Talk:Radha

message: i removed * The 108 Names of Srimati Radhika
* The 108 Names of Srimati Radhika
* Sri Radha Sahasra Nama (1000 names)
because the links are broken Syama (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: * Needs secondary ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations about Radha 

message: A collection of views by one of the Vaishnava teachers published  by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was added as a link. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prabhupada]]s presentation 

message: The first sentence and the first sentence of the last paragraph seem to present the same or very similar information as to the goddess' alternate names & identities.  The last paragraph above the table of contents has three footnotes, and could be substituted for much of the first sentence, & the result rewritten a bit.  
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.140 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy in text above table of contents. 

message: There are two main sources which talk about lord Krishna a. HariVansha b. Shrimad Bhagwata.
The objective of writing HariVansha is to explain all the people related in any ways to Lord Krishna whereas that of Shrimad Bhagwata is to explain Bhakti towards Lord krishna.
There is no mention of Radha in HariVansha. The mention occurs only in Shrimad Bhagwat and it is so only because if one wants to understand Krishna and Bhakti towards Lord Krishna he needs to understand Radha-Krishna. It's more like saying Lord-Krishna, Veer-Krishna, Guru-Krishna, Bal-Krishna etc. in all these explanations thadha-Krishna.
Here "Radha" is nothing but opposite of the word "Dhara". The "Dhara" or stream of incorrect rituals, karmakaandas, established understandingd and followings. Krishna throughout his life stood and fought against the incorrect things happening he saw in the societyand showed the right path and established right things. If one wants to understands Krishna he needs to understand this special title given to him as Radha-Krishna only then it would become easy to have Bhakti towards Lord Krishna.
The great scholars like Pandurang Shastri Athavle have highlighted this fact many a times.
so, people should understand this outlook and not fall for the misinterpretation of Radha as a human being with whom Krishna was in love with and get in to silly discussions like why Krishna didn't marry Radha and all!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.104.65.66 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radha/Radhika a Metaphor to Understand Lord krishna 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213235546/http://swami.org/pages/sanga/1999/1999_4.php to http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/1999/1999_4.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818030758/http://hua.edu/media/mediasupportfiles/newsletters_brochures/HU-Newsletter-7-03.pdf to http://hua.edu/media/mediasupportfiles/newsletters_brochures/HU-Newsletter-7-03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Origin:
Coincidentally following the pattern suggested for Kṛṣṇa and replicating a similar 
wishful thinking, devotees assign Rādhā’s very first appearance to the Vedas:
Rādhā-Viśākhā, gracious Anurādhā, Jyeṣthā and the good constellation, protector Mūla 
[may I be happy].
This verse clearly refers to two particular lunar constellations. A verse which later 
theologians claim as a Vedic source, assigning it to the Ṛkpariśiṣṭa, has been 
untraced in that text. It is similar in tone to the previously cited Atharvaveda verse:
By Rādhā, the radiant Mādhava, and by Mādhava itself, Rādhā shine over people.
The theologians read this through undoubtedly Vaiṣṇava lenses, but in standard 
usage, Mādhava is an epithet of spring and Rādhā is just another name for the 
Viśākhā/Anurādhā constellation. Even though these texts are clearly intended to be 
astrological statements, their ‘astral mythology’ retrospectively fit the current 
Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa idiom, with Mādhava, Rādhā and her associate Viśākhā, who, like all 
the other sakhīs, is supposed to be an expansion of Rādhā’s potency (Miller 
1975:669).
Sources from before the common era attest to Kṛṣṇa’s status as a supreme deity for 
some sections of society. In the early centuries of the common era there appears 
poetry most notably in the Gāhāsattasaī which specifically refers to Rādhā as 
Kṛṣṇa’s favourite lover. While it is possible to assume that the poetry in question is 
based on themes that pre-date it, without additional evidence, it is difficult to be 
confident about the precise precise moment when Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa were viewed as 
an intimately connected couple.
This much is certain: the love affairs of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa and the interactions of the 
couple with sakhīs were an integral theme in the imaginative conceptualisation of 
love in early India, as demonstrated by a wide range of poetic sources. By the latter 
half of the first millennium, it is clear that the relationship of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa was
becoming an increasingly significant theme in a wide range of poetry, while at the 
same time Vedānta became established as one of the major schools of Vedic 
hermeneutics. By the 7th century, Nimbārka, perhaps informed by the earlier 
exegetical commentary of Bhartṛprapañca, had produced a significant corpus of 
writings relating to the bhedābheda interpretation of Vedānta. He further 
summarised his philosophy into ten stanzas known as the Vedāntakāmadhenu
Daśaślokī, the medium which he chose to introduce his innovative theology, which 
elevated the Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa couple of erotic Prakrit poetry to the conjoined supreme 
being in his Vedāntic tradition.
The task of rationalising this doctrine was left to Nimbārka’s followers, with 
Puruṣottama attempting to reconcile the views of the founder of his lineage with 
the conventions of theology established by Vedānta. The endeavours of this 
teacher, whilst laudable in their defence of svābhāvika dvaitādvaita against the 
freshly formulated and rapidly expanding kevalādvaita tradition, served to 
paradoxically diminish the role assigned to Rādhā by Nimbārka. Brāhmaṇical 
tradition continued to evolve, yet wilfully ignored Rādhā even in the 
Bhāgavatapurāṇa, the principle text of the Bhāgavatas composed almost three 
centuries after Nimbārka. However, Sanskrit and Prakrit belles lettres continued to 
preserve and develop the theme of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa, while displaying in certain cases, 
a clear familiarity with the implications of Nimbārka’s theology, with Jayadeva, 
Vidyāpati and other poets who flourished in the early centuries of the second 
millennium CE devoting entire works to describing, in unabashed detail, the love-
episodes that took place in the Nikuñja groves of Vṛndāvana.
As such themes gained popularity, Keśava Kāśmīrin’s disciple Śrībhaṭṭa, in the 15th
century, amplified Nimbārka’s insights and brought Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa once more into 
the theological foreground through the medium of Brajbhāṣā. A range of poets and 
theologians who flourished in the milieu of Vṛndāvana - Vallabha, Sūradāsa and 
the rest of Vallabha’s disciples, Svāmī Haridāsa, Hita Harivaṁśa, Caitanya and the 
six Gauḍīya Gosvāmins - were influenced in some manner by Śrībhaṭṭa. The 
theological insights of this particular teacher were developed by his disciple 
Harivyāsa, whose works reveal not only the theology of Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa and the 
sakhīs in the nitya nikuñja līlās of Goloka-Vṛndāvana, but also embody a fairly 
developed Vedāntic theory propagating this unique branch of bhedābheda
philosophy, ultimately the legacy of Nimbārka’s original re-envisaging of the role 
of Rādhā.
Whereas Rāmānuja had reinterpreted the theology of his Āḷvār predecessors, 
replacing their fervent Kṛṣṇaism with more conventional Pāñcarātra doctrine 
(Hardy 1983:221); Nimbārka mediated the transmission of the earlier poetical 
conceptualisation of Rādhā into the Vedāntic realm in largely unchanged form. The
followers of this intellectual added the philosophical underpinnings required for its 
development both within and without the Nimbārka Sampradāya, its subsequent 
popularisation and its continued presence.
Reference:
Hardy, Friedhelm. 1983. Virahā-Bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in 
South India, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Barbara Stoler. 1975. “Rādhā: the Consort of Kṛṣṇa’s Vernal Passion”, in 
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95:4, 655-671, Michigan: 
University of Michigan.
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/26018/Ramnarace2015.pdf 2405:204:A514:1AA5:6506:EC20:A5F7:309C (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020 

message: Moved from User_talk:Kridha:
 I think we should use an image (for infobox) with a more popular depiction of devi Radha.  .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 12:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:245CMR Talk:Radha is the right forum for this discussion. I think that the current image is appropriate, where she is seen drawing a painting of Krishna. However, better historic images can be thought of. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  12:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I disagree. A neutral image of the deity without sectarian biases is most appropriate.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  12:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox image 

message: Defining Radha as the "eternal consort" is not neutral, Vaudeville, Charlotte in the Divine Consort for e.g. clearly states the status of the primary consort is also given to Rukmini in some traditions. To be neutral, we have acknowledge as "a consort" in the opening sentence. Also presented the review of literature of opening sentence/ first mentions:
* Lochtefeld p. 542 "In later devotional (bhakti) literature, Radha is the woman portrayed as the god Krishna’s lover and companion. Radha’s love for Krishna is a symbol of the soul’s hunger for union with the divine, expressed through the poetic conventions of erotic love."
* Hawley xii the Divine Consort "Radha, Krishna's cowherders lover and consort" 
* Britannica: "Radha, in Hinduism, the gopi (milkmaid) who became the beloved of the god Krishna during that period of his life when he lived among the gopas (cowherds) of Vrindavan. Radha was the wife of another gopa but was the dearest of Krishna’s consorts and his constant companion."
Objecting to "But on contrast, according to scriptures like Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Garga Samhita, they are married and thus Radha is also revered as the primary consort and wife of Krishna." as WP:UNDUE and WP:POV-pushing in the lead. 
* Garga Samhita is not regarded as a scripture 
* The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the only scripture mentioning the same.
* We are not mentioning like ancient scriptures like the Mahabharata and do not mention Radha at all. Rukmini and Satyabhama being primary queens, other several senior (Ashtabharya) and junior queans are mentioned, but not Radha's marriage to Krishna.
* It is "some traditions" that accord the status of "the primary consort and wife of Krishna", Kinsley and other references in the Divine Consort dwell extensively on the Parakriya or "adulterous" nature of the relationship.
The opening para that talks about the deity (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section for biographies); festivals are included later not in the opening para. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  13:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:245CMR, do you have any objection, lead as in  is restored. "Radha, as a supreme goddess is considered as the eternal female counterpart and the internal potency (hladini shakti) of Krishna" is a POV of some traditions where Radha is the primary consort should be noted.Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I was not saying removing "supreme goddess", just adding "some traditions/ sects". You may edit, if any discrepancy. Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 103.133.10.152 (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "major appearance", to be fair. Even Krishna isn't mentioned in the Vedas. Which Upanisads does Radharani appear in? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021 

message: Hello Team Wikipedia, Actually you have mentioned that Hindu Goddess Radha is mentioned in  these texts- "Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Geeta Govinda, Padma Purana and Devi Bhagwat Purana" ofcourse that's true but I have read almost all Puranas and I found her mentions in all of them. So I would just like to add the names of these Puranas in the texts which mention Sri Radharani which are "Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Shiva Purana, Matsya Purana, Narada Purana, Varaha Purana, Bhavishya Purana, Devi Bhagwat Purana, Padma Purana, Linga Purana, Skanda Purana, Brahmanda Purana and Agni Purana, AND she is indirectly mentioned in Bhagvata Purana and Vishnu Purana". And I have the screenshots as well if you need. So that's it, that's all I wanted you to edit or let me edit. Also, you have mentioned that she is first well described in "Geeta Govinda" which is very misguiding as well as false. As she is glorified in almost all the 18 Major Puranas of Hinduism. Thankyou!!! I hope you do the changes. 103.133.10.152 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see these:
* It says "first major" and in Bhagavata Purana Radhadevi is hardly revealed. Most of the other Puranas were written after Gita Govinda
*Please provide us with the link of source and it should not be blogs. .245CMR.•👥📜 07:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021 

message: I just want to add a new name that Radha has. Can I please edit? 27.7.121.123 (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK Talk 05:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021 

message: That's gokul not goloka.
Please modify it the right name is gokul Raj8877 (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a mistake in abode 

message: Adding a painting of Radha and Krishna
Pahari paintings are commonly ignored and aren't well presented in many Indian showcases, and with the advent of this new medium online, it seems here as well. So I want to add this  painting of Radha and Krishna in traditional Pahari style to the already numerous collection in the article. I do not mean to demean anyone by nudity but rather have this commonly secluded types of paintings, Pahari and exploring sexuality be shown as well to promote the original accepting and liberal nature of Hinduism in reference to both sexuality and non-gangetic paintings. MRpcubed1145 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This painting looks fine, but there is already a significant number of images in the article, including a gallery. Where would this go, and would it replace an existing image? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I'd support this. It's a nice painting. I don't know anything about Pahari vs Gangetic paintings but if there are too many of the latter and not enough of the former, we could swap one out. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radharani3.jpg
This first image is wrong representation of Radha. The picture is Mughal Art, as the woman is sketching or dreaming about Mughal King show in the painting in her hand. There are many similar images on google, Right one with Krishna Painting in the hand should be used! 110.227.246.53 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a Rajasthani painting, Krishna shown in Rajasthani attire.Redtigerxyz  Talk  14:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

text: @Kridha @Redtigerxyz I've found the source of this image: https://www.exoticindiaart.com/product/paintings/young-princess-absorbed-in-portraying-her-lord-mj91/ This is not a picture of Radha and Krishna. Eevee01(talk) 05:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: @Kridha Yes, we should do that, but it won't be enough because this image is used in other non-English Wikipedia and its sister projects as well. Also, it would be better to reach a consensus on what image we should replace it with. Eevee01(talk) 09:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi @Kridha It looks good. I've uploaded a cropped version of this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prema_Mandir_5_(cropped).jpg Eevee01(talk) 15:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although maybe it's not suitable as its Radha-Krishna rather than just Radharani. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The current Prem mandir image is related of POV of Radha as the Supreme Goddess or as superior to Krishna, where he is at her feet. The infobox image should be neutral. Also, the infobox should have the deity alone to avoid any confusion. I suggest the following:
File:Raja Ravi Varma, Radha Waiting for Krishna.jpg|Raja Ravi Varma's Radha
File:Indian - Radha - Walters 542962.jpg|16th century sculpture
File:Radharani 4.jpg|A cropped Radha from a Radha Krishna
Redtigerxyz  Talk  09:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

text: @Redtigerxyz Thanks for changing the image. When the image in English Wikipedia was replaced, I requested help from Wikipedia Commons to change the image in all non-Wikipedia articles as well. see the discussion. Can we do the same again?  I'm asking you because you have file mover rights. Regards. Eevee01(talk) 13:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi @Kridha. In my opinion the image you uploaded looks more "divine" than the image replaced by Redtigerxyz. However, because it is not a high-resolution image, we shouldn't include it in the article; we already have similar images available in high-resolution. Eevee01(talk) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi @Kridha. It looks very beautiful. Eevee01(talk) 06:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I prefer it to the current one too! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Infobox image 

message: sir I feel that there are a couple of mistakes in this wonderous article and I would like to correct it. 106.212.175.149 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022 

message: Radha is not the consort of Krishna first. She knew Krishna from childhood but married another man which is written in the same page below. It was after marriage they became united and are known well.
Please add a reference to it that Krishna was the second consort and not the first in the Consort field. Rameshgk1 (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

text: @:Rameshgk1 The same page clearly mentioned that it's the shadow of Radha who married Rayan not actual Radha. Actual Radha married Krishna in Bhandirvan. Read the complete paragraph. That'swhy in the field of consort only the name of Krishna is mentioned. Hope it resolved your doubt. Kridha (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022 

message: I have reservations in Radha being called as consort of Krishna. This is totally untrue as per all tradition. While there was love ultimate between Radha and Krishna they were more as two embodiment of love not consorts 27.106.40.237 (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  02:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2022 

message: I want you to change the line you have taken from some wrong sources and refered that for our beloved Shri Radha Rani. This para from this article on Shri "Radha" is hurting my religious sentiments and this absolutely wrong to mention Sri Radha as mistress. 
Kindly remove this and improve the Hindi translation as well because the word mistress or "rakhail" in Hindi is demeaning and cannot use for a diety. 
The para and sources is mentioned below 👇
"While the poetry of Jayadeva and Vidyapati from Bengal treat Radha as Krishna's "mistress", the Gaudiya poetry elevates her to a divine consort" Aumchoudhary (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023