Where did Radha's name come from? (Episode-2)

 Shri Krishna with Rukhmini Devi

Krishna Charitra written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay; translated by Alo Shome

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay

Rayon Chakraborty

Here we will discuss the rest 6 reference given by Rayon Chakraborty about the existence of Radha. 

  In Naradpancharatra-2/3/50,51, it is said:

 "Radhika's anecdote is wonderful, secretive, rare, newly liberated, holy, essential and virtuous of the Vedas."

 -So Radhika's anecdote means the illegal, immoral, extramarital love and sexuality of Radha and Krishna described in Brahmavaivartapurana; Because, both have husband and wife, as a gossip it must be wonderful, not secret at all, not even rare, how can it be newly liberated, it is beyond my comprehension, and if it is sacred, there is no such thing as an unholy relationship in the world; And if it is virtuous, then there is no such thing as sin on earth; Also if it is the essence of the Vedas, then why there is no anecdote in the Vedas about Radha and Krishna? The Vedas do not even have the name of Krishna, the word Krishna is in one place, but it is the name of a sage, not the Supreme Lord Krishna. In some places in the Veda, of course, there are some words of Radha, Radhas type, but they do not mean any woman, they mean wealth, so Radha devotees do not try to prove the existence of Radha again by saying those words of the Veda, then your prestidge will not be protected. 

 Now who wrote this Naradapancharatra? Where Shiva has tried to defile Krishna's character by trying to prove Krishna's imaginary debauchery with his mouth? Where Lord Krishna is proved to be God in the traditional (Sanatan) scriptures, can the character of Lord Krishna be tarnished by writing all these SHIT scriptures, and they have to be believed? These can be believed by some stupid people like Rayan, who have no ability to understand the truth and lies, they begin to bark at what they read in the book as true.

 Then it is said in Padmapuran, Patal Khand 38/120

 "His beloved Krishnaballava Radhika is the primordial (Adya) nature. The origin of the goddesses like Trigunamayi Durga etc. is from the crores of kalangsha (tissue) of that Radhika, millions of Vishnu originated by touching the foot dust of that Radhika".

 -The person who wrote these verses of the Padmapurana either did not have a complete idea about the traditional (sanatan) theology, or he deliberately distorted it to prove Radha the best. Generally we know that Adyashakti is Mahamaya, who is Goddess Durga, whose other form is called Mahakali. The origin of creation is Vishnu, the destructive form of Vishnu is called Shiva and the female power of Shiva is Durga or Kali who is known as Mahamaya, which is called Adyashakti. In this verse of Padmapuran, the origin of the goddesses has been shown from Radha's crores of tissues by making Radha, the omnipotent power and from the footsteps of Radhika, crores of Vishnu have originated. So the question here is - if millions of Vishnu originated from the foot dust of Radhika, then we know one Vishnu, where are the other Vishnus, what are they doing? And look at the word Adyashakti, there is a matter of energy in it, the identity of that energy that we see in Durga or Kali, is there any matter of that energy in Radha? If not, why is she called Adyashakti?

 In one of Sri Krishna's activities (Leela), Brahma once stole all of Krishna's companions by knocking them unconscious. Realizing this, Lord Krishna alone transforms into all his companions and continues to exist everywhere. Thus, after one year, Brahma came to Vrindavan and saw that Lord Krishna was playing with his companions as before. Seeing this, Brahma himself asks himself how is this possible? In the presence of Brahma, thousands of Brahma come from all around, Brahma is even more surprised to see this and says- I am Brahma, then where is all this Brahma coming from? 

 Then Krishna, turning himself into Vishnu, says, "Four-faced Brahma, you are only the creator of one universe, but there are innumerable universes all over this universe, whose creators are many times more knowledgeable and powerful than you, and they are all under my command, I am the controller of all those universes; Today I have summoned all the Brahmas to whom you can see around you to explain your position to you."  Then Brahma apologize to Vishnu, i.e. Shri Krishna and went back, after returning Krishna's playmates in their sleep.

 Also in Gita 9/17, Lord Krishna says,

pitāham asya jagato mātā dhātā pitāmahaḥ

vedyaṁ pavitram oṁkāra ṛik sāma yajur eva cha ||17||

 "Pitahamasya jagato mata dhata pitamah".

 Which means: I am the father, mother, father and grandfather of this world.

 From this saying of the Gita and from that leela of Sri Krishna, it is understood that Sri Krishna or Vishnu is the origin of this universe, He is the creator or controller of all. But according to Padmapuran- like this Vishnu, other crores of Vishnu originated from the foot dust of Radhika!   Low doses of marijuana are certainly beneficial, but high doses of marijuana give rise to all sorts of impossible and unrealistic fantasies, for which it is said that "boat of marijuana go up to the hill". The writers of Padmapuran must have been accustomed to high levels of marijuana. Unless, that Vishnu who is the controller of the entire universe; Radha, the creator of billions of such Vishnu, does not have the power to unite with one Krishna, he has to burn in Krishna separation for the rest of her life?  The thing is- the owner of thousands of kg rice has been begging for a plate of rice throughout the year, but he is not getting it at all, is it real? If this is not the case, then the origin of at least one Vishnu is completely unreal & not to mention, the origin of the goddesses from the billions of tissues of Radha also. And for all these reasons the statement of that verse of Padmapuran is complete false, baseless and unreal; Which bookworm like Rayon can believe, but it is impossible for rationalists to believe.

 Then in Skandapuran, Prabhasakhand, Dwarkamahatmya- verse 12/30, 

Rayan tried to prove the existence of Radha by the word "Radhobach", although it proves the existence of Radha, but does it prove the existence of Radha next to Sri Krishna or in the life of Sri Krishna?

 Then in the reference of Skandhapurana, Vishnukhand, Sri Bhagavata Mahatmya 2/11 

 It is said- "Kalindi said- Radhika is the soul of Atmaram Krishna, I am her maid, for her slavery effect yawning is unable to touch me."

 According to the Brahmavaivartapurana, this Kalindi is one of the so-called chief 8 wives of Lord Krishna. I do not accept any other woman in Krishna's life except Rukmini. If that Kalindi thinks of herself as Radha's maid, for that reason any kind of yawning can touch her, then for the implementation Radha has to go to Dwarka and stay at Krishna's residence;  Is there any mention of such an incident that Radha went to Dwarka and stayed at Krishna's residence?

 Also any wife, considers herself the soul of her husband, not any other woman. If a woman knows that her husband's soul is another woman, then it is impossible for that woman to tolerate it, then the same thing that I have said above while narrating the story of Rukmini and Radha in the context of Gargasanghita is also applicable here. This means that what is said in this Purana about Kalindi and Radha is completely false.

 Then the story of Radhakunda and Aristakunda which is mentioned in verse 164/33,34 of Varahapurana is that when Krishna was in Vrindavan, a giant ox named Aristasur went to Krishna's society in Vrindavan to kill Krishna under the direction of Kangsa. On hearing this news, Krishna appeared in his society and killed the giant ox. But since it was an ox, Radha and her companions told Krishna that it was a sin of cow-slaughter to kill Aristasur, for atonement he had to go and bathe in all the holy rivers of the world. Krishna says OK, instead of traveling all over the world and bathing in all the holy rivers, I will bring all the holy rivers here and bathe in them. Then Krishna strikes the ground with his feet, creating a pond or kunda and when Krishna starts playing the flute, the holy river-like goddesses like Ganga, Kaberi, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada, Jamuna appear and all fall into the pond as water. In this way, the pond fills up with water, in which Lord Krishna bathes and frees himself from sins as claimed by Radha and his companions, and Lord Krishna names it as Shyamkund.

 Then Sri Krishna said to Radha and his companions, "You also sinned by speaking on behalf of Aristasura. By bathing in this pool, you too become sinless."  In reply, Radha, the eternal enemy of Lord Krishna, said, "Because you have bathed, the water of that tank has become impure. We will make other tank ourselves and bathe in it." Then Radha and her friends dug more soil from the place where the hole was created by the blow of Aristasur's foot and made a small pond, but where will they get water from? In response to Krishna's question, Radha said that they would bring water from a nearby river Jamuna with a pitcher and fill the pond. After that they brought a few jugs of water and poured it into the pond, but they realized that it would take them a lifetime to fill the pond in this way, thinking that when they sat down in despair, the aforesaid 6 goddesses fell into the water again in Radhakund, by the command of Krishna. Then Krishna says your kund is more beautiful than my kund, so Krishna goes down to Radhakund and says he will bathe in this kund every day, so Radha forgets the previous quarrel and says to Krishna your kund is also very beautiful, I will also go down to your kund and bathe every day. In this way Shyamkunda and Radhakunda are created, which are the childhood events of Lord Krishna. I do not deny that there was a girl named Radha among Krishna's contemporaries in Vrindavan during Krishna's childhood, as I have said before. My objection is only to tarnish the heavenly glory of Krishna by making young Radha stand beside the young Krishna. 

 However, does this incident in the VarahaPurana proves that young Radha has any existence in the life of young Krishna or that Radha had a love affair with Krishna? 

 At the end, I will end the article with a reference to DeviBhagavat, I have intentionally put this discussion at the end, for a special purpose- 

 It has been said in Devi Bhagavata on 9/50/16- "Worship of Lord Krishna is not possible without worship of Radhika. So all Vaishnavism must worship Radha." It cannot be said that this translation is wrong or correct; Because, it is said in the verse, "Vaishnavaih saklaistasmang karttabang radhikarchanam."

 There are two sources of origin of the word Vaishnava, firstly those who are devotees of Vishnu, call them Vaishnavas; Secondly, those who follow Chaitanyadev are called Vaishnavas or Vairagi. If this verse was meant for the devotees of Vishnu, then there would be no need to use the word Vaishnava here; Because, according to the theory, all the traditionalists (Sanatani) are devotees of Vishnu, so everyone is Vaishnava, and Radha has no existence in any story related to Vishnu. This verse is written only for the Vaisnavas who follow Chaitanyadev, which is why it is said- "There is no right to worship Lord Krishna except the worship of Radha. Therefore all Vaisnavas must worship Radha." This proves that this verse of Devi Bhagavata was composed by a Chaitanyaist Vaishnava, otherwise he could not say that the worship of Lord Krishna is not valid without the worship of Radha through which the character of Lord Krishna is only tarnished.

 The ultimate knowledge of the traditional (Sanatan) religion is the Gita, and the ultimate subject of the traditional religion is Lord Krishna, which is why it is said in the Gita that knowing Lord Krishna is the ultimate knowledge. This ultimate worship of Lord Krishna would not be without the worship of Radha, if it were true, then surely the ultimate theory of traditional religion, the Gita, would have said something or hinted at this, but is there anything like that? NO.  So the last word of the traditional religion is the Gita, where there is no mention of the worship of Radha or anyone else before the worship of Lord Krishna, there is a Purana called Devi Bhagavata, the main subject of which is the description of the greatness of Goddess Durga, Isn't it unreasonable to suddenly talk like this in one or two verses?

 Apart from the worship of Radha in Goddess Bhagavata, so is the worship of Lord Krishna. If there is such a big data about Lord Krishna, the savior of mankind, is not available in the main texts of traditional religion, such as the Gita, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Upanishads nowhere but available in an unconventional Purana, then is that acceptable?

 As the last admonition of the Gita, in verses 57 and 65 of the eighteenth chapter, Lord Krishna says to Arjuna,

chetasā sarva-karmāṇi mayi sannyasya mat-paraḥ

buddhi-yogam upāśhritya mach-chittaḥ satataṁ bhava ||57||

man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru

mām evaiṣhyasi satyaṁ te pratijāne priyo ‘si me ||65||

 --"Dedicate your every activity to me, making me your supreme goal. Taking shelter of the Yog of the intellect, keep your consciousness absorbed in me always." ||57||

 

 --"Always think of me, be devoted to me, worship me, and offer obeisance to me. Doing so, you will certainly come to me. This is my pledge to you, for you are very dear to me." ||65||

 If Radha was so important in Krishna's life and if Radha was not worshiped, then Krishna did not have the right to be worshiped, would Krishna have given these Gita advices to Arjuna? And if the worship of Sri Krishna is not fruitful without the worship of Radha, then Sri Krishna is not the Supreme God, Radha is the Supreme God;  But does Radha have any reference in any of the authentic texts of the traditional religion behind her being the Supreme God? NO. So all these words of Devi Bhagavata are baseless, should it still be explained to Rayon and Rayon-like people with a finger in their eye?

  Not only this verse of Devi Bhagavata, but all that so-called traditional religious texts which have tried to prove the existence of Radha beside Lord Krishna, I have keep this discussion of Devi Bhagavata at the end to explain that it is the tricks of Chaitanyaist Vaishnava.

 Link to the video statement on which I wrote this article-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsoW2kwWYc&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0-pNFbdJHnpDVrwovS_7mrojMgBOrmTaKdqVyGVkpwzCcSLWmAKwqrxX8

Reality of Biriyani & Food-Diet of ancient India

✍@BharadwajSpeaks from twitter

Nonsense!

Biryani is NOT Mughal dish. Its earlier name was "Hindavi Laziz" ="Indian delicacy"

The word Biryani is NOT Arabic, Persian,Turkic. It originally comes from Sanskrit word borrowed by Persian.

Early Biryani with meat, rice & spices was known as मांसोदन in Ancient India

Biryani is made from rice and spices. 

In those days, Rice DID NOT EVEN GROW in the original Mughal homeland.

Infact, the first Mughal emperor Babur DOES NOT EVEN MENTION mention rice when he was in Central Asia. He mentions other crops and cereals but rice is completely ABSENT. 

The Persian word 'Biryani' is comes from Persian 'Birinj' for rice. Now, this word is NOT FOUND in Old Persian. It suddenly occurs in Middle Persian. According to Mayrhofer's "Etymological Dictionary Of Old Indo Aryan", the word Birinj comes from Sanskrit word vrihi (व्रीहि). 

Biryani is basically a dish made with rice, meat and spices.

Such a dish known as मांसौदन is mentioned even in vedic literature. 

 It is mentioned in Śatapathabrāhmaṇa (11.5.7.5  &  14.9.4.17)

 Pāṇini in his Aṣṭādhyāyī also mentions it at 4. 4.67 

An ancient Indian book on food known as Pākadarpaṇa (पाकदर्पण) is attributed to king Nala.

According to Mahabharata, Nala was a great cook and he was gifted this ability by none other than Yama.

According to ancient Indian lore, Nala was a cook in the kitchen of king Rituparna. 

Pakadarpana was composed by King Nala according to the book itself and Indian tradition. 

It describes preparation of मांसौदन which is an early form of Biryani.

First, the author describes preparation of boiled rice. He then adds meat, spices and even flowers for decoration. 

The author then describes the preparation of मांसौदन which is an early form of Biryani.

The author describes the process of rinsing, soaking rice and then draining rice.

He then describes cutting meat to the size of rice. Ghee and coconut milk was also added along with Ketaki. 

For the sake of fragrance, Kasturi and Karpura (musk and camphor) was also added.

Then the vessel was closed with upper lid, kept on fire and mixed well until it becomes soft.

Then , मांसौदन was served for eating. 

This marination technique is literally what is followed in the preparation of Dum Biryani. How exactly have Mughals brought anything?

The author furthers adds that the ideal मांसौदन (early form of Biryani) has to be रुचिकरं (tasty), वृष्यं (stimulating) पथ्यं (wholesome) & light. 

Further, Pakadarpana describes preparation of मांसौदन using the meat of quail bird.

It uses spices, meat, ghee, aromatic substances and marination technique.

It also recommends layering/topping.

Pakadarpana describes the preparation of कुक्कुट मांसौदन (an early form of chicken Biryani).

Using Chicken meat, salt & spices, he chops meat to the size and cooks it with Ghee. He soaks it & adds Asafoetida. He closes upper lid, keeps on fire & mixes well until it becomes soft. 

Further Pakadarpana recommends adding "Masala powder" which should be made of six materials (षट्-चूर्ण) and he also recommends Kevada petals for fragrance (instead of Gulabi rose petals) . He recommends "kheema like" cutting of meat. He recommends enclosing the dish using आटा। 

How exactly have Mughals brought to Biryani to India?

Before an ignoramus says "Where are potatoes, tomatoes and Chilles?"

There were NO potatoes, tomatoes and Chillies in the Mughalai Biryani of Shah Jahan & Aurangzeb. There is no mention of them in Nuskha I Shahjahani Biryan. 

Coming to the Mughal Biryani, we have already mentioned that the word Biryani originally comes from a Sanskrit word borrowed by Persian.

The word "Biryani" DOES NOT appear until 17th century. It is ABSENT in all the older records.

Ain I Akbari (16th century) describes the preparation of a dish known as Zard Birinj (yellow rice) which could be seen as a Mughal precursor to Mughal Biryani. 

In fact, the word 'Zard Birinj" is a straight translation of "Haridranna".

 Sanskrit हारिद्र (haridra) means "Yellow". In Persian, Zard (زرد) means "Yellow". "Anna" generally means rice in Sanskrit and "Birinj" is rice in Persian.

 By straight translation, Zard Birinj= Haridranna. 

The FIRST unambiguous mention of Biryani comes from Nuskha-i-Shahjahani in 17th century. 

t was made in the kitchens of INDIA which have access to spices. This is NOT surprising. Biryani IS MADE OF rice and spices which could be found only in India (or South East Asia). 

Now I examine the claim that "Mughals brought Biryani to India" with textual sources.

 In this respect, data from Baburnama is extremely valuable as a contemporary Mughal source for geographical and botanical data.

 To begin with, What was India ('Hindustan') during those days?

In Baburnama, Hindustan begins from the East of Kabul.

 When Mughal emperor Babur reached Lamghan (Laghman), Ningnahar (Nangarhar) and Adinapur (Jalalabad) which are towns to east of Kabul in today's Northeast Afghanistan, Babur declared that he reached the border of Hindustan. 

"Other grounds, other trees, other animals, other manners & customs" is how Babur describes difference between Hindustan and Central Asia.

The North/West of Kabul was known as "Khurasan" & wasn't part of Hindustan. 

Kabul & Qandahar were entrepots between Hindustan and Khurasan. 

With this background in place, let us examine the evidence from Babur's mouth. 

Throughout Baburnama, Babur DOES NOT mention rice when he was in Central Asia. 

He mentions other crops and cereals but rice is completely ABSENT. 

What to say of Biryani?

The FIRST mention of rice farming in Baburnama occurs AFTER Babur enters Hindustan. 

He mentions that good crops of rice and corn were cultivated in Nangarhar, a place which Babur describes as "borderland of Hindustan".

Next, we are told that Rice was grown on "steep terraces" in the Nur valley of Laghman (today's Northeast Afghanistan) in the Hindukush mountains, which was again considered a part of Hindustan.

 Today, these regions are Afghan Pak borderlands. 

Then, the Mughal army conducted a night raid and looted rice fields of "Mil Kafirs". These were the Nuristani and Chitrali Kalash Kafirs of Hindukush mountains. They put up a brave resistance and fought the Mughal army. 

It is clear that Mughals DID NOT bring Biryani to India. Far from it. They did not even have natively cultivated rice. Rice could not be adequately grown in their homelands in those days. They encountered rice fields in Hindustan and looted those rice fields during night raids. 

While there have been occasional instances of mention of rice in central Asia( for ex, pilaf encountered by Alexander and rice cultivation of Kushans), this was largely the case of elites borrowing from South Asia or introducing an exotic crop. 

At any rate, there is NOT A SINGLE mention of the word Biryani in Persia or central Asia.

The earliest mention of the word Biryani comes from 17th century and it comes from the kitchens of India. There is no evidence that it was brought from Persia or central Asia. Far from it.

To all the idiotic Namazees quoting this thread without understanding basic context.

Hindavi Laziz was not a word used by Hindus. Hindus called it मांसौदन. 

Muzlim ancestors and Mughals called it Hindavi Laziz. Which is their straight admission that Biryani has Indian origins. 

Central Asian semi arid climate is not very conducive to the production of rice.

A related dish is Pulav. 

The word comes from Sanskrit Pulāka (पुलाक) meaning "boiled rice" (alternatively, it could also mean "shrivelled grain"). 

This Sanskrit word was taken into Old Tamil and Old Telugu as "Pulakam". And the word gave its name very famous rice dish named Pulakam that is extant even today in South India (புளகம், పులకము)

https://agarathi.com/word/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B3%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D

While Pulakam is mainly served today as a Khichdi like rice dish, some older regional variants particularly used spices, saffron and accompanied it with Rayta like curd preparation, making it identical to what is understood by "Pulav" today. 

https://youtu.be/90xiiXE6w3w

The great Persian linguist Ali Nourai shows that a sound cluster of voiceless plosive, non front vowel and a liquid is simply not existent in native Persian phonology Hence, a word such as "Pilaw/pilaf" is simply NOT a native Persian word. It is a borrowed loanword into Persian. 

In his path-breaking magnum opus "The Etymology dictionary of Persian", The Persian Linguist Dr. Ali Nourai very clearly mentions that the Persian word "Pulav/Pilaw/Pilaf" comes from the Sanskrit word Pulaka. 

In "Etymological Dictionary of Persian", leading Persian linguist Garnik Asatrian makes a very interesting point. He says the word "Pulav/Pilaw" or its ancestors are completely ABSENT in Old & Middle Persian. It occurs in New Persian when Ghaznavids begin expanding into India. 

This shows Pulav was really Indian.

This thread thus very clearly establishes the Indian origin of Biryani and Pulav through linguistic, semantic and historical prisms.

The reader is free to make his own opinion after reading the thread. 

Earlier in the thread, I wrote about the very rare occurrence of rice in Central Asia during Kushan & Greek period. 

Now, research indicates that rice was introduced into Central Asia from Indian subcontinent, even if cultivation attempts mostly failed. 

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-ancient-cultivated-rice-central-asia.html

Where did Radha came from? (Episode 1)

Shri Krishna with Rukmini Devi

Krishna Charitra written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay; translated by Alo Shome

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in his Krishna Charitra Book has asked - where did this Radha come from? And I am asking today - where did Radha's name come from?

Rayon Chakroborty

This bookworm named Rayon Chakroborty, whose job is just to read a book and reveal what information is in a book; On the one hand, it is a good thing that since he publishes various information, many people can know the issues and discuss them in different ways and people can rush towards the real truth. But this bookworm has little or no ability to grasp the truth. He thinks that the information he gets in the text is the truth and he promotes it. It is not up to him to see whether the society is benefiting or not by the information. This bookworm is also a devotee or follower of Anukul Thakur, who is considered by his devotee disciples to be Purnabrahma, which is completely false and baseless; There is only one Purnabrahma in the world, he is the Supreme Lord Shri Krishna, no one else deserves to be Purnabrahma; Because, the power that one has to have to become Purnabrahma was not possessed by anyone other than Lord Shri Krishna and it is not possible to have it in anyone. But I have never heard this bookworm say anything about this, and this one information proves that all of his wisdom are meaningless.

The authentic biography of Shri Krishna - Harivansh and Mahabharata - does not contain the existance of Radha. In this context, let me say that Harivansh and Mahabharata are complementary books, the information about Sri Krishna in Harivansh is not in Mahabharata, but the information in Mahabharata is not in Harivansh. For this reason, in the Harivansh, there is everything from the birth of Shri Krishna to his childhood & adolescence, but in the Mahabharata, there are the events after his childhood and adolescence.

If a woman exists in a person's life, and if there are more than one book about that person, then there will be stories of that woman in that books; in a word, there will be many real events about that woman in that person's life, which will prove that woman existed in that person's life. But there is no incident in Krishna's life about Radha which proves that there was a woman named Radha in Krishna's life with whom Krishna had a love affair or a sexual relationship.

With the exception of seven hundred verses of the Bhagwad Gita, almost all the Sanatan Dharma texts have been somehow distorted and some of them have been written by the immature people (Arbachins) and have come to be known as the scriptures of the Sanatan Dharma. Before accepting the information of a book as true, one has to check and sort all the information beforehand to see if that information is really true, then it has to be accepted.

At present, almost all the texts/scriptures of Sanatan Dharma, except Vaishnavism, are in the name of VedaVyas, which is not true at all. It is also said in the Bhagavad Purana that the eighteenth Purana was composed by VedaVyas, that is also not truth. Because, in the eighteenth Purana, there is also the name of Brahmavaivarta Purana, but somehow it is not possible for VedaVyas, who described Lord Shri Krishna as a Parmeshwara, to compose Brahmavaivarta Purana - a Purana rich in bizarre, unreal and obscene stories, where Sri Krishna is a completely lustful character. It is in the Bhagavad Purana that Gautama Buddha is said to be an incarnation, which gautam buddha was born approx 2700 years later VedaVyas; then how Bhagwad Purana could be composed by VedaVyas?  Moreover, there is a story that VedaVyas composed Bhagavata and recited it to his son Shukdev; Shukdev recited to Raja Parikshit, but according to the source in the Mahabharata, Shukadev died before the battle of Kurukshetra, so how does Shukdev recited Parikshit the story of Bhagavata? 

One of the references given to prove the existence of Radha or the existence of Radha in the life of Krishna is - verse 10 of the Narayan Giti Stotra, it says-

 "Radhadhar-Madhu-Rasika Rajni-Kar-Kool-Tilkah.

 Narayan Narayan Joy Govinda Hare.

 Narayan Narayan Joy Gopal Hare."

 -- It is not a Sanskrit verse, it is a complete Bengali verse, composed by Vaisnavas, who cannot believe any of the words of Vaisnavas, they have destroyed all the systems of Sanatan Dharma.

 Then that irrational book worm, gives a reference from Saubhagya Lakshmi Tantra [13/3]:

"Radhanathah Sajalajaldashyamalah Pitabasa

Vrindaranye Biharati Sada Sachchidanandrupah."

 -- here Lord Krishna is called Radhanath. Nath means husband, so Radhanath means husband of Radha. But nowhere, other than the BrahmavaivartaPuran, is it said that Sri Krishna is husband of Radha;  this BrahmavaivartaPurana is not composed by VedaVyas, the real BrahmavaivartaPuran was destroyed centuries ago. 

 Pic: KrishnaCharitra (1st Khanda/14th Chapter/Pg-61) by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay

Red UnderLine: "Therefore the ancient Brahmavaivarta Puran no longer exists. What is known as Brahmavaivarta is a new book and seeing that calculating the time of compilation of Brahmavaivarta Puran seems to be a wonderful mystery."

So there is no doubt that the information in the Saubhagyalakshmi Tantra containing this information is fabricated. 

 Then, with a reference to Matsya Purana 13/38, the obnoxious book worm says:

"Gangapare Ratipriya Shivakunde Shivananda Nandini Deviktate.

Rukmini Dwarvatyantu Radha Vrindavane Vane Mathuray Devaki."

 -- But are all these women Krishna's companion or bed companion? If so, then it has been said that Devaki is in Mathura, then is Devaki also Krishna's bed companion? Certainly not; Because, Devaki is the birth mother of Lord Krishna. Then surely the women mentioned in this verse are not talking about Krishna's bedfellow, this verse has been used to indicate that women belongs to which place. According to this source, there is no problem in Radha being in Vrindavan. I do not deny that Radha was one of Krishna's childhood companions, what I deny is the love relation that is spoken of young Radha with young Krishna. Does this verse of Matsya Purana prove Krishna's love for Radha? 

 Then there is a reference given by Rayon - verse 4 of Achutashtakam, where it is said:

"Devakitanaya dukhdabagne, Radhikarman ramya-sumurte. 

Dukhmochon Dayarnab Nath, Sripate Samay Dukhamashesam."

 -- Who wrote this book? Is it composed by VedaVyas? Is there anything more to be said about the fact that the verse written with commas (,) and hyphens (-) was written by someone in the modern age? In ancient Bengali or Sanskrit there was no such thing as comma, hyphen, these were borrowed from English by Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar for the convenience of writing prose. In the verses written with all these punctuation marks, an attempt has been made to prove that Krishna is Radha's sex partner by using the word RadhikaRaman. What is the purpose of all these compositions? Rayan says at one point in his video, in the Brahmavaivartapurana, Radha and Krishna were married in the priesthood of Brahma, so what is the problem if they have sex?

 I don't think Rayan has been read Brahmavaivarta Puran properly, if he had read, he would have known that when the marriage of Radha and Krishna is shown in that Purana, the sex of Radha and Krishna has been mentioned long before that, surely sex before marriage is not a good thing or a good example for man, since Shri Krishna appeared to establish Dharma through folk education. And if Krishna is married to Radha, then why is it not mentioned in Harivansh or Mahabharata? Marriage is not a common event in a person's life, it is a very significant event, an event that affects people's life in many ways, the event of marriage is not in any of the two significant biographies of Krishna, is it normal? The bigger question here is- Krishna, left Vrindavan at the age of 10+ and went to Mathura, never returned to Vrindavan, there is no evidence of Radha leaving Vrindavan either, then, when did young Radha meet young Krishna, and When was the love or marriage? As I have said before, marriage is not a common occurrence in any human life, Rebati's marriage to Balaram and Rukmini's marriage to Krishna took place in the presence of all the relatives in great pomp, who was present at the marriage of Radha and Krishna? Who perform the ritual named "Kanyadan"?  Since the story of Krishna's marriage to Radha is not real, except for a bizarre and obscene myth, there is no argument or evidence of real events anywhere in this favor.

 Rayan then gives a reference to verse 16/7 of Radhatantra, where it is said:

"Radhika Krishna Vallava"

 -- Where in the Harivansh and the Mahabharata there is no mention of Krishna's love marriage with Radha, not even in the Bhagavad Puran which is written after the birth of Gautama Buddha there is any information about Radha; Because, at that time, the stalks of Radha's fictional story did not started, who wrote this book called Radhatantra? Krishna's love marriage with Radha is first mentioned in the Brahmavaivartapurana, which according to experts is not written before 1200 A.D., based on the story of which Sanskrit poet Joydev wrote Geet Govinda, Bengali poet Baru Chandidas wrote Srikrishnakirtan Kavya, and the vaishnav poets of mideival period wrote vaishnav padabali. So is there any doubt that the name of Radha associated with Krishna is written by Chaitanyapanthis? And the Chaitanyapanthi are always ignorant, they cannot grasp the real truth, nor do they understand the real truth. That is why they have taken the Hindu community to the abyss by preaching about the love between Radha and Krishna in the name of Haribasar or Harisava. 

 Then Rayan have tried to prove the existence of Radha by the word "Radhikanga" with reference to verse 6 of the JamunastakStotra, but does that prove that there is Radha in the life of Sri Krishna?

 Then Garyasanghita Dwarkakhand, verse 17/18 with reference to verse Rayan shows-

 "Rukmini said, ---- O Brishvanunandini Radhe! you are blessed, this Krishna has been subdued by your devotion".

 -- Now imagine this scene in reality. If a man always thinks of a woman, speaks of her, then it proves that the man is madly in love with that woman. To such a man, his wife's love-affection-respect-devotion will erased. That woman will always be annoyed with her husband, will quarrel with him, will fight if necessary, because her husband is thinking of another woman besides her, talking to her. In this situation, did the woman say such things about her husband's girlfriend that you are blessed, my husband has fallen in love with you?

 There is no woman in the world who dares to go and meet her lover's wife herself. In these cases, when the husband's wickedness is noticed, the wives find him, meet his husband's lover, teach her a lesson, do not talk to him well, and do not say that you are blessed. Rather, it says that if you look at my husband, I will lift your eyes, and if you reach out to my husband, I will break or cut off your hand. Also, if Krishna always thinks of Radha, speaks of Radha, then when did Krishna think of establishing religion by destroying the Adharmi, and when did he work for it, but it should not be forgotten that the purpose of Krishna's descent into the world is to destroy the beholders, to establish Dharma, not to love.

 Well, even if we assume that the description of the Gargasanghita is true, then it proves that Krishna is lustful because he pays attention to Radha despite having his own wife. So whether the incident is true or false, don't you want to prove Krishna to be lustful by quoting the reference in the Gargasanghita? If so, is your intention honest about traditional (Sanatan) religion and society?  If there is no woman scandal in your father's life, but if someone says something like that, what should you do? Suppress him, or praise him?  If you are your father's ideal son, you will try to create a clear and beautiful image of your father in public mind. On the contrary, if you tarnish the image of your father, you are not the ideal son, you are the culprit son.

 Sri Krishna is the father of this world, in an attempt to prove the existence of Radha in the life of that Krishna, by quoting the Gargasanghita, did you not playing the role of the culprit son?

 Also, if Rukmini says - "Krishna's name are always chanted by the people of Trilok"; this quite may be about the modern age long after Krishna's decease or tirodhan, in no way is it about the youth of Lord Krishna; Because, before the battle of Kurukshetra, most of the people of AkhandBharat did not consider Lord Krishna as God, so most of the kings of the country joined the Kauravas who were known all over the country for Notoriety;  as a result, out of the total 18 Akshauhini soldiers who took part in the battle of Kurukshetra, only 7 Akshauhini soldiers were on Shri Krishna's side. Even today where almost all Hindus believe that Lord Krishna Himself is God, still about 80% of the people of the world do not consider Lord Krishna to be God. And at that time when Krishna is young, Rukmini cannot say that Krishna's name are always chanted by the people of Trilok!  Because, at that time, even half of the mortals, did not chant the name of Krishna. 

 This information proves that either the words related to the conversation of Rukmini and Radha were inserted by distorting the Gargasanghita after the Chaitanya movement or that some Chaitanya Panthi wrote this book under the name of Gargasanghita and continued it as a traditional (Sanatan) scripture.

So far in the 1st episode, the remaining 6 references given by Rayon will be discussed in the 2nd episode. 

Jay Shri Ram

Jay Shri Krishna

Is Dayananda Saraswati a Maharshi?

 The treaty separation of the word Maharshi is  Maha + Rishi and its conjunction is - Maharshi. Those who composed Vedic mantras are called Rishi (sage) and those who later performed various works on those mantras such as study and teaching are called Muni. There are 355 known sages and a few others unknown, but not all of them are called Maharshi (great sage); Those who are the best and the greatest among the sages are known as Maharshis. So if he wants to be a Maharshi, he has to not only compose Vedic mantras, he has to be the best or chief among the sages. Let's see in this formula whether Dayananda Saraswati is a Maharshi or not?

 I am asking the Arya Samajis or the Dayanand Supporter who write or propagate Dayananda Saraswati as Maharshi, did Dayanand Saraswati compose Vedic mantras?

 The answer is NO.

 So the one who did not compose the mantras of the Vedas, he is not a Rishi, how did he become a Maharshi?

 I am asking this question to the Arya Samajis or there supporters very strictly, if they can give a satisfactory answer to this question, then they have the right to write or promote Dayananda Saraswati as Maharshi, otherwise they have no moral right to call or write Dayananda as a Maharshi.

 Just as Vaishnav Society has deceived the Traditional (Sanatani) Hindu Society by promoting Chaitanyadev as the incarnation or god of KaliYug and is still doing so, similarly Arya Samajis has been deceiving the Traditional Hindu Society by promoting Dayananda as Maharshi. Although Chaitanyadev's personal life is not to be followable for Hindus, his disciples are instructed to sing the name of Krishna in praise. 

 Dayanand Saraswati, on the other hand, did not accept Krishna as God, nor did he acknowledge Krishna as an incarnation. Dayanand Saraswati considered Krishna to be a Great Yogi, on the other hand he considered himself to be a (greater sage) Maharshi than Shri Krishna! This belief is cherished in the hearts of some fools, who are known in Hindu society as Arya Samajist.

 Dayananda Saraswati did not compose any mantra in the Vedas, so he is not a Rishi (sage), there is no question of being a Maharishi; On the contrary, Dayananda is a liar and a deceiver, because he has not only changed the translation of many verses of the Manu Sanhita in his Satyartha Prakash, but has also distorted many Veda Mantras and tried to establish his own beliefs and opinions through them.

 However, Dayanand Saraswati is a liar and a deceiver, he has revealed and proved through his name by putting the word Maharshi before his name. I do not believe that Dayanand did not know the meaning of the word Maharshi and to whom it applies; he must have known it and knowingly put the word Maharshi before his name in order to take himself to their level, which was later propagated by his followers. But he is not a Maharshi (Great Sage), not even a Rishi (sage); Because he did not compose the Vedic mantra, then how can he put the word Maharshi before his name and propagate it?

 Dayanand Saraswati, in his Satyartha Prakash, criticizes almost everything prevalent in the Traditional (Sanatani) Hindu society and tries to disprove them and tries to establish himself and his opinion above all else. But Dayananda Saraswati's almost all views or thoughts are erroneous, and with those erroneous views or thoughts he has promoted himself as Maharshi; where he is not a Rishi.

                  Pic. taken from wikipedia

 All over the world only this Arya Samajist chant Aham instead of OM ! Dayanand is responsible for the distortion of Traditional (Sanatan) Om also. 

 Everyone gets the fruits of his deeds, Dayananda Saraswati has already get it and his followers will also get that. The Brahmo Samaj did not consider Lord Krishna to be God, so they are in the pages of history today, the same fate will befall the Arya Samaj.

Jay Shri Ram

Jay Shri Krishna