Ram's 'Eka Patnivrat' vs. Krishna's 16,108 wives - Page 3

Posted: 13 years ago
Originally posted by anchal2


@Janaki: exactly, like I've said it saddens me. I can only feel sorry for them.

Goddess radha is mentioned in bhagvatam yes (albeit not directly). There's an indirect reference, so you can take ir as the reference being Radha. In any case, Lord Krishna left vrindavan at the age of 10, so I cannot imagine the Krishna-Radha relationship as it is portrayed today.
 
Hmmm, dunno, I remember reading a lot about Radha and the Gopis in the Bhagavatham, as they are a main part of Shri Krishna's Gokul life. After his Makhan-choring stage and then the killing of demons, Shri Krishna's last few years in Vrindavan were spent with Radha and the Gopis, doing the Raas Leela (which is one of the major events/teachings of Krishna's life), and demonstrating to everyone what true love was.
 
You're right that Radhaji was not mentioned in the Mahabharat, as the Mahabharat is generally not taken as the entire life story of Krishna, but the later story of Krishna beginning from his first meeting with the Pandavas. Earlier before that, Radharani plays a major role in Krishna's childhood.
 
Krishna and Radha were very unique individuals. They were incarnation of Vishnu and Lakshmi, so they were able to feel that deep love for each other even though young in today's standards.😊 Anyhow, I thought Krishna was 12-13 when he left Vrindavan, and Radharani around 14 or 15?
Posted: 13 years ago
Great additions by Anchal, Shivang, Janu, and Vrish... thanks a ton guys, thoroughly enjoyed reading them 👏

@ Shivang - verryyyy sweet take on the makhan chori leela bhaiya 👏 indeed is one into read anything into it beyond its aesthetic beauty, that's what there is to be read. but again I wouldn't call this a direct example as the ones given in Ram Avtaar because it's more of a lesson to be derived than an action to be imitated - he didn't steal butter so others could learn to steal butter 😆 Whereas Shri Ram accepting Vibhishan inspite of the risks, for example, is a more direct example of ideal behavior.

@ Anchal - just wanted to add a bit to Janu's clarifications, hun. You're totally right, none of these prem leelas appear in the Mahabharat, and Radha also is mentioned once only in the Bhagavat - that too, in the indirect tense "aaradhika", which could also just be interpreted as devotee. But the stealing of the Gopis clothes was actually in there, 10th skand and 22nd adhyay: http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/chapter22.html Sages and scholars have offered beautiful symbolic interpretations of the event as a representation of how even the fine barrier of lok-laaj, reeti-rivaaj shouldn't exist between us and God - we should feel completely comfortable with him and shed all our doubts and inhibitions, and he'll take care of the rest.

As for Radharani, there is in fact a legit scripture that establishes her role as well - the Brahma Vaivarta Puraan, one of the big 18. It describes her as the consolidated form of Adya Shakti who incarnated and took part in almost all those prem leelas we hear about today, and offers extensive and deep and beautiful interpretations of them. Here, the whole text can be read online as an ebook or a pdf: http://www.archive.org/details/brahmavaivartapu04allauoft

And these links point out some beautiful passages about her identity and nature:
http://www.suhotraswami.net/in2-mec/index.php?p=J031105
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/178476-radha-tatwa.html


A couple of my favs... if you're interested, you should totally watch Ramanand Sagar's Shri Krishna cuz he explains various scholarly takes on these passages that  assign a whole new meaning to leelas like these that are commonly misunderstood/misrepresented... here go some of the shloks, all from the 4th Skand:

Shlok 216
na kutrapy avayor bheda
   radhe samsara-bijayoh
yatratma tatra dehas cha
    na bhedo vinayena kim

O Radha, We are not different. We are the seed and the world grown from the seed. I am the soul and You are the body. Where the soul is present, there also is the body. We are not different.

Shlok 217
yatha ksire cha dhavalyam
    dahika cha hutasane
bhumau gandho jale saityam
    tatha tvayi mama sthitih

As whiteness is present in milk, as heat is present in fire, as fragrance is present in earth, so I am always present in You.

Text 219
maya vina tvam nirjiva
   chadrsyo 'ham tvaya vina
tvaya vina bhavam kartum
    nalam sundari niscitam

Without Me, You are lifeless. Without You, I am invisible. O beautiful one, without You I cannot exist.

To answer the original prompt of this thread, the shloks that are in this section of the 4th book offers another explanation (though I still hold to my he's-not-supposed-to-be-an-example-take) - that all the queens were in fact partial incarnations of this adi-shakti Radha, and as he had during the Raas Leela, Shri Krishna took multiple forms so they could be with him. So if they were one being in multiple forms and so was he, then it was still technically one-to-one wasn't it 😆

And yeah the ages thing causes a lot of confusion, but that too varies across texts... sometimes it even varies within the same text 😕 But for that there's the multiple authors argument... whole other story. Anyways some say he was 8 when he went to Mathura, some 10, some 12, and some 14. Why no odd numbers, I wonder 😕
Edited by lola610 - 13 years ago
Posted: 13 years ago
Thanks a bunch for the info, Loli! Lols, I knew I got it mixed up somewhere. So Bhagawatham really did mention Radharani only once, but I knew there was a scripture that talked a great deal about her.😆 I remember you posted some links from it in one of our past CCs or FCs.
Posted: 13 years ago
i feel comfortable with ram ji..coz ramayan is very close to my heart..n i always read ramayan, watched ram leela n all that...never heard a lot abt krishna...just watched Shree Krishna,,,,
Edited by akki-rockstar - 13 years ago
Posted: 13 years ago
Originally posted by lola610



@ Shivang - verryyyy sweet take on the makhan chori leela bhaiya 👏 indeed is one into read anything into it beyond its aesthetic beauty, that's what there is to be read. but again I wouldn't call this a direct example as the ones given in Ram Avtaar because it's more of a lesson to be derived than an action to be imitated - he didn't steal butter so others could learn to steal butter 😆 Whereas Shri Ram accepting Vibhishan inspite of the risks, for example, is a more direct example of ideal behavior.

I will still stick to my point in saying that even Krishna's actions were also not such which can't be imitated (it can't technically be imitated due to lack of super power is another issue but for the morality part) but they were not there to set the direct examples of morality for the GENERAL MASS. I as a naughty and lovable innocent boy of 4-5 years can still steal butter of my beloved ones to give them joy and pleasure (of course shaastra ke hisaab se 12 years tak koi sin sin nahi hota but leave the age factor here and try to catch my essence). I can tease my friends. I can make fun within limits with love at any age becoming like a child. And that is what we do also in routine conversations. The point is that those actions should be done and felt with the same intention of doing them and mind set and reason which Krishna could possibly have which is very difficult or impossible to be rightly understood. I would qualify your theory saying that "It is not wrong to imitate Krishna's actions, but it would be DANGEROUS to imitate Krishna's actions grossly for anyone as an EXCUSE that 'Krishna did that so why can't we?' without having the same subtle, innocent or spiritually intentional great reason and detached selfless feeling while doing and without having sense of duty only rather than own selfish motive behind the action."

I expected exactly the kind of post on Radhaji the way you posted. I will save the thread with me and will open up the links surely some day to go deep inside. I should have at least mentioned the name 'Brahma Vaivarta Puran' in my post which I remember you gave me knowledge about in our personal conversations.
Edited by ShivangBuch - 13 years ago
Posted: 13 years ago
i have no idea if i'll be able to influence anyone but i'll try.
Krishna Ji is 16 kala sampurna while Rama Ji is 14 Kala Sampurna.

This means:-
Rama ji never lied even for the right. Rama ji was bound by norms as his this incarnation had to exemplify the life of THE IDEAL MAN and thus he is MARYADA PURUSHOTAM.

Krishna Ji is 16 Kala sampurna.
He could modify facts, like playing with the sun to bring Jaydrath to an end etc. coz the time when HIS incarnation happened the need of the society was to prove that TRUH REIGNS.

The time at Lord Rama's Yug was such that there was a limit to everything. Thus all he had to demonstrate and preach people was about values.

Lord Krishna on the other hand, He came to make people believe that God is with them and ALL EVIL WILL COME TO AN END... By hook or by crook.
That's why the GITA states things like "To lie for a good cause is not a sin".
I hope i could make ur doubts clear about Our Lord!

Posted: 13 years ago
ok don't COMPLETELY judge ME on this.......but i think that when he freed them they all chose him.....and he agreed &married them to restore their honor so they could return back to their respective places and be 'accepted' (or something like that).  Edited by ADMJCXNK97fan - 13 years ago
Posted: 13 years ago



Edited by ADMJCXNK97fan - 13 years ago


Related Topics

No Related topics found

Topic Info

10 Participants 27 Replies 12508Views

Topic started by RamKiSeeta

Last replied by ADMJCXNK97fan

loader
loader
up-open TOP