Talk:Radha

links

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)

Images

The rajastani painting of Radhais beautiful. Her eyes are as blue as the sky. Her lips are as red as an apple. Her hands are as soft as a cusion. I myself have fallen in love with Radha.

Quotations about Radha

• Needs secondary ref.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Prabhupadas presentation

A collection of views by one of the Vaishnava teachers published "Srila Prabhupada's Presentation of Srimati Radharani". by Satsvarupa dasa Goswami was added as a link. Wikidās ॐ 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy in text above table of contents.

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)

Radha/Radhika a Metaphor to Understand Lord krishna

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

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)

 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)

infobox image

Moved from User_talk:Kridha:

@Kridha:@Redtigerxyz: I think we should use an image (for infobox) with a more popular depiction of devi Radha. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 12:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Redtigerxyz: Ok, but I was thinking about the Hare Krishna statues. I think that the depiction of the deity should be preferred over its history. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 12:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

@Redtigerxyz:@Kridha: What about devi Radha's regional husband? .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 13:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are they worth mentioning? .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 13:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead

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)

User:245CMR, do you have any objection, lead as in [1] 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)

Redtigerxyz Please come to my talk page .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Radha as a supreme goddess should be mentioned just like the Lakshmi article.
• "Some traditions accord ......" should not be removed. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

@Redtigerxyz:, I think "Radha as a supreme goddess in these traditions....." is enough .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please write an assessment on Draupadi, rest I will manage. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wanna ask that which official text states that Radha was the wife of another gopa.But an official book Bramha Vaitra Puran do states that Radha Krishna are married beings and her as a supreme Goddess just like Krishna. Maiou (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

103.133.10.152 (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has written that "Radha first appears in Geeta Govinda" and "she is not mentioned in ancient literatures" which is completely wrong. She is mentioned in Upanishads, Almost all 18 Mahapurans, Upa Puranas and indirectly in Srimad Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana. Please do the edits and people are claiming our Mother goddess Radha as "fictional/myth" due to what you have mentioned. I request Wikipedia to make the right changes and everyone's first preference is Wiki so I except wiki to mention truth and not false things. I'm extremely sorry if I hurt you. Please make the changes.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

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)

 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)

There is a mistake in abode

That's gokul not goloka. Please modify it the right name is gokul Raj8877 (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The eternal abode of Radha Krishna is called Goloka. Not Gokul. Gokul is a town in Braj region. Kindly check the Wikipedia article Goloka for further information. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

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

Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion, 18th century, Pahari style.

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} 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)

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)

Discussion on Infobox image

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)

It is a Rajasthani painting, Krishna shown in Rajasthani attire.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, even I have my doubt whether this is really a painting of Goddess Radha or some other random medieval painting of different woman because the picture held by woman in the image is definitely not Krishna. Let me check if I can somewhere find the original source of this image. Kridha (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@Eevee01: Thank you for taking out your time to find the source. According to the description given on the original source the painting is inspired by the love of Radha Krishna but nowhere it is mentioned that the image belongs to Radha. In my opinion, we should change the Infobox image and use some authenticated image. Kridha (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@Eevee01: Definitely. We will change only after reaching consensus. All the concerned editors are hereby requested to be the part of this discussion. Please feel free to contribute and share your views regarding the change in Infobox image. Kridha (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't we swap it out for the Pahari image mentioned in the discussion above? Two birds with one stone and all that... Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prema_Mandir_5.jpg

How about this image? The image depicts Goddess Radha as the central figure. This sculpture is present in the premises of Prem Mandir, Vrindavan. Kridha (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Dāsānudāsa: Are you referring to Radha Krishna in pavilion painting? Kridha (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, although maybe it's not suitable as its Radha-Krishna rather than just Radharani. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: Cropped version looks great. Looking forward for the suggestions/approval of other editors. Kridha (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while but no further suggestion has been given or objection raised by any other editor regarding the replacement of current Infobox image with other image (link of image is mentioned above). So, I am replacing the current image. But in case, if anyone has any better image option or any other suggestion regarding this matter kindly write it down here for further discussion and consideration. Thanks. Kridha (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

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:

• 
  Raja Ravi Varma's Radha
• 
  16th century sculpture
• 
  A cropped Radha from a Radha Krishna

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@Eevee01 and Redtigerxyz: I have recently uploaded a new single image of Devi Radha on Wikimedia commons. Sharing the link here. Kindly, go through it once. If the new image looks fine then we can replace the current image with new one. Waiting for your replies. Thanks.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radharani_20.jpg Kridha (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Eevee01, Redtigerxyz, and Dāsānudāsa: Hello, recently I came across a high resolution Radha Krishna image uploaded by other editor @User:Niraj Suryawanshi on Wikimedia commons. I've uploaded its cropped version to extract the image of Radharani. In my opinion, aesthetic wise the image is slightly better than the present image as it gives more "divine" touch, also the image has higher resolution of (902 × 1,283) pixels. Kindly, look it. Waiting for your valuable views/feedback/suggestions.Regards.

• 

Kridha (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Kridha

Hi @Kridha. It looks very beautiful. Eevee01^(talk) 06:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I prefer it to the current one too! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

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)

 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

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)

 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)

Radha is both lover as well as married consort of Krishna. Also, you wrote that it is wrong according to all traditions then let me enlighten you with name of all those traditions where Radha and Krishna are worshipped as each other's eternal consorts -

• Haridasi Sampradaya
• Nimbarka Sampradaya
• Gaudiya Vaishnavism
• Pushtimarg
• Swaminarayan Sampradaya
• Radha Vallabh Sampradaya
• Warkari tradition as Rahi and Vithoba
• Mahanam Sampraday

Except 1-2 section like Sri Sampradaya, Radha Krishna are worshipped together as divine couple in almost all sub-sections. So, your reservations and claim both are actually wrong. Thanks.

Kridha (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

False information.

False information. Radha is not a Hindu goddess. There is no description of Radha before the Gitagavinda written by Jayadeva. And Krishna of GitaGovinda and Lord Krishna of Hinduism are two different. 202.144.201.13 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

False information

Radha is not mulaprakriti or goddess. She is expansion of Rukmini and lakshmi avesha not incarnation. Mulaprakriti is Rukmini according to authentic non-interpolated scriptures. Radha was a common cowherd girl who was none other than devotee or Krishna. Who later married a man named ayan. If we carefully look in authentic scriptures, there is no radha name mentioned anywhere. Between 16-18 century her name came to existence. There is no ancient temple dedicated to her as well. Krishnapriya7 (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The first appearance of Radha is already spelt out in the "history and symbolism" section. What exactly do you have an issue with in the article, and what are your proposed changes? Please note your chosen scriptures are not reliable sources. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Krishnapriya7 If only you have gone through the references provided here rather than distorting this page, first from your IP address then from this account, you would not have all these objections or doubts unless you are completely ignorant.

Page-number of references are clearly mentioned. Infact, the quotes are also added.

Feel free to cross-verify to understand why Radha here is mentioned as Mulaprakriti, Supreme goddess and consort of Krishna. As far as her mentions in scriptures are concerned, Radha has crystal clear mention in multiple texts and Puranas including some major ones - Padma Purana, Skanda Purana, Shiva Purana, Narada Purana, Brahma Vaivarta Purana etc and I am not even going to start with Vaishnavism and different sects' texts including Brahma Samhita, Narada Pancharatra, Garga Samhita, Gopala Tapani Upanishad etc.

Not just in Vaishnavism, Radha is also mentioned in Shaktism texts including Devi Bhagvata Purana, Neel Tantra and Sammohan Tantra.

So, yeah you can conveniently choose to ignore all those texts and literatures but they are hard to ignore by many others including me.

Hope to have a well informed discussion and constructive edits from your side in future. Regards, Kridha (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They are later added and interpolated. You can reasearch on it. 2402:8100:3001:294E:1:1:52CB:EAA0 (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Krishnapriya7 As suggested here by others, scriptures and reliable sources supports details on this page. Which particular scriptures / sources you are mentioning for "..we carefully look in authentic scriptures, there is no radha name mentioned anywhere." Asteramellus (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)