe how Hari performs His pastimes. No ‘service’ to these saktis can be taken as serious, as these lilas are far beyond this ingenuous explanation.
If one is stating that he has no direct relationship with Hari he is accepting a second Hari, or something that is different to Hari to be related with. This is an utmost absurd, as Hari is one without a second. No lilas’ partners can be worshiped as Hari, or are to be considered as a second Hari, or as Hari’s soul, etc. Badarayana Rsi (Vyasadeva) himself strongly refuses such imaginative and falacious thesis in his Vedanta-sutras.(/B)
Discussions on the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please place practical questions under the Miscellaneous forum and set this aside for the more theoretical side of it.
Ontological position of Srimati Radharani - in Gaudiya Vaishnavism
"Of these two [Radhika and Candravali], Radhika is greater in every way. She is the very nature of mahabhava and She surpasses all with Her good qualities." (Ujjvala-Nilamani)
Her whole mind, senses and body are steeped in love for Krishna; and being of His own sakti, She assists Him in pastimes.
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, who resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency [hlādinī]. Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa." (Brahma-samhita 5.37)
kRSNere karAya yaiche rasa asvAdana krIDAra sahAya yaiche, zuna vivaraNa
Listen now to the description of how Krishna is assisted in His endeavour to taste the mellows of rasa, and how He is assisted in His loving plays.
kRSNa-kAntA-gaNa dekhi tri-vidha prakAra eka lakSmI-gaNa, pure mahiSI-gaNa Ara vrajAGganA-rUpa, Ara kAntA-gaNa-sAra zrI rAdhikA haite kAntA-gaNera vistAra
The lovers of Krishna are seen as three types; one, the Laksmis, then the Queens [Mahishis of Dvaraka], and the beautifully-formed ladies of Vraja who are the foremost of the three. These categories of lovers all emanate from Sri Radhika.
avatArI kRSNa yaiche kare avatAra aMzinI rAdhA haite tina gaNera vistAra
Just as Krishna, the source of all incarnations, takes incarnations, so is Radha the source of these three groups.
Among these paramours in Vraja exist various differences in mood and mellows, which all assist Krishna in tasting the bliss of the Rasa-dance and other lilas.
Radha is She who gives bliss to Govinda, She who bewilders Govinda, She who is the all-in-all of Govinda. Verily, She is the crown-jewel of all the lovers!
devI kRSNa-mayI proktA rAdhikA para-devatA sarva-lakSmI-mayI sarva- kAntiH sammohinI parA
"Sri Radhika is known as Devi, Krishnamayi, Supreme Goddess in whom all Laksmis reside; Her beauty and charm defeat that of all others.”
'Krishna-mayi' means one whose within and without is Krishna. Wherever Her eyes fall, there Krishna appears.
kimvA, prema-rasa-maya kRSNera svarUpa tAGra zakti tAGra saha haya eka-rUpa
Or it can mean that She is the real nature of Krishna and the epitome of loving rasa, as His sakti is one with Him.
kRSNa-vAñchA-pUrti-rUpa kare ArAdhane ataeva 'rAdhikA' nAma purANe vAkhAne
Her worship of Krishna consists of fulfilling His desires. Therefore the Puranas address Her as 'Radhika'.
anayArAdhito nUnaM bhagavAn harir IzvaraH yan no vihAya govindaH prIto yAm anayad rahaH
"This one worshipped Hari, who is the Supreme Lord. Therefore Govinda, being pleased with Her, left us aside and led Her to a solitary place." (SB 10.30.28)
ataeva sarva-pUjyA, parama-devatA sarva-pAlikA, arva jagatera mAtA
Therefore, being the supreme goddess, She is worshipable for all. She is the protectress of all and the mother of the whole universe.
'sarva-lakSmI'-zabda pUrva kariyAchi vyAkhyAna sarva-lakSmI-gaNera tiGho hana adhiSThAna
I have previously explained the meaning of 'sarva-laksmi'. She [Radha] is the abode of all the Laksmis.
Just as musk and it's scent are inseparable and just as fire and it's heat are insperable, so too are are They nondifferent.
rAdhA-kRSNa aiche adA eka-i svarUpa lIlA-rasa AsvAdite dhare dui-rUpa
In this way Radha and Krishna are of one nature, and have manifested in two forms in order to taste lila-rasa.
That's some heavy food for thought we have there! Anyone have any thoughts on Srimati's ontological position?
Gaurasundara - Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:23:22 +0530
What, no thoughts at all?
I haven't got around to reading Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushan's Govinda-bhashya commentary to the Vedanta-sutra, so I'm unsure about the arguments and reasonings that he employs in order to present the dual-deity worship as performed by Gaudiyas. It would be very interesting to hear some of these arguments. I am under the impression that interpreting the Vedanta in such a way to strengthen the dual-divinity concept is something rather new and unusual as compared to other interpretations.
On a more direct note, I'm impressed with the various references to how Srimati is the origin of the Lakshmis, Mahishis, and so on. I think that this section of CC is one of those that present core Gaudiya siddhanta, and that this conception of Swamini ias the origin of all other 'female' tattvas is just as much a core Gaudiya tenet as any other.
I assume that we're all familiar with how traditional Hindu mythology and exegesis reveres Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu Whereas Gaudiyas differ from everyone else on this point, it's quite astounding to learn that Radha is the source of Lakshmi!
suryaz - Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:38:30 +0530
This quote is from Gaurasundra's Radha quotes above
quote
anayArAdhito nUnaM bhagavAn harir IzvaraH yan no vihAya govindaH prIto yAm anayad rahaH
This one worshipped Hari, who is the Supreme Lord. Therefore Govinda, being pleased with Her, left us aside and led Her to a solitary place." (SB 10.30.28 )
end of quote
Gaurasundra,
There is no reference to Radha in SB
She is of secular poetry pre-Jayadeva
It was Jayadeva's Gita Govinda that first named Radha as a bhakti archetype and as Krsna's lover gopi. (Krsna was a young boy)
Also in Jayadeva, Radha (the love of Krsna) is a good many years older than Krsna (see the first verse).
It is in Rupa Goswami that Radha is a gopi (15 years) one year younger than Krsna.
Talasiga - Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:08:11 +0530
Gaurasundara raises a question about Raadha's ontological position. Suryaz responds with a historiographic bent which is usually not relevant to the ontological consideration. (Unless, of course, the ontology relies on, or claims, historiographical evidence.) Questions on ontology are, by nature, noetic, and noetics is generally disapproved in missionary Gaudiya movements.
The examination of historiographical evidence is less noetic than the examination of ontology.
Talasiga - Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:33:15 +0530
QUOTE(Sakhicharan @ Dec 9 2005, 05:18 AM)
.......I just thought a little more regard should be afforded to those wiho are putting so much effort into spreading the prema-dharma of Mahaprabhu. .......
I was not aware that the devotionalism of Lord Chaitanya was averse to either noetics or poetics. Therefore I am not able to see anything in my earlier post repugnant to Lord Chaitanya's "prema-dharma".
What I find questionable is the quest to establish or rationalise Raadha's ontology on the basis of material historicity. That Raadha may, ultimately, prove to be only knowable through the "evidence" of myth and poetics, does not, to my mind discredit her. Rather it increases her attraction and power. That Raadha may be claimed proven through materialistic evidence does not discredit her either. However, it throws into question the faith of those whose devotion is premised on such evidence and those who seek to convert or influence others on the basis of this. That does not mean to say that it is blasphemous to research the historical and other material evidence regarding her. It is interesting and good.
Gaurasundara - Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:22:35 +0530
QUOTE(suryaz @ Dec 9 2005, 03:08 AM)
Gaurasundra,
There is no reference to Radha in SB
She is of secular poetry pre-Jayadeva
It was Jayadeva's Gita Govinda that first named Radha as a bhakti archetype and as Krsna's lover gopi.
Yes I know this already, but it's kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. As you can see, that was a collection of quotes from the CC that purport to describe the ontological position of Radharani. As for no reference to Radha in SB, it is very well known that the Gaudiya theology points to SB 10.30.28 as a mention of Radha. I do not have that reference handy, perhaps someone else does?
In any case, does anyone happen to have a copy of Sri Vidyabhushan's Govinda-bhashya by which they can furnish some reasonings to help us understand how the 'shakti' aspect of Gaudiya theology (represented by Swamini Herself) in the light of Vedantic theology?
suryaz - Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:11:23 +0530
That is just a manipulation of language - the SB does not mention Radha.
Yes I have a copy but it is packed away.
Here is a bibliography reference
Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa. 1700>1768. Govinda-bhäñya (Tr. Savu, Chandra. 1912). In The Vedänta Sütras of Bädaräyaëa: with commentary of Baladeva. India: Apurva Krishna Bose, Indian Press.
You can most probably get it through a uni library
Anyone have any thoughts on Srimati's ontological position?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario