Post by Jagannāth Miśra Dās on May 28, 2023 10:36:28 GMT -6
HareKrishna. Some more of my thoughts, or a casual contemplation, this time on Rādhā Bhāvā Gaurānga.
Kavikarnapurna says that Krishna become Gaurānga when he was covered by the golden rays of all the vraja sundarīs, or gopīs, and does not explicitly mention Rādhā’s effulgence and bhāvā alone. Krishna tasting his own rasa is a conception formulated in, and unique to, the caitanya-caritāṛitam; (ultimately derived from his transcendental narcissism after seeing his own image reflected in a crystal pillar) whereas in the caitanya bhāgavat he is rolling around in the dust in akrura-bhāvā, or wildly intoxicated in balarāma-bhāvā, or perhaps madly dancing and singing in shiva-bhāvā, or weeping in gopi-bhāvā, or rendering suplications in dāsya-bhāvā. On other occasions showing four arms, even six arms, (what is Gaurānga doing showing six arms?) or boldly declaring “I am Narayana!” or revealing his form of Rāma to Muraru Gupta. Chapter ten of the madhya-līlā, caitanya-bhāgavat, (verse 285) tells us that whatever mantra a particular vaisnava chanted, Mahāprabhu appeared in that form. We discover Mahāprabhu in durga-bhāvā and rukmini-bhāva in the caitanya bhāgavat, never in rādhā-bhāva. Rupa Goswami’s tina-vānch, or three desires, (C.C. Adi/1/6) has no ambiguity; at the same time it does not exclude anything else. Not that Rupa Goswāmi is a controlling, manipulative and domineering fairy godmother granting him three, and just three, wishes alone. Locan Dās begins his caitanya mangala with Narada visiting vaikuntha and Nārāyana showing him the form of Gaurānga; how does that fit in? Perhaps it’s not as explicit as we think, or maybe we have nurtured too rigid a conception, and need to allow for the development and appreciation of other equally plausible revelations. Ramānanda Raya’s vision (C.C./M/8/282) of rasarāja and mahābhāvā, (dui eka rupa,) is perchance just as valid as the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās’s vision of Mahāprabhu being born from Krishna’s smile; as nothing in either concept makes the other invalid. Here again we find the one tattva as two, and the two as eka, or one; question: is there only one tattva? Rāya sees the union of Rādhā and Krishna, while Atibadi witnesses Gaura emerging from the smile of Krishna. No one can object to Atibadi’s vision, (although I must admit, it sounds a bit lame.) Gaudiyas may wonder about Atibadi’s vision; but ask them to explain Swarupa Dāmodhara’s verse,(C.C./Adi/1/5,) which naturally raises all kind of questions unless it is taken figuratively, as they, according to this verse, initially start as one; and thus there is a sequence of events, so how is that eternal? It’s obviously figurative, for it is told as a sequence of events. They are all the same; they don’t “become two.” That they have now appeared “as two on earth” is where the sequence comes into play. Is Krishna assuming rādhā-bhāvā when he come as Gaurānga, or is he Rādhā and Krishna combined? It only stands up to scrutiny if you don’t take it literally; and taking it literally would means in terms of events: he is always one and two, and has fused together again as Gaura, but Gaura has always been there. Ultimately you can’t really explain it; (somehow or other) they were one, become two, and are now one again. It is rather ironic how Swarupa Dāmodhara himself is ambiguous in this verse when he would censor and berate everyone else, like the Bangali who wrote a eulogy in praise of Lord Jagannāth and Gaurānga, for something that he is basically guilty of himself. If they are one, how can they see each other in different forms? Is it one ātmā divided in two, and then become one? This verse also seems to suggest, or imply, that Gaurānga is not eternal, and also that Rādhā and Krishna are not either; and all you are left with is the ekātma. Even the unnatojjvala-rasa verse (C.C./Adi/1/4) is wide open to interpretation; for in the caitanya bhāgavat, as we know, Mahāprabhu wasn’t teaching anything new, but encouraging everyone in their own moods; and was certianly not insisting on manjari-bhāvā-sadhana, or ever even in rādhā-bhāvā himself. The “anarpita” adjective could perhaps refer to the unprecedented ecstasy that Gaurānga is giving, causing all, irrespective of their personal relationship with Hari, to dance and sing, Besides, manjari bhāvā sadhana has already been given in an explicit detailed fashion in the Padma Purana. Mahāprabhu did not introduce it, because rādhā-dāsya was already there in the Nimbarkas as well. Mahāprabhu, if we may accredit him with contributing anything at all, at least according to some, is the dancing, singing and weeping in ecstasy. Neither the caitanya-bhāgavat or the caitanya -mangala present Mahāprabhu as being a unification of Rādhā and Krishna, but no one seems to have any objection with this; it became more of a thing later, i.e. rādhā-bhāvā-gaurānga, toward the end of his līlā as Gambhiranāth. Everyone needs a conception, a manner of thinking about the deity, the object of worship. The Mahābharata is constantly reminding us that Krsna and Arjuna are Nārā-Nārāyana, whereas Gaurānga’s biographers have presented us with many various concepts to dwell upon. What’s your favourite concept of Gaurānga? Who is he to you?
Kavikarnapurna says that Krishna become Gaurānga when he was covered by the golden rays of all the vraja sundarīs, or gopīs, and does not explicitly mention Rādhā’s effulgence and bhāvā alone. Krishna tasting his own rasa is a conception formulated in, and unique to, the caitanya-caritāṛitam; (ultimately derived from his transcendental narcissism after seeing his own image reflected in a crystal pillar) whereas in the caitanya bhāgavat he is rolling around in the dust in akrura-bhāvā, or wildly intoxicated in balarāma-bhāvā, or perhaps madly dancing and singing in shiva-bhāvā, or weeping in gopi-bhāvā, or rendering suplications in dāsya-bhāvā. On other occasions showing four arms, even six arms, (what is Gaurānga doing showing six arms?) or boldly declaring “I am Narayana!” or revealing his form of Rāma to Muraru Gupta. Chapter ten of the madhya-līlā, caitanya-bhāgavat, (verse 285) tells us that whatever mantra a particular vaisnava chanted, Mahāprabhu appeared in that form. We discover Mahāprabhu in durga-bhāvā and rukmini-bhāva in the caitanya bhāgavat, never in rādhā-bhāva. Rupa Goswami’s tina-vānch, or three desires, (C.C. Adi/1/6) has no ambiguity; at the same time it does not exclude anything else. Not that Rupa Goswāmi is a controlling, manipulative and domineering fairy godmother granting him three, and just three, wishes alone. Locan Dās begins his caitanya mangala with Narada visiting vaikuntha and Nārāyana showing him the form of Gaurānga; how does that fit in? Perhaps it’s not as explicit as we think, or maybe we have nurtured too rigid a conception, and need to allow for the development and appreciation of other equally plausible revelations. Ramānanda Raya’s vision (C.C./M/8/282) of rasarāja and mahābhāvā, (dui eka rupa,) is perchance just as valid as the Oriya Atibadi Jagannāth Dās’s vision of Mahāprabhu being born from Krishna’s smile; as nothing in either concept makes the other invalid. Here again we find the one tattva as two, and the two as eka, or one; question: is there only one tattva? Rāya sees the union of Rādhā and Krishna, while Atibadi witnesses Gaura emerging from the smile of Krishna. No one can object to Atibadi’s vision, (although I must admit, it sounds a bit lame.) Gaudiyas may wonder about Atibadi’s vision; but ask them to explain Swarupa Dāmodhara’s verse,(C.C./Adi/1/5,) which naturally raises all kind of questions unless it is taken figuratively, as they, according to this verse, initially start as one; and thus there is a sequence of events, so how is that eternal? It’s obviously figurative, for it is told as a sequence of events. They are all the same; they don’t “become two.” That they have now appeared “as two on earth” is where the sequence comes into play. Is Krishna assuming rādhā-bhāvā when he come as Gaurānga, or is he Rādhā and Krishna combined? It only stands up to scrutiny if you don’t take it literally; and taking it literally would means in terms of events: he is always one and two, and has fused together again as Gaura, but Gaura has always been there. Ultimately you can’t really explain it; (somehow or other) they were one, become two, and are now one again. It is rather ironic how Swarupa Dāmodhara himself is ambiguous in this verse when he would censor and berate everyone else, like the Bangali who wrote a eulogy in praise of Lord Jagannāth and Gaurānga, for something that he is basically guilty of himself. If they are one, how can they see each other in different forms? Is it one ātmā divided in two, and then become one? This verse also seems to suggest, or imply, that Gaurānga is not eternal, and also that Rādhā and Krishna are not either; and all you are left with is the ekātma. Even the unnatojjvala-rasa verse (C.C./Adi/1/4) is wide open to interpretation; for in the caitanya bhāgavat, as we know, Mahāprabhu wasn’t teaching anything new, but encouraging everyone in their own moods; and was certianly not insisting on manjari-bhāvā-sadhana, or ever even in rādhā-bhāvā himself. The “anarpita” adjective could perhaps refer to the unprecedented ecstasy that Gaurānga is giving, causing all, irrespective of their personal relationship with Hari, to dance and sing, Besides, manjari bhāvā sadhana has already been given in an explicit detailed fashion in the Padma Purana. Mahāprabhu did not introduce it, because rādhā-dāsya was already there in the Nimbarkas as well. Mahāprabhu, if we may accredit him with contributing anything at all, at least according to some, is the dancing, singing and weeping in ecstasy. Neither the caitanya-bhāgavat or the caitanya -mangala present Mahāprabhu as being a unification of Rādhā and Krishna, but no one seems to have any objection with this; it became more of a thing later, i.e. rādhā-bhāvā-gaurānga, toward the end of his līlā as Gambhiranāth. Everyone needs a conception, a manner of thinking about the deity, the object of worship. The Mahābharata is constantly reminding us that Krsna and Arjuna are Nārā-Nārāyana, whereas Gaurānga’s biographers have presented us with many various concepts to dwell upon. What’s your favourite concept of Gaurānga? Who is he to you?