Meerabai

[livingentity]

whether Mira Bai is a great devotee. The statement in question is - the guest says she merged into Krsna.

[Guest guest]

we cannot learn about the feelings of meera bai from some text or a particular website. i have felt meera bai's feelings listening to her songs. i have cried along with her when she sang," aye ri main to prem diwani, mero dard na jaane koi". i have felt her feelings and hence i declare that she was the greatest devotee of krishna. her unalloyed love for krishna was greater than even the love of radha for krishna, let alone some other ordinary mortal like chaitanya. when you listen to her bhajns closing your eyes, you too start crying experiencing that immense passion and love she had for krishna.

if krishna is great then it is because meera bai is his devotee.

and such devotees are not bothered as to what sort of mukti they get. as some one else has pointed out. she followed the dwaita marga only to merge in krishna (adwaita samadhi). she was too busy loving krishna to institutionalise her love like chaitanya. and she ultimately showed to the world that it is more important to love krishna than debate as to what sort of mukti will krishna award us.

[Guest guest]

 

we cannot learn about the feelings of meera bai from some text or a particular website. i have felt meera bai's feelings listening to her songs. i have cried along with her when she sang," aye ri main to prem diwani, mero dard na jaane koi". i have felt her feelings and hence i declare that she was the greatest devotee of krishna. her unalloyed love for krishna was greater than even the love of radha for krishna, let alone some other ordinary mortal like chaitanya. when you listen to her bhajns closing your eyes, you too start crying experiencing that immense passion and love she had for krishna.

 

 

 

Translation: I can't prove anything I say. But I'm right anyway, never mind scripture, history, common sense, logic, etc.

 

There is no evidence that Miirabai ever met Jiva Gosvami, and certainly no evidence that she chided him in any way. There is no evidence that Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu regarded Miirabai in any sort of positive light. We aren't going to accept such things because someone cries when he listens to her bhajans. Declaring any devotee to be in a position of bhakti higher than Raadhaa is pure arrogance.

 

yours,

 

- K

[I_love_krishna_]

There is no evidence that you love your father... only your word.

 

So too meerabai has no evidence of meeting Jiva Goswami except her word.

 

We have no evidence that she did really love krishna and she was the greatest devotee... but her poems say it.

 

To see the devotion my dear friend, you would need devotion and an idea of devotion in yourself.

 

Never again make such an unthoughtful statement as "Meera bai greatest devotee? Sounds more like regional sentimentalism "

 

You can, write poems greater than meerabai's then I will accept that you are ALSO a great devotee.

 

Let me ask you this my friend,

 

What sort of merit do you hold so that you can comment on meerabai and her love for krishna.

[Guest guest]

 

There is no evidence that you love your father... only your word.

 

So too meerabai has no evidence of meeting Jiva Goswami except her word.

 

We have no evidence that she did really love krishna and she was the greatest devotee... but her poems say it.

 

To see the devotion my dear friend, you would need devotion and an idea of devotion in yourself.

 

Never again make such an unthoughtful statement as "Meera bai greatest devotee? Sounds more like regional sentimentalism "

 

You can, write poems greater than meerabai's then I will accept that you are ALSO a great devotee.

 

Let me ask you this my friend,

 

What sort of merit do you hold so that you can comment on meerabai and her love for krishna.

 

 

 

This is nothing more than crass sentimentalism. Now devotion is measured by the quality of one's poetry? Unbelieveable.

 

I will say again that to arrogate to oneself a position of greater devotion that Sri Raadhaa is arrogance.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I don't know anything about Mira Bhai. But I have to question the above statement. Would you mind sharing where you learned that?

 

 

 

He simply made it up. And if you ask him to substantiate the above remark, he or someone like him will just say you are not qualified to know what devotion is.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

So too meerabai has no evidence of meeting Jiva Goswami except her word.

 

 

She doesn't have her word either, because she never claimed to have met him. It is a regional fairy tale that has no historical backing. There are plenty of authoritative biographies about the personalities involved in Chaitanya's life, and none of them hint at such an occurence.

 

 

We have no evidence that she did really love krishna and she was the greatest devotee... but her poems say it.

 

 

And a great number of Meerabai's poems aren't even authored by meerabai, but simply attributed to her at a later time. There is no way to know which compositions were actually composed by her.

 

 

To see the devotion my dear friend, you would need devotion and an idea of devotion in yourself.

 

 

Absurd statements like "Meerabai's devotion was greater than Radha's love for Krishna" are against scriptural conclusions and nothing but regional sentimentalism.

[Guest guest]

Its a good topic! I believe, there are two things which we are missing in understanding the dvaita and advaita.

 

Let me share what I think. I believe they both are the two different paths, leading to the same goal. As Lord Krishna Himself points out in Gita, that there two paths in this world:

a) Gynana Yoga for Shankhyas

b) Karma Yoga for others.

Advaita belongs to the first category and the bhakti or dvaita belongs to the second. Each person according to the psychological mind set will follows these paths, either one or both.The end result is same.

 

In advaita, the talk about Mukti should not arise. How can there be mukti for an advaitin? For him there is only one- "A-dvaitam" not "Na-Dvaitam".The question of mukti arises only when a person entertains duality, that means he is implicitly accepting dvaitam.On a practical standpoint of view, in achieving practical spiritual development, advaitam becomes a concept. Its more subjective rather than objective. You and I can't say: "Soham" like Srimad Adi Shankaracharya. Not even recite pancha mahaavakyaas. We only can mentally speculate about the relative significance of these words in the spiritual world.For that reason, Bhakti was also the main part taught by Shakara.Thats why to say "That I am God!" I should be able to possess the powers of God. When you ponder about this statement, you will even realise its fallacy.Why should I consider, that there is even God? There is no one more than Brahaman and thats I.Very discussion of advaita tumbles down within no time.There is no sense of ego.Then all that remains is ?????? Even the very I in "Soham" or "Aham Brahmaasmi" drops, we wont say who we are! We will remain as "Brahman" (this word is given on a relative plane- no name can be fully given to the Ultimate reality.). Its clear therefore, it is called "Gyana Yoga" by Lord Krishna, beacause it is within your mind, more subjective, Gyana.Even Adi Shakaraacharya says that we should "think about the mahaavakyas in our minds, but not go on telling the world, that we are Brahaman". Beacause he knew, by doing so you have already kept that ego, I seperated from Brahman to identify. Since in advaita, there is nothing to describe youself, what it suggests is to live as Brahman that means detached. That is the practical aspect of advaita, which is what is more important.This needs tremendous will power- a power of Brahman Himself. Ordinary people, can't take this path.

Easier still is the path of Karma Yoga. Bhakti falls under this to my belief. Thats why Bhaktas give angaas to Bhakti.Therefore Bhakti is no different than Karma Yoga. I want to stick to God's words in Gita rather than dividing it into different Yogas, which most people do for the sake of making it easy.Even Raaja Yoga is Karma Yoga.Here Dvaita is evident, even clearer than in Advaita.But we can agree here, that both dvaiti and advaiti are dvaitis in the practical world. No one escape work says Gita.

Dvaita bahava can be a stepping stone to realise God/Brahaman,so also is Advaita bahava, because both exist in dvaita.Both are "bhavas". "Bhavas" can only exist in dvaita.So we can't argue that only worshipping God as a different entity, is dvaita.It can also lead to the same goal of become one with God, but not God. We all know that it is foolish to be God, because we are in that way still got that ego, that " I am God". Therefore here a Bhakta is also an advaitin.As regards the form of God which saints see are not just their imagination. We got different forms of Krishna's face by different artists. But no one knows what He looks like. So the form of God as seen by a Bhakta,can't be a dvaitic imagination. It could be the same Brahman presenting Himself before a devotee. Who could tell, that God is formless only? I believe He is both. He is seen in two different angles. To argue that He is formless is equally wrong as to argue that he is only with form. From a advaita standpoint Dvaita doen't arise. From a dvaita standpoint, advaita doesn't arise. Scientifically, there is no Absolute formlessness in the world of relativity. In the world of Absolute there is no relative form or the world. This uncertainity, or the dual nature is mesmerising. Wisely speaking, there is nothing to argue about dvaita or advaita.The all pervading Vasudeva, is equal and same to the all pervading Brahman.God is both with and without form. Like ice and water of a sea as Sri Ramakrishna says.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

Kishore.

 

[rudraksha]

ahh i completely agree with the above poster, as i have understood, different traditions interpret Advaita and Dvaita differently, such as in mine, the Shaiva Siddhanta is "Shuddha Advaita," but not the Advaita of the impersonalits nor is it the shuddha advaita of vallaba acarya's doctrine. our philosophy means difference and inseparableness (not sameness), in other words the souls and the world are real and different, yet we are all dependant upon the Supreme, also inseparable because there is no where Shiva is not, He Supports the whole Cosmos by His all pervasiveness, so though we are different, we are still united with the Supreme.

 

In Tamil Shaivite tradition we are not advaitists at all like the Kashmiris but ecstatic devotionalists just as our beloved saints were, singing the glories of lord Shiva as the ultimate goal, just as Vaishnavas sing the glories of lord Vishnu. i came here a few months ago just to try and reconcile differences between Shaiva and Vaishnava bhaktas for those who dont know much about the former, as i have read, the hare krishna founder kinda downgraded and hurt the Shaiva philosophy internally by some of his misinterpreted messages concerning us.....

 

i'd like to give out a wonderful site of my tradition for all those interested in knowing more of our real traditions, and not the ones Prabhupada mistakenly describes.....

www.shaivam.org

 

[Guest guest]

now for heavens sake! dont tell me scriptures dont allow this and that! if hinduaism has ever detoriated or christianity fell prey to papal system then because people did not reason and think. they followed so called scriptures and sacred books. there is no sentimantalism in what i say. what i have realsed, probably you would also realise when you get that feeling of devotion. my dear friend, judge not meera bai or her love with the yardstick of mukti or historical evidence or poetry. when you will love krishna s much as she did, you will undrstand what i say.

love krishna.

 

[theist]

Dear guest, may I ask if Mira is still loving Krsna at this moment? Or did her love become absorbed along with her concept of Him and her own sense of individuality?

[livingentity]

that you are on the same level as Mirabai with this statement.

 

when you will love krishna s much as she did, you will undrstand what i say.