Question specifically directed toward Gaudiya vaishnavas
Sourav
A question for gaudiiya vaishnavas :-
--What status do you ascribe to Meeraa baai ? Do you consider her to be
a pure devotee of Sri Krishna?
-Sourav
P.S. To a very special person who may be reading this post of mine. -- Never
think that you can kill me by just spamming my sysad with complaints about
my behaviour in the net. I have been closely watching the developments.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
JohnIsMe
On 8 Nov 1996 02:31:03 GMT, Sourav <sou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A question for gaudiiya vaishnavas :-
>
>--What status do you ascribe to Meeraa baai ? Do you consider her to be
>a pure devotee of Sri Krishna?
By no means shall I pose myself as a learned devotee steeped in
philosphical knowledge; my own deductions, based on the little I have
been able to absorb from the higher vaishnavas, indicate that one of
the fundemental (if not THE fundemental) precepts in Gaudiyism (and
related branches of Vaishnavism) is embodied in one of the Gita
catuh-slokas:
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadekshyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva darsinah
Sri Krishna herein directs Arjuna (and therefore all the world) to
simply apprach a bona-fide spiritual master, make relevant inquiry
from him, and render service to him. They can show you higher subject
matter because they have seen that DIRECTLY.
Mirabai's devotion to Krishna sidestepped the entire guru-parampara,
as I understand the story of Mirabai. Since the guru-parampara can be
deduced to be the all-in-all, the reason we are all here in the first
place stuggling to become Krishna conscious, Mirabai, in my opinion,
although surely a devotee of Krishna after a fashion, can in no way be
considred a PURE devotee. Mirabai was also a contemporary of Sri Rupa
Goswami; on one occasion, she asked to have the darshan of Sri Rupa
Goswami. Rupa Goswami, being also a very strict sannyasi, declined
her request because he did not mix with women on any level. Mirabai's
reply was extremely disrespectful; it is reported that she sneered and
said "Oh; I thought there was only ONE purusha in Goloka!" Since Rupa
Goswami is considered in Gaudiya vaishnavism to be Sri Rupa Manjari,
the leader of the most intimate servitors of Sri Radha and Sri
Krishna, this event was DEFINITELY not auspicious for Mirabai.
Indeed, her actions were so gravely offensive that, among some
Gaudiyas in India, they openly say that they hope this story is merely
a legend and not fact. They hope this for HER sake; otherwise the
consequences of offending such a personage are grave indeed.
I will not rave and foam at the mouth at the mention of Mirabai being
classed as a pure devotee; on some level she is a devotee of some
sort. However, although I so not wish at all to hurt your feelings or
cast aspersions on something that may be very dear to you, she cannot,
sadly, be classed as anything resmbling a pure devotee.
Srila Prabhupad mentioned Mirabai several times in his works; perhaps
one of the more learned Vaishnavs here can direct you to some of those
references.
JohnIsMe
"Reality is by Itself and for Itself."
----Hegel
Jahnu dasa
On 8 Nov 1996 02:31:03 GMT, Sourav <sou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A question for gaudiiya vaishnavas :-
>
>--What status do you ascribe to Meeraa baai ? Do you consider her to be
>a pure devotee of Sri Krishna?
Why are you interested in the view of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas?
<snip>
-Jahnu
http://www.users.wineasy.se/storm/
http://www.webcom.com/~ara/
Michael Tandy
In article <55uu65$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, john...@juno.com
says...
>
>On 8 Nov 1996 02:31:03 GMT, Sourav <sou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>A question for gaudiiya vaishnavas :-
>>
>>--What status do you ascribe to Meeraa baai ? Do you consider her to be
>>a pure devotee of Sri Krishna?
>
>
>Mirabai's devotion to Krishna sidestepped the entire guru-parampara,
>as I understand the story of Mirabai.
>
one, which is that all Gaudiya Vaisnavas regard Srimati
Radharani as the Lord's own pleasure potency, Hladini-sakti.
Thus, she embodies all that is pleasing to the Lord, and
in a sense only she pleases him at all. If anyone else can
please Lord Krsna, it is because that person has been given
some degree of hladini-sakti by Srimati Radharani or her
representatives. Therefore the Gaudiya Vaisnavas very carefully
worship Srimati Radharani and always seek her blessings and
favor. They would never do anything which might offend her.
An example of such an offence might be the attempt to approach her
Lord, Krsna, directly--i.e., without her permission. We find the
story of Vrndadevi being cursed by Radharani in the Puranas for
something similar to this.
It is for this reason that many Gaudiya Vaisnavas take a dim view
of Mirabai, for in Mirabai's poems, we see that she herself wants
to in effect take the position of Srimati Radharani by becoming the
consort of Lord Krsna directly. Of course, anything is possible if
Krsna desires it, but Gaudiya Vaisnavas would never think of
attaining anything except with the blessings of Srimati Radharani.
Hope this helps.
Hare Krsna,
-m
>
Mirabai was also a contemporary of Sri Rupa
>Goswami; on one occasion, she asked to have the darshan of Sri Rupa
>Goswami.
This dubious story has many differing versions, and I don't
trust it entirely. IMHO, it does not come from reputable
sources.
>
>Srila Prabhupad mentioned Mirabai several times in his works; perhaps
>one of the more learned Vaishnavs here can direct you to some of those
>references.
>
There is at least one pada of hers that mentions Lord Caitanya
Mahaprabhu and regards Him as Sri Krsna Himself.
Hare Krsna,
-m
Jahnu dasa
On 8 Nov 1996 14:08:27 GMT, Michael Tandy wrote:
I think both of your answers were very nice. This is what is so nice
about being a Gaudiya Vaishnava. Everything is so carefully documented
that there is no need for speculation or bewilderment.
It feels so safe to be under the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada.
Ys. Jahnu dasa
H. Krishna Susarla
JohnIsMe <john...@juno.com> wrote in article
<55uu65$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
> Mirabai's devotion to Krishna sidestepped the entire guru-parampara,
> as I understand the story of Mirabai. Since the guru-parampara can be
I can't be entirely certain, but the account I read of Mirabai's life (it
was a translation of an excerpt of the Bhakta-Maala, published in a book
edited by Jack Holly, Columbia U.) indicated that she did have the
association of the saintly persons (sadhu-sanga) during her lifetime.
Exactly who that was is unclear to me, but if it is true, then I don't
think one can necessarily say that she bypassed the whole guru-paramparaa.
> considred a PURE devotee. Mirabai was also a contemporary of Sri Rupa
> Goswami; on one occasion, she asked to have the darshan of Sri Rupa
> Goswami. Rupa Goswami, being also a very strict sannyasi, declined
> her request because he did not mix with women on any level.
Was it Ruupa? I thought it was Jiiva Gosvaamii... In any case, I do
remember that Srila Prabhupada expressed doubt at the authenticity of the
story because the sannyasis of the Gaudiiya line do give their darshan to
women. This is word of mouth though, so I can't verify this.
Mirabai's
> reply was extremely disrespectful; it is reported that she sneered and
> said "Oh; I thought there was only ONE purusha in Goloka!"
The way I heard this was that she simply claimed that "in Vrindaavana,
everyone is a women before Lord Krishna" or something like that. However, I
could also be wrong. Either way, the story is still doubtful for the reason
Srila Prabhupada pointed out.
Hare Krishna,
-- HKS
Michael Tandy
In article <560r2s$g...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
susarla...@tumora.swmed.edu says...
>
>
>
>JohnIsMe <john...@juno.com> wrote in article
><55uu65$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>
>> Mirabai's devotion to Krishna sidestepped the entire guru-parampara,
>> as I understand the story of Mirabai.
>
>was a translation of an excerpt of the Bhakta-Maala, published in a book
>edited by Jack Holly, Columbia U.)
indicated that she did have the
>association of the saintly persons (sadhu-sanga) during her lifetime.
association of saintly persons. In fact, it is sometimes said
that Mirabai was initiated by the poet Raidasa. So she
wasn't necessarily the villain that some might conclude.
On the other hand, maybe she was; maybe her family gave
her such a hard time because she was actually bogus and
whimsical. We'll probably never know, because separating
her writings from those composed in her name is another
matter altogether. You can probably ask Jack Hawley about
that one.
>Exactly who that was is unclear to me, but if it is true, then I don't
>think one can necessarily say that she bypassed the whole guru-paramparaa.
>
-m