Origin of radha

radha is not mentioned in Mahabharata harivasma bhagwata and Vishnu puran. Can anyone tell me source where radha did radha s story originated ??

Thanks 

Brahma Vaivarta Puran. 😳

And she was later popularized by Vallabhacharya, Jayadeva, SriChaitanya, Chandidas and Vidyapati.

Originally posted by: proteeti

Brahma Vaivarta Puran. 😳

And she was later popularized by Vallabhacharya, Jayadeva, SriChaitanya, Chandidas and Vidyapati.

Current version of brahmavaivarta purana is dated to 15th century, which is after Jayadeva.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Current version of brahmavaivarta purana is dated to 15th century, which is after Jayadeva.

Could you please elaborate on the origins and creation of the Brahma Vaivarta Puran? 😳

Originally posted by: proteeti

Could you please elaborate on the origins and creation of the Brahma Vaivarta Puran? 😳

The narrative structure of other puranas is very different from Brahma Vaivarta purana. Thought is that there WAS an earlier form currently called Adi Brahma Vaivarta Purana which might have been interpolated into unrecognizable form as current Brahma Vaivarta Purana some time around 15th century which would've been after Jayadeva.

My personal issue with current form is that it delves into the physical intimacy between Krishna and Radha in great detail. I cannot for the life of me imagine Vyasa narrating that. Yeah, he was quite blunt about some things, but the scenes in Brahma Vaivarta purana are a bit much. 

However, there is a south Indian tradition which believes Krishna had a child marriage to one of Nandagopan's nieces called Nalpinnai who was supposed to be an incarnation of Niladevi. I think Devdutt Pattnaik wrote Nalpinnai was the inspiration for Jayadeva's Radha. It's quite plausible given how child marriages were prevalent. 

Only question I have about it is why Nalpinnai/Radha was left behind when Krishna returned to Mathura.

Also, this brings up the issue why such an important part of Krishna's life is never mentioned in Harivamsa or Bhagavatham.

All in all, I'm inclined to think Radha was the work of imagination.

Is Brahma-Vaivarta ascribed to Vyasa tho? I read on Wiki that its author was unknown?

I've heard a little about Nalpinnai.

As for leaving the woman behind, if we go by the traditional narrative of Radha-Krishna being lovers but not married (personally I believe this version), then there's a possibility that the human Krishna wasn't sure of his own standing in the Yadava community post-Kamsa, so he left her behind, not wanting to expose her to all that.

As for not coming back, then he probably realized that post Kamsa-vadh Radha and Krishna's caste did not match and hence the marriage wouldn't be accepted (just my interpretation).

For divine Krishna toh Sridama's curse is there.

Originally posted by: proteeti

Is Brahma-Vaivarta ascribed to Vyasa tho? I read on Wiki that its author was unknown?

I've heard a little about Nalpinnai.

As for leaving the woman behind, if we go by the traditional narrative of Radha-Krishna being lovers but not married (personally I believe this version), then there's a possibility that the human Krishna wasn't sure of his own standing in the Yadava community post-Kamsa, so he left her behind, not wanting to expose her to all that.

As for not coming back, then he probably realized that post Kamsa-vadh Radha and Krishna's caste did not match and hence the marriage wouldn't be accepted (just my interpretation).

For divine Krishna toh Sridama's curse is there.

Vyasa is considered the chronicler of all puranas, right? Even if we don't buy he himself did every last word, most of it is thought to be done by his contemporaries or the next 1 or 2 generations like Suka.

Stylistically, the content matches a much later period. Take a look 😆. There is great detail. https://www.scribd.com/document/357106438/Brahmavaivarta-Purana-1-Sanskrit-text-with-English-translation-pdf

Much more than narration style, if it were done around Vyasa's time, how is it for Radha not to be mentioned at all in Harivamsa and Bhagavatham?

I don't know if I can believe Krishna worried about caste. I mean, he married Jambavati.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Vyasa is considered the chronicler of all puranas, right? Even if we don't buy he himself did every last word, most of it is thought to be done by his contemporaries or the next 1 or 2 generations like Suka.

Hmm, that's said about him. But then, it is possible na that like short stories or novels of today, purans were just a writing format and anyone could write it? Maybe 15th century mein someone got inspied from Jayadeva and wrote a lovely fan fiction? 😆

Stylistically, the content matches a much later period. Take a look 😆. There is great detail. https://www.scribd.com/document/357106438/Brahmavaivarta-Purana-1-Sanskrit-text-with-English-translation-pdf

Would it be too weird to ask you to look for a free version of this? I've been looking for soo many years! 😳

Much more than narration style, if it were done around Vyasa's time, how is it for Radha not to be mentioned at all in Harivamsa and Bhagavatham?

That's true. Does Radha's later competitor Chandravali finds a mention here and there, I thought she did?

I don't know if I can believe Krishna worried about caste. I mean, he married Jambavati.

Krishna wasn't worried, but then he was Dwarikadheesh already, nobody dared to open their mouths about Jambi. In the versions where she's unmarried, she does get married pretty quickly after Krishna leaves (to the infamous Ayan Ghosh, who is also slated in some folklores to be the one with who Shikandini exchanged her femininity 😆).

Maybe that was why he didn't pursue that.

I was thinking about this and then remembered Radha is always called the 'bhakthi saar' or the basis of one's devotion.

Because there is no mention of her in the mainstream texts, I perceive that believing in her is an indication that you believe in Krishna's divinity. She is the gateway to the trust-based bhakthi maargam. ❤️

Pattanaik also has a theory that the Krishna of Bhagwat Puran and Harivamsa is not the same as the Krishna of the Mahabharata. What do you all think about that? 

I'll quote the article in the next post for convenience.