You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : February 2002

Re: Of Hari, Green, and Radha

From: Lakshmikumar (
Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 15:06:03 PST

SrImatE rAmAnujAya nama:

Dear SrI Malolan swAmin, SrI S.V.Swamy & SrI T.L.

naMo nArAyaNa!

First of all, aDiyEn wants to let everyone know that
my intention of the previous post was out of curiosity
to know the sources of the statements in SrI mAlOlAn
cadAmbi's mail and not to question the validity of his

aDiyEn was afraid that his statment "SrI Krishna was
considered *only* as an avataram of SrIman nArAyaNa",
could be construed, by some, to mean that SrI krishnA
is some what inferior to SrIman nArAyNa, while he
meant to say SrI krishnA and SrIman nArAyaNa are same
and how SrI krishnA is an avatAram of SrIman nArAyaNa
and not vice-versa. 

SrI S.V.Swamy wrote:-
> If we accept Sri Krishna as Para Brahma, can we deny
> that Sri Radha is Para Shakti? The Devi Puranam
> which
> I read is called Sri Devi Bhagavatam and is authored
> by the same Sage Veda Vyasa. I said Puranam in a
> synonymous sense. Whether that is part of Padma
> Puranam, I don't know, but the telugu translation
> does
> not mention that.

SrI mAlOlan swAmi has already clarified this in his
mail. The purAnam in question viz. dEvi bhAgavatam is
not one of the authorized 18 main purAnAs. aDiyEn is
not sure if it comes under the 18 upa-purAnAs. aDiyEn
has also read this dEvi bhAgavatam in Tamil a long
time ago.  

Nowadays, it is not uncommon to find "new" purAnAs
written by people with Sanskrit knowledge with the
claim that the author of the purAnA is SrI vEda vyAsA.
 This is to make people believe in what they wanted to

Whether Devi Bhagavatham is one of the 18 upa purAnAs
or one of the "new" purAnAs, it is not part of the
sAttvIka purAnAs that are consistent with the Shrutis
aka 4 vEdAs. Hence, it can not be considered as a

Devi Bhagavatham claims a theory that Devi is the
Supreme and she is the one who created Siva, Vishnu
and Brahma. This completely violates the vEdAs and the
other shAstrAs.

That aside, aDiyEn has even heard of biographis of
modern day so-called bhAbAs that claim that the
X-bhAbA or Y-bAbA as the Supreme God!! 

If we can accept anything on the name of purAnA, I can
write a "lakshmIkumAr purAnA - author SrI vEdA vyAsa"
and claim that I am the Supreme God. Doesn't it sound
so silly???

We can find vEdAs glorifying SrI krishnA (who is none
other than SrIman nArAyaNa) as the Supreme (vedais ca
sarvair aham eva vedyo, vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham
Sr BG 15.15) and SrI as the Supreme Goddess. Can we
cite a passage from vEdA that glorifies Smt. rAdhA as
the Supreme Godess? The answer is an obvious "NO". So
the answer to your question is "Yes, we can deny Smt
rAdhA is parasakthi". 

So it is clear that Smt rAdhA, who is a great devotee
of SrI krishnA, is a jIvAtma who is not pirAtti. There
is no authentic shAstrA that claims that she is an
amsam of SrI. 

The SrI vaishnava achAryAs (who are blemishless) have
clearly shown us the tattvam, hitam and purushaarttam
which are consistent with the srutis and smrutis,
which are verily the commandments of Lord SrIman
nArAyaNa. The sobriquet pirAtti is used only with SrI
(and Her avatArams like Smt Rukmini are called periya
pirAtti), bhUmi (and her avatArams like Smt AandAL),
and nilA (and her avatArams like Smt nappinnai - the
foremost amonst the gOpa strIs). They are extolled in
vEdAs as well. Hence the term pirAtti can *not* be
used with Smt. Radha and other gOpikAs.   

SrI T.L Mohan wrote:
> All of our SadaAachaaryaas (Shree. Aadi Shankarar,
> Shree. Vudayavar, Shree. Madhwachaaryar) had both of
> extreme *Anubhavams* and *Pandityam*.

aDiyEn does not want to create an argument here. But
for the sake of preciseness, aDiyEn wants to point out
that only SrI rAmAnujar (amonst the above 3) is
considered a sadAchArya as he is the only one (out of
the above 3) who has shown the true import of vEdAs
(ie) bagavAn's tiruvullam and thus making us surrender
unto His lotus feet.

SrI T.L. Mohan wrote:-
> *Anubhavams* need not be / should not be / cannot be
> reasoned with Logic / Tarkam.

SrI S.V. SwAmy wrote:-
> Finally knowledge and Bhakti are different. 

Both knowledge without bhakthi, and bhakthi without
knowledge are simply useless! To do proper bakthi on
proper tattva, one needs to have proper knowledge!

Our great SrI vaishnava achArAs always emphasized that
the anubhavams be in accordance with the shAstrAs. 

In prathAna sathakam 59, SwAmi SrI vEdAnta dESikan
says that a bhAgavathA with superior Jn~Anam is 
pradhAnam over all the bhAgavathAs possessing
Bhagavath bhakthi . 

> It is always adivisable to be some Aachaarya
> Paramparai for Bhagavad Vishayams to get the TRUTH
> it is. But occassionally Shreeman Narayanan blesses
> *Anubhavams* to people not being in any Aachaarya
> Paramparai, just to give us the glimpse of his
> *Soulabhyam* (Eg : Valmiki Maharshi, Pandarapur
> Bhaktaas, Bhakta Meera, Kabir Das Etc.)

Maharshi SrI Valmiki had maharshi SrI nAradA as his
achAryA (Please correct me if I am wrong). As for the
others are considered, their works are *not*
consistant with shAstrAs which are the commandments of
the Supreme Lord. How then can we say that they were
blessed by SrIman nArAyaNa like He blessed the most
venerable AzhwArs with the most perfect knowledge
about Him (mayarvaRa mathi nalam)?

> The staunch followers of any SadaAchaarya Paramparai
> need not be with strong words while commenting on
> other  SadaAchaarya Paramparai, because this would
> severely pain ShreemanNaaraayanan.

You mean to say that SrIman nArAyaNa will feel pain if
one tries to explain the proper purport of the
shAstrAs to others? 

Please read the attached post that was sent to aDiyEn
by SrImAn Muralidhar swAmi. ( SrImAn Muralidhar
swAmin, Thanks for dEvarIr's wonderful mail with H.H.
SrImad PoundarIkapuram Andavan swAmi's elucidation of
the name krishnA and dEvarIr's reflections! Thanks to
the Lord for bestowing us such great achAryAs, in the
SrI vaishnava paramparA, who teach us the true
meanings of the shAstrAs!) 

LakshmIkumArrAmAnuja dAsan
SrImad Azhagiya Singar thiruvadigalE saranam!


SrimatE Gopaladesika MahadesikAya Namaha,

Dear Sriman Lakshmikumar Swamin,

Adiyen read with interest your response to Sriman
Malolan Cadambi. This post caused adiyen to reflect on
a few aspects of Lord Krishna expounded upon by H.H.
Srimad Poundarikapuram Andavan Swami in his Gopala
Vimshati upanyasam tapes. H.H. waxes eloquent about
the namam Krishna as 

"The name Krishna is fascinating due to the fact that
it is made up of the words ka, ra, sha, Na and A. Ka
symbolizes his eternal union with Thayar. Therefore,
He is known as Shriya: pati (one who is never 
separated from Sri). Ra denotes the fact that He is
none other than Lord Rama, who has incarnated again.
Sha is indicative of Him being replete with the six
auspicious attributes of jnAna, bala, aishwarya, 
shakti, tejas, and vatsalya. Na signifies the fact
that He is none other than Bhagavan Nrusimha, who has
incarnated again (It may be remembered that Bhagavan
Nrusimha denotes Pida Pariharam for Bhaktas 
and Pida pradanam for Dushtas), while A at the end of
His name embodies the Nara-Narayana aspects of His
avataram." Isn't it nectarine to reflect upon this
delectable name, which is the panacea for all ills? 

Niruktham defines trayi to mean-AdhyAtmika,
Adhibhowdika and Adhidaivika. All aspects pertaining
to Trayi are discussed in the four vedas. The most
telling testimony to the supremacy of Lord 
Krishna is contained in the Narayana upanishad
salutation "brahmaNyO devakIputhrO brahmaNyO
MadhusUdhanOm". He is the supreme being 
glorified in all the four Vedas. He is the one who is
described as "YathO vAchO nivartantE AprApya manasA
saha" (meaning: Words cannot adequately describe the
vast expanse of His glory. The mind cannot 
comprehend his incomparable mahima.) in the Taittriya

Namo Narayana,

SriMuralidhara dasan nama Ramanuja dasan


Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!

           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to