Mira and the gopis-two sides of the same coin: Krishna Bhakti

[Guest guest]

--- Bhakti Vikasa Swami

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami wrote:

> In Digest Number 785 Raghuram asked about

> the attitude of Mira

> viz-a-viz that of the gopis.

>

> The difference is that Mira's mood was to associate

> with Krishna personally,

> whereas the gopis wanted to join Radha with Krishna.

>

>

PAMHO!

Hari Bol!

 

There are more than 500 bhajans composed in Gujrati,

Hindi, Brij and even Sindhi languages by Mirabai.

In all of these devotional songs, Mirabai has

considered herself as a "dasi" - maid servant of

Giridhar, Krishna, Gour, Kanha, a bird living in

Vrindavana and enjoying pasttimes of baby Krishna

along with mother Yashoda!

 

Where is the difference in Gopies and Mirabai ?

 

 

None!

 

 

Mirabai is devoted to Krishna, and His incarnations

and other names, including Chaitanya MahaPrabhu- as a

"personal maid servant" daasee / dasi!

 

She even corrected Jiva Goswami- who did not want to

meet woman being a Sannyasee - by commenting that he

should not consider himself as a "man" while living in

Vrindavana! Only Krishna is a "purusha"- every one

else is a Gopi- she added to her message sent to Jiva

Goswami conveyed through a maid servant! Jiva Goswami

immediately reaized his mistake and invited her to

spend few days in discussing Krishna Kathas!

 

It is commented that her bhajans were translated into

Bengali by Vaishnava acharyas!

 

She sang and danced in streets name of Hari, Rama,

Krishna (and not of demigods Brahma or Shiva)

Inspired by Chaitanya MahaPrabhu- as she has vividly

decribed Him in her bhajan:

 

" Hari naam lau laagee!

Shyam Kishore bhaye ab Goura---

Chaitanya jaako naam "

 

Hare Krishna!

 

 

Dr Prayag Narayan Misra das

 

E-mail: wwti

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, prayag misra

<worldwidetechnologies> wrote:

> There are more than 500 bhajans composed in Gujrati,

> Hindi, Brij and even Sindhi languages by Mirabai.

> In all of these devotional songs, Mirabai has

> considered herself as a "dasi" - maid servant of

> Giridhar, Krishna, Gour, Kanha, a bird living in

> Vrindavana and enjoying pasttimes of baby Krishna

> along with mother Yashoda!

 

Again, I think the important thing is that we need to see some

evidence, in the form of some of Mirabai's bhajans (with both Hindi

and English translation preferably), before we judge. So far everyone

is claiming one thing or another about Mirabai's songs without giving

specific references to her songs.

 

> She even corrected Jiva Goswami- who did not want to

> meet woman being a Sannyasee - by commenting that he

> should not consider himself as a "man" while living in

> Vrindavana! Only Krishna is a "purusha"- every one

> else is a Gopi- she added to her message sent to Jiva

> Goswami conveyed through a maid servant! Jiva Goswami

> immediately reaized his mistake and invited her to

> spend few days in discussing Krishna Kathas!

 

I've already said this before, and I'll say it again, that the

incident described above is of dubious origins to begin with. There

is no Gaudiiya account as far as I know describing the alleged

meeting. Merely repeating over and over as if it is fact does not

make it so. We need to see some kind of evidence that this happened

before we believe it as if it were an undisputed fact.

 

It is not entirely unbelievable that Jiva Gosvami would have declined

to meet with a female-bodied devotee, but it is simply absurd to

suggest that he would acknowledge his "mistake" in not doing so. Yes,

it is true that all living entities are "prakriti" to the Lord who

is "purusha" - certainly any advanced saadhaka would recognize this,

what to speak of a great master as Jiva Gosvami. But the simple fact

remains that a devotee taking birth in the material world must act

according to Vedic regulations. Sannyaasis do not normally associate

with women, as this would be an impropriety. Lord Chaitanya banished

Junior Haridaasa simply for looking very casually at a woman. Are we

to believe that Srila Jiva Gosvami would acknowledge a "mistake" in

following a precedent sent by his own sampradaaya aachaarya? Please.

 

Most likely, some well-intentioned (if not philosophically mature)

followers of Mirabhai put a spin on this story to give it more

significance than it actually deserved. As far as I'm concerned,

since no Gaudiiya aachaarya has acknowledge the historical truth of

the meeting *as described above,* the burden of proof remains on the

people making the claim.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

> Again, I think the important thing is that we need to see some

> evidence, in the form of some of Mirabai's bhajans (with both Hindi

> and English translation preferably), before we judge. So far everyone

> is claiming one thing or another about Mirabai's songs without giving

> specific references to her songs.

 

First of all, a cautious person might want to confirm that the songs in question

even belong to Mirabai at all. I'm sure many of them don't.

 

 

 

> > She even corrected Jiva Goswami- who did not want to

> > meet woman being a Sannyasee - by commenting that he

> > should not consider himself as a "man" while living in

> > Vrindavana! Only Krishna is a "purusha"- every one

> > else is a Gopi- she added to her message sent to Jiva

> > Goswami conveyed through a maid servant! Jiva Goswami

> > immediately reaized his mistake and invited her to

> > spend few days in discussing Krishna Kathas!

>

> I've already said this before, and I'll say it again, that the

> incident described above is of dubious origins to begin with.

 

Moreover, the above is only one out of of many, many differing versions, which

throws the authenticity of any of them into further doubt.

 

 

 

> There is no Gaudiiya account as far as I know describing the alleged

> meeting. Merely repeating over and over as if it is fact does not

> make it so. We need to see some kind of evidence that this happened

> before we believe it as if it were an undisputed fact.

 

This is a little more sticky; as far as I know, the oldest (1712ce) source of

the Jiva gosvami story (some versions say it was Rupa Gosvami) comes from

Priyadasa, who is listed as a Gaudiya Vaisanava in the disciplic line from

Gopalabhatta Gosvami. This is why I would ask whether his Bhaktamala commentary

is authoriative for Rupanugas too; as far as I've observed, none in Rupa's line

have recognized or endorsed Priyadasa's work. The fact that no acarya in the

Rupanuga line seems to acknowledge even he existence of Mirabai either is also

telling.

 

 

 

> It is not entirely unbelievable that Jiva Gosvami would have declined

> to meet with a female-bodied devotee, but it is simply absurd to

> suggest that he would acknowledge his "mistake" in not doing so.

 

Not necessarily. Given the "trnad api sunicena" dictum so emphasized among the

Gaudiya vaisnavas, there is some reason to believe that Jiva Gosvami might

accept such an impudent statement even from someone less qualified than Mirabai.

This is especially so given that once Jiva Gosvami was severely admonished by

his guru Rupa Gosvami for a matter of Vaisnava etiquette; Vallabhacarya (Jiva's

elder) once made a minor criticism of Rupa's work, and Jiva defended Rupa by

countering this directly to Vallabha. For this, Rupa Gosvami banished Jiva from

his company for some time, to teach him a lesson. Of course, we might want to

consider the chronology of these events (if that's even possible, which is

unlikely) before positing any direct relevance on the Mirabai story.

 

 

 

> Lord Chaitanya banished

> Junior Haridaasa simply for looking very casually at a woman. Are we

> to believe that Srila Jiva Gosvami would acknowledge a "mistake" in

> following a precedent sent by his own sampradaaya aachaarya? Please.

 

That's a good point.

 

 

 

> Most likely, some well-intentioned (if not philosophically mature)

> followers of Mirabhai put a spin on this story to give it more

> significance than it actually deserved. As far as I'm concerned,

> since no Gaudiiya aachaarya has acknowledge the historical truth of

> the meeting *as described above,* the burden of proof remains on the

> people making the claim.

 

With all due respects to others, my own experience has been that most of those

who are inclined to vindicate such doubts or criticisms of Mirabai usually don't

show very much concern for *any* sampradaya-siddhanta, even though in Gita 4.2

Krsna Himself characterizes Krsna consciousness as "parampara-prapta" (received

through a bonafide disciplic succession). That's certainly as significant as

the simultaneous lack of any reliable manuscript evidence and sampradaya

endorsements for Mirabai. There are definitely sentimentalists in this world

who also worship Krsna.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, krishna_susarla wrote:

>

> First of all, a cautious person might want to confirm that the

songs in question even belong to Mirabai at all. I'm sure many of

them don't.

>

 

I didn't even want to get into that point, but yes, I do also wonder

if there is any general consensus on what compositions are truly

those of Mirabai's.

 

> > There is no Gaudiiya account as far as I know describing the

alleged

> > meeting. Merely repeating over and over as if it is fact does not

> > make it so. We need to see some kind of evidence that this

happened

> > before we believe it as if it were an undisputed fact.

>

> This is a little more sticky; as far as I know, the oldest (1712ce)

source of the Jiva gosvami story (some versions say it was Rupa

Gosvami) comes from Priyadasa, who is listed as a Gaudiya Vaisanava

in the disciplic line from Gopalabhatta Gosvami. This is why I would

ask whether his Bhaktamala commentary is authoriative for Rupanugas

too; as far as I've observed, none in Rupa's line have recognized or

endorsed Priyadasa's work. The fact that no acarya in the Rupanuga

line seems to acknowledge even he existence of Mirabai either is also

telling.

>

 

Thanks for the correction. It therefore remains to be seen what other

Gaudiiyas think of Priyadasa. However, lest I seem uncharitable, I

want to point out that I do not object to the idea that Mirabai and

Jiva Gosvami met or almost met. Rather, what I objected to is the

very presumptuous version of the story told by Mira followers which

holds that Mira "corrected" Jiva Gosvami's in his "mistake" of

refusing to give her an audience.

 

Perhaps Mirabai thought she was "correcting" him, or perhaps

uneducated followers of Mirabai thought she was "correcting" him, but

there was in fact no mistake on the part of Jiva Gosvami. If he did

in fact refuse to see her then it is perfectly in line with

sannyaasii dharma. It is unfortunate that for some devotees, a

certain knowledge of dharma does not accompany their faith. Because I

am quite certain that any bona fide Vaishnava or Vaishnavi from one

of the recognized paramparaas would have recognized the problem here,

rather than taking advantage of it in an attempt to bolster someone's

reputation in the eyes of the lay public.

 

> Not necessarily. Given the "trnad api sunicena" dictum so

emphasized among the Gaudiya vaisnavas, there is some reason to

believe that Jiva Gosvami might accept such an impudent statement

even from someone less qualified than Mirabai. This is especially so

>

 

Good point. As I mentioned, I really only object to the idea that

Mirabai was in fact in the right here. That Jiva Gosvami might admit

to an error, when in fact he was not in error, is perfectly in

keeping with Vaishnava humility. But the crucial point here is that

he was not in error; Mirabai's followers should recognize that, and

the fact that they do not is something I find rather disturbing. It

is not unlike Lord Chaitanya's sarcastic praise of Jagannatha dasa,

who went on to form the Ativadi apasampradaaya believing the Lord's

condemntation to be genuine praise.

 

- K