Gaudiya Vaishnavism queries and discussion thread.

[Asha]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji

No, worshiping her is not a problem. She just isn't worshiped a lot, just like how Parashurama isn't worshiped a lot (but both are a part of Vaishnavism). Besides, I don't think Shri Vaishnavas consider Radha to be a legitimate goddess, perhaps just a gopi.

Please correct me if l am wrong, but you are Sri Vaisnava, so you worship Krishna in a differnt aspect, you worship Narayana so to you the eternal consort is split between Sri devi Bhu devi and Nila devi, or is worshiped as Laxmi devi?

Please think carefully before you would say Radha is not legitimate goddess, she is more than a goddes she is Krishna Lila so she is an expansion of Krishna himself.

please do not commit this acidental offence.

Jai Shree Krishna Jai Shree Radha

 

[Chakra]

Hare Krishna Prabhu ji




Please correct me if l am wrong, but you are Sri Vaisnava, so you worship Krishna in a differnt aspect, you worship Narayana so to you the eternal consort is split between Sri devi Bhu devi and Nila devi, or is worshiped as Laxmi devi?

Please think carefully before you would say Radha is not legitimate goddess, she is more than a goddes she is Krishna Lila so she is an expansion of Krishna himself.

please do not commit this acidental offence.

Jai Shree Krishna Jai Shree Radha

I did not mean to offend anyone. The truth is that many Shri Vaishnavas don't accept Smt. Radha as a Goddess, and who knows why. It is their sampradaya, and I was just telling Terese the sampradayic opinion.

Apologies if I offended anyone.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji , ....

With all due respect, does this argument appear logical?

1. Radha is not mentioned in *any* scripture that is dated prior to the 12th Century CE.
2. No scholar of repute (or otherwise) before this time, interpreted any Vedic/Puranic text to identify a character named Radha.
3. None of the well known Vaishnava traditions that have been in existence before Gaudiya Vaishnavism make a mention of Radha.

what use is our so caled logic when it comes to understanding the confidential pastimes of Sri Krsna , our only hope of understandig such lila is through the rendering of loving devotional service , ....

what scholar even one of great repute can taste the rasa of divine lila without surrender , it is as ridiculous as to think that ones thirst might be quenched by reading about the qualities of water , .....

as to the question of preceeding Vaisnava traditions each have their own bhava , ...there is no need that we each respond to the supreme in exactly the same way , ...Krsna himself is all arractive therefore appears differently deliberatly dependant on the mentality of the devotee , ...each seeing and concentrating on a different aspect of the supreme , ...

4. There is nothing confidential about Radha today. Why was she held confidential until the 12th Century, after when her knowledge became public? What was that turning event that caused the change?

even today although Vrindarban lila widely writen about Sri Radhika is still illudes all but her own most surrendered Devotees even these pray constantly for her mercy that we may obtain her seva , knowing that to please or win the aproval of Srimati Radharani herself is bring happiness and to render seva to Krsna himself , ....therefore the despite what we think to be knowledge of confidential pastimes we still remain un enlightened , .....the only way to gain knowledge of Sri Radhika's Bhav is to take shelter of her lotus feet , ...

Isn't it far more reasonable therefore, that Radha is a later deity, who came into prominence in Eastern India during the 12th Century CE? Chaitanya lived in the same region and therefore it is quite natural that she would become a big part of his new doctrine.

I do not know how to explain it any other way than to say what is Bhava canot become Doctrine , ...what has always been regarded confidential can only remain that way , it is almost an imposssibility to explain divine lila , it is a rasa that must be tasted , ....it canot be any other way , Srimati Radharani is none other than the pleasure principle or potency of the Supreme , ...(his hladhini shakti), ..it canot be understood by the material mind it can be known only by the pure devotee , the conditioned soul is quite blind he will not see even if it were writen a thousand times before him , thus the wise do not reveal such confidential pastimes , ....[/quote]

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Chakra ji , ..

I did not mean to offend anyone. The truth is that many Shri Vaishnavas don't accept Smt. Radha as a Goddess, and who knows why. It is their sampradaya, and I was just telling Terese the sampradayic opinion.

Apologies if I offended anyone.

there is no offence for that which is said out of not knowing , but now that we are openly discussing this we need to be most carefull and above all respectfull , ...the main offence comes by refuting her valitity on the grounds of the lack of Shastric eveidence , ....

Yes it is true she is not ''a Goddess'' she is Sri Krsna himself , ..she is Queen of Vrndarban , she is Maharani , ..even many Gaudiya Vaisnava do not fully understand her position thus we seek the mercy of the Guru and of their Lordships Sri Sri Gaura Nitai , ...Guru expands upon confidential pastimes when he is in the company of those he thinks able to apreciate fully , otherwise it is better not discussed , ...even between Gaudiya Vaisnavas them selves , ..

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji , ....

what use is our so caled logic when it comes to understanding the confidential pastimes of Sri Krsna , our only hope of understandig such lila is through the rendering of loving devotional service , ....

ratikala,

Do not take this as criticism. This is merely how a non-GV looks at this case objectively. We need to be consistent. If logic is bad, then why take the trouble to -

1. Create a long list of verses attempting to establish the avatarhood of Chaitanya? None of these verses stand up to scrutiny (discussed elsewhere) and when questioned, the defense is that he was a "hidden" avatar or that we should not approach this subject through logic.

2. Why bother to take the trouble to controvert verses to show "hidden" references to Radha? When it is pointed out that there is no evidence of Radha's existence before the 12th Century, the defense is to condemn logic and switch the topic to Rasa.

As you state, you have accepted both of these claims (Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity) solely on faith - without scanning the evidence and without ever considering the alternative. Obviously then, you should also accept that without the underlying faith - which is only possible if one is a GV - neither of the two claims are acceptable. Trying to convince non-GVs of either Chaitanya's avatarhood or Radha's divinity will be unsuccessful. The frequent threat of aparadha by GVs does not work either, as the people you are conversing with are non-GVs and they do not see rejection of these claims as Aparadhas.

You and Nitaidas have to come to terms with the fact that Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity are not accepted by other Vaishnavas for lack of acceptable scriptural and traditional evidence. These claims can be taken seriously only if one has faith in the GV sources.

 

[निताइ dasa]

ratikala,

Do not take this as criticism. This is merely how a non-GV looks at this case objectively. We need to be consistent. If logic is bad, then why take the trouble to -

1. Create a long list of verses attempting to establish the avatarhood of Chaitanya? None of these verses stand up to scrutiny (discussed elsewhere) and when questioned, the defense is that he was a "hidden" avatar or that we should not approach this subject through logic.

2. Why bother to take the trouble to controvert verses to show "hidden" references to Radha? When it is pointed out that there is no evidence of Radha's existence before the 12th Century, the defense is to condemn logic and switch the topic to Rasa.

As you state, you have accepted both of these claims (Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity) solely on faith - without scanning the evidence and without ever considering the alternative. Obviously then, you should also accept that without the underlying faith - which is only possible if one is a GV - neither of the two claims are acceptable. Trying to convince non-GVs of either Chaitanya's avatarhood or Radha's divinity will be unsuccessful. The frequent threat of aparadha by GVs does not work either, as the people you are conversing with are non-GVs and they do not see rejection of these claims as Aparadhas.

You and Nitaidas have to come to terms with the fact that Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity are not accepted by other Vaishnavas for lack of acceptable scriptural and traditional evidence. These claims can be taken seriously only out of faith.

Prabhuji, you are making huge generalisations here. Your position here is not objective at all. I will try and address some points.

1. Create a long list of verses attempting to establish the avatarhood of Chaitanya? None of these verses stand up to scrutiny (discussed elsewhere) and when questioned, the defense is that he was a "hidden" avatar or that we should not approach this subject through logic.

There is no evidence that these verses were created or forged. to insinuated such would be to accuse the Goswamis of lying. This is totally against their character. Espcially living in such a academic environment, such fake verses would immediately be exposed by opponents. Such a finger could be pointed to any of the Acharayas who quoted verses that cannot be found in scripture today. Furthermore, a great number of personalities (huge amount actually, who were learned in both the Scriptures and Vedanta) accepted Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as an Avatar. Should we call them all mad or in ignorance? The verses that we have quoted from Bhagavatam could very easily establish the avatar-hood of Lord Chaitanya (i.e the verse starting from krsna-varna especially) so I would very much like to see how they do not "stand up to scrutiny" as you claim. The concept of channa incarnation is not something that we have made up also, but it can be found clearly in the Bhagavatam (channah kalau yad abhava tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam).

Why bother to take the trouble to controvert verses to show "hidden" references to Radha? When it is pointed out that there is no evidence of Radha's existence before the 12th Century, the defense is to condemn logic and switch the topic to Rasa.

No. Our point still stands. It is still logical that Radharanis existence was only made manifest openly after the appearance of Lord Chaitanya. I mean the scriptures can still talk about her in hidden form, but the deep intricacies of Radha Tattva were only made manifest after Lord Chaitanya's descent. Furthermore, her existence is also found in Brahma Vaivarta Purana (dated before 12th Century) and Urdhvamnaya tantra (dated from 1000-1400 CE). Again historical dating is not how we deem something as authentic. I am very happy to debate on the basis on logic and shastra, but please to not say that we "condemn logic". Every explanation we have given is consistant with our Siddhanta, it may not be logical to you yes, but it is to us.

solely on faith - without scanning the evidence and without ever considering the alternativ

We have given sufficient scriptural injunctions to support our claims. Whether that standard of proof is accepted by other Sampradayas is another matter (worthy of discussion also). Ultimately, all evidence is based upon faith. And the highest knowledge of Vedanta can only be based upon Sabda (hearing from an authoritative source) which is exactly what we Gaudiyas are doing.

I do not mean to be harsh, but I must defend. Nitai!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

There is no evidence that these verses were created or forged. to insinuated such would be to accuse the Goswamis of lying. This is totally against their
character. Espcially living in such a academic environment, such fake verses would immediately be exposed by opponents.

The proof is in the absence of *any* identification of such an avatar (to arrive in future) by *any* notable author prior to Chaitanya's arrival. No non-GV interpretations of these texts show them to mean the coming of a future avatar. All such interpretations come only from GVs. How much of an effort is it for us to see the obvious?

I can assure you that all the GVs I know, accepted both claims without examining evidence - solely on faith.

Such a finger could be pointed to any of the Acharayas who quoted verses that cannot be found in scripture.

So you do agree with the concept. This is why you will not see a Madhva trying to prove Madhvacharya's avatarhood to non-Madhvas. It will not work for the same reasons as above.

Furthermore, a great number of personalities (huge amount actually, who were learned in both the Scriptures and Vedanta) accepted Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as an Avatar.

If you are aware of any non-GVs who accepted claims of his avatarhood, please provide details.

The verses that we have quoted from Bhagavatam could very easily establish the avatar-hood of Lord Chaitanya (i.e the verse starting from krsna-varna especially) so I would very much like to see how they do not "stand up to scrutiny" as you claim.

Simply because, there are multiple avatar lists in the Bhagavatam and none of them mention Chaitanya. It cannot get any simpler than this. The krishna-varna verse is interpreted your way (also, out of context) only by GVs. Please check non-GV interpretations, if you are interested and you will find that none of them read the verse your way.

No. Our point still stands. It is still logical that Radharanis existence was only made manifest after the appearance of Lord Chaitanya.

That is incorrect.The Radha character is known from Jayadeva's Gita Govinda (12th Century) and Jayadeva lived in Eastern India. Later, Chaitanya too lived in Eastern India and picked up local beliefs.

Furthermore, her existence is also found in Brahma Vaivarta Purana (dated before 12th Century) and Urdhvamnaya tantra (dated from 1000-1400 CE). Again historical dating is not how we deem something is authentic.

The current recension of the Brahma Vaivarta Purana was authored during the 16th Century AD. We know this because over 3000 BVP quotes by smriti authors (who lived earlier) are not found in the present version.

You have to ask yourself this. If you were not a GV and someone made these claims to you, do you really believe you would accept them?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Then that is the difference between you and I prabhu. We do not read scripture independently of a Guru, because such an approach is against the teachings of Vedanta itself.

The proof is in the absence of *any* identification of such an avatar (to arrive in future) by *any* notable author prior to Chaitanya's arrival

Again how to we determine what is a notable author? That is dependent on faith is it not? Also please see my comment about Bhagavatam below regarding this.

This is why you will not see a Madhva trying to prove Madhvacharya's avatarhood to non-Madhvas. It will not work for the same reasons as above.

But there are certain scriptures which are common to all Sampradayas, and we are very careful to quote from those sciptures only. Whether they accept that injuction is dependent on whether they believe the Goswamis (and the quotes they provided) were authentic or not. We do believe them to be authentic, as we understand such personalities would not lie.

If you are aware of any non-GVs who accepted claims of his avatarhood, please provide details.

The funny thing is, that if any non-GV did accept the claims, then they would be forced to convert to GV, knowing Lord Chaitanya and His teachings to be divine. I don't think it is possible to have a non-GV who accepts Lord Chaitanya

Simply because, there are multiple avatar lists in the Bhagavatam and none of them mention Chaitanya. It cannot get any simpler than this. The krishna-varna verse is interpreted your way (also, out of context) only by GVs. Please check non-GV interpretations, if you are interested.

Again, Lord Chaitanya is channa (as per bhagavatam) therefore He does not appear in the traditional lists. The incarnations of Lord Hari are like waves in an ocean, limitless (again according to Bhagvatam itself). To mention them all would be impossible for the Bhagvatam. As per the Krsna Varnam verse, our interpretation is also valid. Again the deciding point here is faith, not logic. We have greater faith in our acharayas and their intepretations then that of other Sampradayas. I have read several non-GV translations on these verse and none of them appease me. Especially since people try to establish "Krsna-Varnam" to mean "Black colored" when the very next verse "tvis-akrsnam" (not black) prevents them from doing so. Furthermore according to the words of Garga Muni in Bhagavatam, the Yuga Avatar of Kaliyuga is golden, not black. In light of this, as well as the numerous scriptural quotes given by our Goswamis, we accept Lord Chaitanya as an avatar. The only difference here, is that we have faith in the words of the Goswamis, well others have faith else where. Faith is the basis of all evidence. We don't claim or force others to accept Lord Chaitanya, but we ask others to understand that our position is also valid according to the commentaries of our acharyas. As I have explained below, that is how we Gaudiyas accept authority, not through historical dating of scripture.

Throwing words around like "faith" and "evidence" is sorta meaningless in Hinduism. Even the evidence of Shastra is ultimately ground on faith which is ground on experience, which in turn is ground upon previous karma (or sukrti), as Sri Krsna says in BG:

sattvanurupa sarvasya
sraddha bhavati bharata
sraddha-mayo ‘yam puruso
yo yac-chraddhah sa eva sah

O son of Bharata, according to one’s existence under the various modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith. The living being is said to be of a particular faith according to the modes he has acquired.

You have to ask yourself this. If you were not a GV and someone made these claims to you, do you really believe you would accept them.

If I was in another Sampradaya, then my obligation would lie to the Acharayas of my own line. If they did not say it, I would not accept. That being said, to call our claims, "as based upon blind faith" is also not correct, as we have a reason for asserting this claim.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Again how to we determine what is a notable author? That is dependent on faith is it not? Also please see my comment about Bhagavatam below regarding this.

Notably here simply means someone who we know for certain, lived before Chaitanya.

But there are certain scriptures which are common to all Sampradayas, and we are very careful to quote from those sciptures only. Whether they accept that injuction is dependent on whether they believe the Goswamis were authentic or not. We do believe them to be authentic.

The issue here is these common scriptures, never once include Chaitanya, Swami Narayan and Sai Baba in the list of Vishnu avatars. Not one of them do. This is why any scriptural evidence you may provide by interpreting verses in isolation or by claiming he was hidden until his arrival do not make compelling arguments.

The funny thing is, that if any non-GV did accept the claims, then they would be forced to convert to GV, knowing Lord Chaitanya and His teachings to be divine. I don't think it is possible to have a non-GV who accepts Lord Chaitanya

Right. So we do not have anyone who is a non-GV, who read the list of evidence and was convinced that Chaitanya was an avatar.

Again, Lord Chaitanya is channa (as per bhagavatam) therefore He does not appear in the traditional lists. The incarnations of Lord Hari are like waves in an ocean, limitless (again according to Bhagvatam itself). To mention them all would be impossible for the Bhagvatam.

The difficulty then is, anyone can claim to be an avatar with the excuse that the list is limitless.

Anyway, you have accepted that faith in the GV sources is a prerequisite for accepting these claims. That is my position too. And with faith in a Guru, we do not really need scripture.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Notably here simply means someone who we know for certain, lived before Chaitanya.

Who are you to determine what is the criterion for notable? I could simply object here. For us notable means who is in an authorized and bona-fide Sampradaya

The issue here is these common scriptures, never once include Chaitanya, Swami Narayan and Sai Baba in the list of Vishnu avatars.

Wrong. Lord Chaitanya is hinted in scripture though they are not. Swami Narayana and Sai Baba cannot be found anywhere in Shastra. Neither do their followers give any scriptural injunctions from scriptures which assert them as Bhagavan. However, the Goswamis do provide these injunctions. Whether you accept them is up to you. Again we have faith in our Goswamis. That is the major difference here. I will post a few verses here, to show they can be interpreted as such:

ittham nr-tiryag-rsi-deva jhasavatarair
lokan vibhavayasi hamsi jagat pratipan
dharmam maha-purusa pasi yuganuvrttam
channah kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo 'tha sa tvam

In this way, my Lord, You appear in various incarnations as a human being, an animal, a great saint, a deva, a fish or a tortoise, thus maintaining the entire creation in different planetary systems and killing the demoniac principles. According to the age, O my Lord, You protect the principles of religion. In the age of Kali, however, You do not assert Yourself as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore You are known as Triyuga, or the Lord who appears in three yugas. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.38)

From the last line especially we can see that the incarnation of Kaliyuga is hidden. Why are so intent that all the Avatars must clearly be found in scriptures before they appear? I think I have said enough about this.

yaktva su-dustyaja-surepsita-rajya-laksmim
dharmistha arya-vacasa yad agad aranyam
maya-mrgam dayitayepsitam anvadhavad
vande maha-purusa te caranaravindam

O Mahapurusa, I worship Your lotus feet. You gave up the association of the goddess of fortune and all her opulence, which is most difficult to renounce and is hankered after by even the great devas. Being the most faithful follower of the path of religion, You thus left for the forest in obedience to a brahmana's curse. Out of sheer mercifulness You chased after the fallen conditioned souls, who are always in pursuit of the false enjoyment of illusion, and at the same time engaged in searching out Your own desired object. ((Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.5.34)

Again this matches the incidents of Lord Chaitanya's life. Lord Chaitanya left his wife (Laxmi-devi) to take Sannayasa due to a Brahmana's curse.

Previously I have posted some Shlokas from Visnu Sahasranama to show how they can also predict the incarnation of Mahaprabhu. And even then I am not posting the numerous verses given by the Goswamis from the various Puranas.

Right. So we do not have anyone who is a non-GV, who read the list of evidence and was convinced that Chaitanya was an avatar.

I mean, if we wanna go down that path, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, who was a great Adwaita-vadi accepted Lord Chaitanya as an avatar when we heard the Lord's commentary on the Vedanta Sutra. This can be seen clearly in his astakams. Meera-bai who is also not from our Sampradaya accepted Lord Chaitanya. According to us, even Vallbhacharya accepted him as Bhagavan.

Anyway I do not want to further debate this. We have different standards of proof, so I don't either of us will convince each other. Since this is a Gaudiya Thread, I am inclined to give a Gaudiya response to these topics. We don't want other Sampradayas to accept Him as an avatar, but please respect that this is a Gaudiya thread, and therefore we are giving our interpretations. Nitai!

 

[kalyan]

Notably here simply means someone who we know for certain, lived before Chaitanya.



The issue here is these common scriptures, never once include Chaitanya, Swami Narayan and Sai Baba in the list of Vishnu avatars. Not one of them do. This is why any scriptural evidence you may provide by interpreting verses in isolation or by claiming he was hidden until his arrival do not make compelling arguments.



Right. So we do not have anyone who is a non-GV, who read the list of evidence and was convinced that Chaitanya was an avatar.



The difficulty then is, anyone can claim to be an avatar with the excuse that the list is limitless.

Anyway, you have accepted that faith in the GV sources is a prerequisite for accepting these claims. That is my position too. And with faith in a Guru, we do not really need scripture.

Very well put. I thought of staying away but let me put this #Nitai dAsa I do not want to belittle gaudiyas for their position but shivsomasekhar is right...Without vedic scriptural evidence, if one claims something it is not accepted as authentic by any vedic scholar. If everyone start pouring their own things it will be complete chaos.
I see one of post mentioning bhoo devi.
Sridevi, Bhoodevi and Neela Devi are present in different sections of Vedam, Neela devi is mentioned I think in Yajur and these are eternal consorts of Sri Maha VishNu in vaikuntham and it is Neela devi that Sri Krushna loved the most in his avatara and the poorva acharyas say it is because of beauty of nappinnai/Neela devi Vishnu left paramapadam and came as avatar of Sri Krushna, such is our mother's beauty and this is for only protecting jIvas by reducing unbridled independence of Vishnu but that is a different story.
NO vaidika acharya from any sampradaya has ever quoted rAdha and that means we should understand as no one has the authority to question vaidika acharyas, such is their command. Somehow someone injected this stuff about rAdha in brahma vaivarta which is a rAjasa purana and this is the one heavily tamperes by britishers along with bhavishya purana....Your injunctions of trying to establish radha and avatarhood of nitai by random verses from pramAna bhagawatham would not work as no greatest vaishnavas and alwars never made any mention which paramounts to false injections and I would take their words over ANY and in top of that nitai has 1 poem to his name with 8 verses which is very weak not the poem but attributing such stance and it is too not something related to vedam. Iskxon most probably is the culprit in creating the stories

 

[Chakra]

What exactly is wrong with accepting Radha as a consort? If the Bhagavatam says there was one excellent Gopi (I think the word was Aradhitham), then why can't we take that to be Radha? Maybe her real name was not Radha and "Radha" was just a name taken from "Aradhitam" (or whatever the word was), but she still exists.

I think she could be the incarnation of Neela Devi.

 

[निताइ dasa]

O vaidika acharya from any sampradaya has ever quoted rAdha and that means we should understand as no one has the authority to question vaidika acharyas, such is their command. Somehow someone injected this stuff about rAdha in brahma vaivarta which is a rAjasa purana and this is the one heavily tamperes by britishers along with bhavishya purana....Your injunctions of trying to establish radha and avatarhood of nitai by random verses from pramAna bhagawatham would not work as no greatest vaishnavas and alwars never made any mention which paramounts to false injections and I would take their words over ANY and in top of that nitai has 1 poem to his name with 8 verses which is very weak and it is too not something related to vedam.

It is a difference in consideration then. We consider personalities such as Rupa Goswami, Jiva Gowami, Sanatana Goswami, Raghunatha das Goswami as Vaidika Acharyas (who are from Madhav's Diksha line). Again it a question of faith in Vaishnavs. Like you would take their words over any, similarly we take the words of our Goswamis over anyones. Please respect that. I opened this thread so I could share some of the beautiful siddhanta and teachings of our Goswamis, not to hear such accusations. Prabhu I don't think you fully understand our Sampradaya and yet you are criticizing it. My heart is really saddened talking about these stuff, especially in a Gaudiya Thread. I will not post here again as our views are being attacked by individuals who have no respect for our Acharayas. Every word against our acharayas is a dagger into my heart, I pray that Lord Nitai illuminate your knowledge. If anyone wished to contact me, please PM me.

 

[Chakra]

Very well put. I thought of staying away but let me put this #Nitai dAsa I do not want to belittle gaudiyas for their position but shivsomasekhar is right...Without vedic scriptural evidence, if one claims something it is not accepted as authentic by any vedic scholar. If everyone start pouring their own things it will be complete chaos.
I see one of post mentioning bhoo devi.
Sridevi, Bhoodevi and Neela Devi are present in different sections of Vedam, Neela devi is mentioned I think in Yajur and these are eternal consorts of Sri Maha VishNu in vaikuntham and it is Neela devi that Sri Krushna loved the most in his avatara and the poorva acharyas say it is because of beauty of nappinnai/Neela devi Vishnu left paramapadam and came as avatar of Sri Krushna, such is our mother's beauty and this is for only protecting jIvas by reducing unbridled independence of Vishnu but that is a different story.
NO vaidika acharya from any sampradaya has ever quoted rAdha and that means we should understand as no one has the authority to question vaidika acharyas, such is their command. Somehow someone injected this stuff about rAdha in brahma vaivarta which is a rAjasa purana and this is the one heavily tamperes by britishers along with bhavishya purana....Your injunctions of trying to establish radha and avatarhood of nitai by random verses from pramAna bhagawatham would not work as no greatest vaishnavas and alwars never made any mention which paramounts to false injections and I would take their words over ANY and in top of that nitai has 1 poem to his name with 8 verses which is very weak not the poem but attributing such stance and it is too not something related to vedam. Iskxon most probably is the culprit in creating the stories

Actually, I have some information.

The authors of Narayanastra have stated that in the Yadavabhyudaya of Sri Vedanta Desikan, there is a reference to Radha. The verse goes like this (courtesy of Narayanastra):

"devaki danuja sthuna divyam Diana vrajankanam rama radhadhayscheti rashi bhedaihi na bhidyase

Meaning: There is no difference in the (states of) the Lord associated with Lakshmi (Ramaa), Radha or other consorts, or as being born as the Son of Devaki or being born from the Pillar as Narasimha, or living in Vaikunta or Vrindavan."

Now, I have no knowledge of Sanskrit nor have I read this work of Sri Desika, but some food for thought. Kalyan, what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Chakra]

Anyway, you have accepted that faith in the GV sources is a prerequisite for accepting these claims. That is my position too. And with faith in a Guru, we do not really need scripture.

If that is the case, then why do you put faith on the modern-day Advaitins who claim that Shankara was a Smartha, even though it may not be true? If I remember correctly, this was your argument in our last discussion on this. If you think the opinion of Gaudiyas is implausible because of all the evidence against it, then perhaps you should use the same logic when it comes to modern-day Advaitins and their opinion that Shankara was a Smartha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Shivo'ham, Shivo'ham"

 

[Chakra]

"Shivo'ham, Shivo'ham"

Good to know that you are auspicious.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Shivsomashekhar ji ,

ratikala,

Do not take this as criticism. This is merely how a non-GV looks at this case objectively. We need to be consistent. If logic is bad, then why take the trouble to -

of course no offence is taken prabhu ji , ....I can also only give you my own feeling on this matter , .....

for me I can only say what is logic ? ...where does it come from ? ..on what is it based ? ....if our sences and inteligence are imperfect then what use is our logic ? ... yes we are all looking for the higest authority only when we find this authority and examine carfuly can we come to a level of personal trust in that authority , ...

to my mind we canot trust on the say so of shastra alone we must also look at the behaivior exhibited by those who are the liniage holders in each tradition , .....again to me a trust worthy authority does not show it self through its power to debate or its claim to have won arguments , but authority in my eyes is displayed by the love and humility whith which a Guru or Acharya devotes him self to that in which he places his trust , ....

to me this Sanatana Dharma is not just a search for Knowledge it is a complete science , knowledge is only one state which once atained leads to a state of grace in which not only does all become clear but also a state of pure bliss of knowing , ... words here are not enough to explain , ...thus many Gaudiyas are deemed quite mad as only knowing can reveal what canot be explaied in words , ....thus this Gaudiya becomes drunk with love , ....

...why take the trouble to , ....
1. Create a long list of verses attempting to establish the avatarhood of Chaitanya? None of these verses stand up to scrutiny (discussed elsewhere) and when questioned, the defense is that he was a "hidden" avatar or that we should not approach this subject through logic.

I dont think that the reason is to create lists that may be used in debate , prehaps many of these verses came about as pure glorification , ....but when questioned we say hidden because quite clearly not all can see what the Gaudiya is seeing , ...

2. Why bother to take the trouble to controvert verses to show "hidden" references to Radha? When it is pointed out that there is no evidence of Radha's existence before the 12th Century, the defense is to condemn logic and switch the topic to Rasa.

from My side there is no need to show hidden references because I realise that each will see acording to their own propencity also personaly I belive that one canot see with out the Darshan of the lord , or in this instance with out Darshan of Sri Radhika , ...only when she gives her Grace can she be seen , ...she does not even care to be seen by any other than Krsna so her energy is not directed at revealing it self it is a very private pastime , ...

As you state, you have accepted both of these claims (Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity) solely on faith - without scanning the evidence and without ever considering the alternative. Obviously then, you should also accept that without the underlying faith - which is only possible if one is a GV - neither of the two claims are acceptable. Trying to convince non-GVs of either Chaitanya's avatarhood or Radha's divinity will be unsuccessful. The frequent threat of aparadha by GVs does not work either, as the people you are conversing with are non-GVs and they do not see rejection of these claims as Aparadhas.

I accept due to receiving darshan , it is only after receiving Darshan that what I have read has made any sence , I can no more explain this to you as I can explain the bond between a mother and child , there is an attraction here that only the parent can understand , knowing this attraction one sees everything differently one is not seeing on the material plain one sees on a very different level , ...as a mother canot make any other see what she sees in her own child I canot make you see either , this is where Bhakti and other traditions meet impasses you are asking us for scriptual evidence and for us to deal in terms of logic , ....we may not be seeing things in the same light , ...I am not sure that logic even applies , ...as there will equaly be differnt levels of logic , ...

You and Nitaidas have to come to terms with the fact that Chaitanya's avatarhood and Radha's divinity are not accepted by other Vaishnavas for lack of acceptable scriptural and traditional evidence. These claims can be taken seriously only if one has faith in the GV sources.

no not come to terms with , ...but more like realise that it is natural , ..... in many respects I do not expect you to understand , ....but l do not feel comfortable with the modern day attitude that everything is false unless proven through documentary evidence , .....personaly I feel this to be a modern malaise much due to ahamkara , ...our duty is to glorify that which we are fortunate enough to have understood, in this path lay harmony , ....if we exist only to debate the validity of other sects inorder to validate our own , ...then we will lose much of value in the process , ....

 

[Asha]

Jai Shree Krishna

I did not mean to offend anyone. The truth is that many Shri Vaishnavas don't accept Smt. Radha as a Goddess, and who knows why. It is their sampradaya, and I was just telling Terese the sampradayic opinion.

Apologies if I offended anyone.

do not worry no offence taken.

but at least here you say ''many don't'' this means that some do, please can you say a little more abuut why some do and some do not ?
Even if the some that do is in the minority what makes them more accepting of Srimati Radharani ?
I can understand the confusion, because there is argument between Gaudiya Vaisnavas about the origin of Radha and Rukmini and which should be considered to be an incarnation of Laxmi Devi.?
To me is trying to simplify things too too much,Sri Krishna is not simple to understand, he has many complexities, why then should we assume that he has only one consort, why can she not also have many moods and forms of apperance. ?

 

[Asha]

What exactly is wrong with accepting Radha as a consort? If the Bhagavatam says there was one excellent Gopi (I think the word was Aradhitham), then why can't we take that to be Radha? Maybe her real name was not Radha and "Radha" was just a name taken from "Aradhitam" (or whatever the word was), but she still exists.

I think she could be the incarnation of Neela Devi.