• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Radha myth or real

prasad1

Active member
This piece may be controversial but it is an inquiry of facts or history. No disrespect to any groups,

Srimad Bhagavatam is specifically about the glories of Lord Krishna, not even once there directly appears, in the entire book, the most auspicious name of Srimati Radha! Not even once!

Radha, the gopi (milkmaid) who is depicted as the beloved of the god Krishna during that period of his life when he lived among the gopas (cowherds) of Vrindavan. Radha was the wife of another gopa. When Krishna was in Vrindhavan he was a child, Gopies were all much older than him.

Krishna never returned to Vrindhavan. So the depiction of an adult Krishna with Radha is pure imagination.


Srimad Bhagavatam And Krishna’s Age

Uddhava says the following at the time when Krishna kills Kamsa. Basically he is stating that Krishna was 11 years old when he killed Kamsa. Krishna killed Kamsa on the Shivaratri day after his 10th birthday.

When Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura, he was 10 years old.

Radha is only mentioned in medieval scriptures after Acharya Nimbark and poet Jayadeva wrote about her in their works. Medieval literature from that point on mentions her in technicolor detail. But, none of this is based on any historic or original scriptures.

There is no mention of Radha in any ancient scripture.

These original scriptures mention all sorts of details - some even embarrassing ones - yet they don’t mention Radha. Even Shishupal, who abuses and curses in Krushna is most colorful gutter language, does not mention any pre-marital relationships of Shri Krushna - least of all with Radha. Later works like BhramVaivarta, Devi Bhagavatam, etc are Medieval creations.

The entire cast of gopies and the lilas (daan, hori, pana ghat etc) we ascribe to them was written later by various saints like Shri Nimbakacharya, Jayadev, Shri Chaitanya etc. Their revelations are the devotional revelations of their journey into their bhav. There is no “real evidence” nor “historical authenticity” about what they say. It is their "sakhi-bhav" and their feelings of "Krushna-prem" that are expressed in their writings.

However, there is no “historical evidence” for Shri Radha or any such gopi(es) in the original scriptures. We can read about what gopies mean to the Gaudia sect, or what Meerabai sings or what the Astachaps have sung about them in later times, but, none of this is based on the SM Bhagvatam or any other scripture that is considered tobe a “praman” by Shri Vallabhacharya or any great philosopher before Nimbark.
Radha does not exist at all in the first scriptures attributed to Vyasa that narrate the stories of Krishna's life and leelas. These scriptures are Mahabharat Harivansh Bhagavatham and Vishnu Purana. These are considered as the original canons.

These do not mention Radha at all. Vyasa was not a prude to frown upon pre marital relationships whether consensual or otherwise and he doesn't shy from mentioning the same for his own mother or himself as well. I see no reason why he had to hide Radha. He shows Krishna's leelas with other gopikas and gopalas. He shows every major incident of his life but doesn't bother to mention Radha who is supposed to be his soul mate.

I am of the firm belief she never existed, but the imagination of certain sections of Vaishnava especially poets like Jayadev of Gaudiya Vaishnava sect. She symbolizes their own unrequited devotion.

It was Jayadev, who made the story of Radha and Krishna, very famous through his Sanskrit ballad, Gita Govinda, written in the 12th century.

In Guruvayur Temple the main deity is Krishna, and there is no mention of Radha.

The Bhagavata Purana, Krishna's wives includes Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana. Variations exist in the Vishnu Purana and the Harivamsa, which includes queens called Madri or Rohini, instead of Bhadra. Most of them are princesses.

Rukmini, the princess of Vidarbha was Krishna's first wife and chief queen (Patrani) of Dwarka. She is considered as an avatar of Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. Satyabhama, the third wife, a Yadava princess, is considered the aspect of the earth-goddess Bhudevi.

Radha is a myth created by Jaydeva to represent Jeevatma and Krishna as Paramatma.
 

sravna

Well-known member
This piece may be controversial but it is an inquiry of facts or history. No disrespect to any groups,

Srimad Bhagavatam is specifically about the glories of Lord Krishna, not even once there directly appears, in the entire book, the most auspicious name of Srimati Radha! Not even once!

Radha, the gopi (milkmaid) who is depicted as the beloved of the god Krishna during that period of his life when he lived among the gopas (cowherds) of Vrindavan. Radha was the wife of another gopa. When Krishna was in Vrindhavan he was a child, Gopies were all much older than him.

Krishna never returned to Vrindhavan. So the depiction of an adult Krishna with Radha is pure imagination.


Srimad Bhagavatam And Krishna’s Age

Uddhava says the following at the time when Krishna kills Kamsa. Basically he is stating that Krishna was 11 years old when he killed Kamsa. Krishna killed Kamsa on the Shivaratri day after his 10th birthday.

When Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura, he was 10 years old.

Radha is only mentioned in medieval scriptures after Acharya Nimbark and poet Jayadeva wrote about her in their works. Medieval literature from that point on mentions her in technicolor detail. But, none of this is based on any historic or original scriptures.

There is no mention of Radha in any ancient scripture.

These original scriptures mention all sorts of details - some even embarrassing ones - yet they don’t mention Radha. Even Shishupal, who abuses and curses in Krushna is most colorful gutter language, does not mention any pre-marital relationships of Shri Krushna - least of all with Radha. Later works like BhramVaivarta, Devi Bhagavatam, etc are Medieval creations.

The entire cast of gopies and the lilas (daan, hori, pana ghat etc) we ascribe to them was written later by various saints like Shri Nimbakacharya, Jayadev, Shri Chaitanya etc. Their revelations are the devotional revelations of their journey into their bhav. There is no “real evidence” nor “historical authenticity” about what they say. It is their "sakhi-bhav" and their feelings of "Krushna-prem" that are expressed in their writings.

However, there is no “historical evidence” for Shri Radha or any such gopi(es) in the original scriptures. We can read about what gopies mean to the Gaudia sect, or what Meerabai sings or what the Astachaps have sung about them in later times, but, none of this is based on the SM Bhagvatam or any other scripture that is considered tobe a “praman” by Shri Vallabhacharya or any great philosopher before Nimbark.
Radha does not exist at all in the first scriptures attributed to Vyasa that narrate the stories of Krishna's life and leelas. These scriptures are Mahabharat Harivansh Bhagavatham and Vishnu Purana. These are considered as the original canons.

These do not mention Radha at all. Vyasa was not a prude to frown upon pre marital relationships whether consensual or otherwise and he doesn't shy from mentioning the same for his own mother or himself as well. I see no reason why he had to hide Radha. He shows Krishna's leelas with other gopikas and gopalas. He shows every major incident of his life but doesn't bother to mention Radha who is supposed to be his soul mate.

I am of the firm belief she never existed, but the imagination of certain sections of Vaishnava especially poets like Jayadev of Gaudiya Vaishnava sect. She symbolizes their own unrequited devotion.

It was Jayadev, who made the story of Radha and Krishna, very famous through his Sanskrit ballad, Gita Govinda, written in the 12th century.

In Guruvayur Temple the main deity is Krishna, and there is no mention of Radha.

The Bhagavata Purana, Krishna's wives includes Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana. Variations exist in the Vishnu Purana and the Harivamsa, which includes queens called Madri or Rohini, instead of Bhadra. Most of them are princesses.

Rukmini, the princess of Vidarbha was Krishna's first wife and chief queen (Patrani) of Dwarka. She is considered as an avatar of Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth. Satyabhama, the third wife, a Yadava princess, is considered the aspect of the earth-goddess Bhudevi.

Radha is a myth created by Jaydeva to represent Jeevatma and Krishna as Paramatma.
Dear Prasad,

Radha is super real. Your last sentence said it. In some ways myth and super reality are similar. You can't find evidence in mundane life. Even what is said in the puranas have no historical evidence. Either you go totally by science or totally by your faith. Radha is a faith though not in all of mythology. There is no real consensus among mythologies even.

So the conclusion is either go by your faith or go by logic. My faith is Radha is super real and she is the Shakthi of Krishna. You cannot separate Radha from Krishna as they are one.
 

sravna

Well-known member
My understanding is that the highest existence of Shiva and Vishnu is as nirguna brahman. Similarly the highest existence of Lakshmi is as Radha corresponding to Vishnu's Krishna.
 

sravna

Well-known member
That Krishna is the ultimate God is seen in Gita and maybe in others. In Gita he says that among Adityas I am Vishnu and among Rudras I am Shiva. So he stands above Shiva and Vishnu as parabrahman. Obviously the feminine aspect has to be there which is Radha. Rukmini or Satyabhama are not that feminine aspect as they are associated with Lakshmi.
 

sravna

Well-known member
According to me the following is true

Nirguna brahman which is genderless by itself can project masculine and feminine aspects. At nirguna brahman level these aspects are parashakthi and paramatma. The projected masculine and feminine aspects are the pairs of tridevs and tridevis.

Radha and mahakali are associated with krishna and mahakaal and are at paramatma level. The masculine and feminine exist as one.

Lakshmi, Parvati, Saraswati associated with Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are at Saguna brahman level.
 

sravna

Well-known member
One question to Prasad. Can you find historical evidence for Nirguna brahman? It is more in the mind and that too a perfectly elevated one you find evidence.
 

renuka

Well-known member
I feel Radha is a projection and not a person.
She is a projection of Krishna for us humans to emulate Her as how to be part of God yet able to project ourselves to be a Bhakta.

It's poetry and nectar in action.
I feel to experience the essence of any religion we actually need to go beyond intellectualization.

Going by logic even Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati are projections.

Everything but Nirguna Brahman is a projection.
 

sravna

Well-known member
Well said. Even Lakshmi, Durga and Saraswathi are found only in texts. My belief is they do represent potent energies though they may not exist in the way we imagine. So also Radha.
 

sravna

Well-known member
But I will tell you something Renuka. My very strong belief which I feel with certainty is God exists and avatars are real.

I am not sure of all the stories about Gods but I think they are got by intuition which may contain truths though many times in a metaphorical way.
 

sravna

Well-known member
The Intuition of those who told the stories should be very strong considering how true what are said of inner realities and even subtle body is and how deep indian philosophy is. They couldn't have found it by experimentation but with a very strong intuition and it is incredible that the intuition is correct to the tee. This is based on my experience.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Active member
I can understand Mira, but I can not understand Radha.
The sensual portrayal by all artists including Jaydev is cheapening the love of Atma and Paramatma.

1641860716862.png


So all these bhajans and depiction of adult relationships is wrong and has cheapened a beautiful relation.


Instead of Adult Krishna, it should be baby Krishna

1641860914577.png


Radha is one of the Gopies. Radha was already married to another Gopa, so this might have been history.
 
Last edited:

sravna

Well-known member
Krishna is the paramatma. So it does not matter whether he was a child or an adult. Krishna's relationship with Radha happened when he was very young. Radha was supposed to be elder to Him.

Since Krishna is paramatma the one He loves has to be divine and be Lakshmi in essence. The fact that Radha married another person can be explained away by saying that Radha's husband has to be an amsa of Vishnu. How else can it be?
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Active member
By portraying Radha as an adult woman in extra-marital relation with a young boy, Jaydev and bhakti marg did a disservice to Hinduism.
The beautiful relation between Atma and Paramatma was vilified. That was taken a further step in the wrong direction by Hare Krishna Cult or Radha swami cult.
 

renuka

Well-known member
By portraying Radha as an adult woman in extra-marital relation with a young boy, Jaydev and bhakti marg did a disservice to Hinduism.
The beautiful relation between Atma and Paramatma was vilified. That was taken a further step in the wrong direction by Hare Krishna Cult or Radha swami cult.
In a way you are right.
But at the same time we do find verses praising Goddesses which describe the female anatomy in detail.

I guess its a writing style.
 

sravna

Well-known member
If Radha is a myth so is Krishna. There is no historical evidence for Krishna or Shiva as for Radha. But my intuition says there is truth to the existence of Krishna and Radha as for other Gods. It is also my experience in addition to intuition. It could be that Mahabharata and Ramayana and other epics are divine inspiration more than actual occurrence. But I can also imagine how it could have actually happened. The bottom-line is Gods wanted to convey their message and guidelines to dharmic living and fighting of adharma. Most likely it is a mix of divinely inspired stories and actual occurrence. God does descend as Avatar for sure.

Radha cannot be dismissed as just myth. She well could be the eternal consort of Krishna. I believe in it.
 

Suresh ente sure

Active member
If Radha is a myth so is Krishna. There is no historical evidence for Krishna or Shiva as for Radha. But my intuition says there is truth to the existence of Krishna and Radha as for other Gods. It is also my experience in addition to intuition. It could be that Mahabharata and Ramayana and other epics are divine inspiration more than actual occurrence. But I can also imagine how it could have actually happened. The bottom-line is Gods wanted to convey their message and guidelines to dharmic living and fighting of adharma. Most likely it is a mix of divinely inspired stories and actual occurrence. God does descend as Avatar for sure.

Radha cannot be dismissed as just myth. She well could be the eternal consort of Krishna. I believe in it.
God is pure human creation . If you read the first paragraph of manusmriti with open mind you bound accept it
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks