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?
"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.
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."
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
No comments:
Post a Comment