Ontological position of Srimati Radharani - in Gaudiya Vaishnavism

That's some heavy food for thought we have there! Anyone have any thoughts on Srimati's ontological position?

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!

This quote is fromGaurasundra'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.

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.

Why would you make such a statement? I really don't understand where you are coming from... Kindly elucidate...

If you look at my profile which has been unchanged for quite some time you might conclude correctly that I make such a statement based on experience. If you look up a good dictionary you will see what "noetic" and "ontology" mean and how a question on the latter must necessarily invoke a degree of the former if the question is to be discussed in any understandable way.

This has nothing to do with vocabulary baba, 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. The missionary sadhus surely know more than I, because I am of no use to anyone. I wish I had such a heart as those who give up their lives to serve others.

Yes - understood.


However, that is a popular view developed by some groups to justify their antics.

In BVT, noetic is acceptable at the madhyama stage

It is not present at the kanista and not drawn upon at the uttama stages

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.

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?

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

Well, unfortunately for you, Sri Visvanatha Cakravartipada disagrees with you. I read his views just today in an IGM edition of his Sarartha-darsini tika.

Thanks for the Govinda-bhasya reference by the way. I was thinking of getting the one by S.C. Vasu.

Well go on.....

What did he say?

Haven't hear of the Vasu tr.

I'm afraid I do not possess that text as I was skimming though it in a temple bookshop. I do know that he definitely treats this verse as an indication of Radha's mention.

Can anyone who has Sarartha-darshini kindly post the relevant text here, please?