Madan-mohan, Govinda, Gopijana-vallabha - Sambandha, abhideya, prayojana?

1. What is the background to the idea of each of the three primary deities mentioned in the opening to CC representing sambandha, abhideya, and prayojana? Is this a widely held view or something peculiar to IGM?

2. Is there any corresponding "progressive" relationship to the three names of Krsna in the 18-syllable Krsna mantra?

3. I've also heard a story about the "perfection" of various deities in Vrindavan. IIRC, Uttara (?) gave directions on the construction of various deities but one was correct to the feet, another the mid-section, another the face. Anyone heard something similar?

Ah, here it is, thanks to Sri Google-acarya:

QUOTE

It is said that Vajranabha first had three Deities of Krishna carved. He never saw Krishna, so they were carved from the description of Uttara, the mother of Maharaja Pariksit. He had three different images carved, but none of them were perfect. Govindaji resembled the face, Madana Mohan resembled the navel down to the lotus feet, and Gopinath resembled the trunk of the body, from the navel to the neck.

From here

Came across this section in Bhakti-ratnakara, 5th Wave. It is a little difficult to understand though and I haven't found the Sanskrit anywhere.

QUOTE

1982. The Deity Sri Madana Gopala is very glorious. The Deity Sri Gopala is manifests as kisora (young teenager) form. The Deity Sri Govinda has a praudha (older teenager) form.

1983. Of these two Deities, Gopinatha is more handsome. He is dhiroddhata in nature. Sri Gopala is dhirodatta in nature.

1984. Govinda and Gopinatha are dhira-lalita. Gopala has a lionlike waist. His graceful form bends in three places.

1985. Govinda and Gopinatha have broad chests. Morning, noon and night Their glorious sweetness is manifest on Govardhana Hill.

1986. At a cave's entrance on Govardhana Hill, in a place glorious with many flowers and leaves, the Lord is manifest as He has just recently left childhood and entered His teenager years.

QUOTE

1. This explanation of the opening of the CC is by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati only. It is not followed or accepted by any other group of Vaishnavas than IGM. Generally the three deities are considered equal and non-different.
2. Srila Ananda Gopal Gosvami said that Krishna stands for kumara age, Govinda for pauganda age and Gopijanaballabh for Kishor age.

QUOTE(braja @ Jun 10 2005, 01:14 AM)

Came across this section in Bhakti-ratnakara, 5th Wave. It is a little difficult to understand though and I haven't found the Sanskrit anywhere.

QUOTE

   1982. The Deity Sri Madana Gopala is very glorious. The Deity Sri Gopala is manifests as kisora (young teenager) form. The Deity Sri Govinda has a praudha (older teenager) form.

   1983. Of these two Deities, Gopinatha is more handsome. He is dhiroddhata in nature. Sri Gopala is dhirodatta in nature.

   1984. Govinda and Gopinatha are dhira-lalita. Gopala has a lionlike waist. His graceful form bends in three places.

   1985. Govinda and Gopinatha have broad chests. Morning, noon and night Their glorious sweetness is manifest on Govardhana Hill.

   1986. At a cave's entrance on Govardhana Hill, in a place glorious with many flowers and leaves, the Lord is manifest as He has just recently left childhood and entered His teenager years.

1982 -
sriman madanagopalao'pyatraiva supratisthita
kaisora rupi gopalo govindah praudha vigrahah

Here the word 'supratisthita', well- established, is translated as 'very glorious'. The rest of the translation seems to be OK

1983 -
ubhayos taratamyena gopinatho 'ti sundarah
dhiroddhattas tu gopalo dhirodattatayocyate

1984 -
govindo gopikanatho yo dhira lalitakrtih
simha madhyas tu gopalas tribhanga lalitakrtih

1985 -
govindo gopikanathah pina vaksah sthalo vitah
tri sandhyam anyad anyaddhi madhuryam govidam patau

Of this verse I cant really figure out the latter half.........

1986 -
govardhana dari dande pallavadi vicitrite
balyatah samatikrante kaisorat parato gatah

This translation seems OK to me.

Here's where I get confused:

"1982. The Deity Sri Gopala [1] is manifests as kisora (young teenager) form. The Deity Sri Govinda[2] has a praudha (older teenager) form.

"1983. Of these two Deities, Gopinatha[3?] is more handsome. He is dhiroddhata in nature. Sri Gopala is dhirodatta in nature."

Verse 1982 mentions Gopala and Govinda. Of "these two deities", which is Gopinatha? I take it that there are actually three deities: Gopala, Govinda and Gopinatha. Should the translation actually read something like:

"Gopinatha is more handsome than both of these deities [Gopala and Govinda]"?

But it's possible to read this as saying that Govinda is Gopinatha but then in 1984 you have "Govinda and Gopinatha are dhira-lalita" as if the reference is to two distinct forms. (Actually the Sanskrit you supplied has Gopikanath. Whew. Sweet.)

And then we also read that "he [Gopinatha] is dhiroddhata." Next verse says that Govinda and Gopinatha are dhira-lalita. Thus Gopinatha is both dhiroddhata and dhira-lalita?

Also the three slokas of Kaviraja Goswami are in sequence according to the three-fold system of salutation, meditation and supplication. ie jayatAM suratau......, sevyamAnau smarAmi .........and zriye'stu nah. That makes room for interesting interpretations. Such as in Kama gayatri, which as in keeping with the form, is a condensation of the three-fold system mentiond above, you could have Kamadeva as representing Madanmohan, PuspabAna as Govindaji and Ananga as Gopinatha.

That's a fascinating parallel there, indeed.

A larger question here, I believe, would be whether one may legitimately draw distinctions between the different bhagavat-svarUpas. Certainly the division in terms of rasa, in situations where Krishna of Vraja is contrasted with Krishna of Dvaraka, or Narayan of Vaikuntha, is well established.

Among those of the same category, such as the catur-vyUha of Vaikuntha - Sankarshana, Vasudeva, Pradyumna and Aniruddha - distinct functions as the presiding deities of different faculties have been established in the scriptures. In Vrindavan as well, distinct features of Sri Krishna have been delineated both in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (ch. 2.1) and in Ujjvala-nilamani (ch. 1).

The important question, then, would be whether such a conclusion is against siddhAnta. Now, I do not refer to all the possible ideas one sees drawn from the three-fold division - just the concept of each one being the devata of each of the three aspects.

ei tina ThAkura gauDIyAke kariyAchena AtmasAt - wasn't there a work called Gaudiyer Tin Thakur by Sundarananda? Does that not shed any light on the origins of this idea?

QUOTE(Madhava @ Jul 3 2005, 07:43 AM)

ei tina ThAkura gauDIyAke kariyAchena AtmasAt - wasn't there a work called Gaudiyer Tin Thakur by Sundarananda? Does that not shed any light on the origins of this idea?

Sundarananda's book did indeed discuss this subject in part at least. The main subject of that book was Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and the sambandha, abhidheya and prayojan tattvas. Shrivatsa has it in his library.

However, on looking more closely at the Chaitanya Charitamrita, I wonder why no one takes 1.1.19 to refer to 1.115-17 rather than to 1.1.18, which names Chaitanya, Nityananda and Adwaita + Gaurabhaktavrnda. Since the first chapters of CC (1-4 Chaitanya, 5 Nityananda, 6 Adwaita, 7 Panchatattva, 8-13 Gaura-bhaktavrinda), it would seem logical to assume that this is the case.

I discovered at least one place where this idea is coming from.

The person who gives instruction in the methods of bhajan is known as a siksha guru. Someone who has no bhajan or sad-achara cannot be called a guru or an acharya. Teachers (zikSaka) are of two types: The first is the devotee who is highly advanced in experiencing the joys of bhajan, the other is the Lord within the heart, who gives the power of discrimination with respect to what is favorable or not in the exercise of such bhajan. Teachings with regard to bhajan are of two kinds: those related to the object of service and to the process of serving. The [initiating] spiritual master bestows Krishna on the disciple; he enriches the disciple with knowledge of Krishna (sambandha-jnana), which he is able to clarify as a result of his own personal realization through service. When he disciple has taken initiation from the diksha guru, then the instruction he gets in the proper execution of serving Vishnu, is called abhidheya. The siksha guru, who also incarnates the spirit of service to the Lord, is the personification of the abhidheya-tattva. The diksha guru, who similarly incarnates the spirit of service to the Lord, gives the disciple a knowledge of his relation to Krishna, or sambandha-jnana. Since both are repositories of love for Krishna, they are not different in essence. Both are guru, and if we discriminate between them, speaking or even thinking of one or the other as superior results in offenses. There is no linguistic difference between Krishna’s external form (rüpa) and his inner identity (svarüpa).

The initiating spiritual master, represented by Sanatan Goswami, brings us to Madana Mohan’s lotus feet. To those who are unable to tread Vraja's paths, the jivas who have forgotten the Lord, he gives the awareness that the Lord’s lotus feet are all in all. The siksha guru, represented by Srila Rupa Goswami, bestows the qualifications to serve (sevAdhikAra) the lotus feet of Sri Govinda and his dear devotees. (Anubhashya 1.47)

Out of interest, it is worth comparing Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's bhashya with the purport of Bhaktivedanta Swami, which also shows the need for a separate translation to be done of the former.

Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī states that the instructing spiritual master is a bona fide representative of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself teaches us as the instructing spiritual master from within and without. From within He teaches as Paramātmā, our constant companion, and from without He teaches from the Bhagavad-gītā as the instructing spiritual master. There are two kinds of instructing spiritual masters. One is the liberated person fully absorbed in meditation in devotional service, and the other is he who invokes the disciple's spiritual consciousness by means of relevant instructions. Thus the instructions in the science of devotion are differentiated in terms of the objective and subjective ways of understanding. The ācārya in the true sense of the term, who is authorized to deliver Kṛṣṇa, enriches the disciple with full spiritual knowledge and thus awakens him to the activities of devotional service.

When by learning from the self-realized spiritual master one actually engages himself in the service of Lord Viṣṇu, functional devotional service begins. The procedures of this devotional service are known as abhidheya, or actions one is dutybound to perform. Our only shelter is the Supreme Lord, and one who teaches how to approach Kṛṣṇa is the functioning form of the Personality of Godhead. There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service.

Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī is the ideal spiritual master, for he delivers one the shelter of the lotus feet of Madana-mohana. Even though one may be unable to travel on the field of Vṛndāvana due to forgetfulness of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he can get an adequate opportunity to stay in Vṛndāvana and derive all spiritual benefits by the mercy of Sanātana Gosvāmī. Śrī Govindajī acts exactly like the śikṣā-guru (instructing spiritual master) by teaching Arjuna the Bhagavad-gītā. He is the original preceptor, for He gives us instructions and an opportunity to serve Him. The initiating spiritual master is a personal manifestation of Śrīla Madana-mohana vigraha, whereas the instructing spiritual master is a personal representative of Śrīla Govindadeva vigraha. Both of these Deities are worshiped at Vṛndāvana. Śrīla Gopīnātha is the ultimate attraction in spiritual realization. (Taken from Vedabase)

The question that arises in my mind is this: if making a distinction between siksha guru and diksha guru is offensive, a statement that I agree with, then what are the implications for our understanding of sampradaya? Is abhidheya more important than sambandha for the idea of parampara? In my own thinking of late, it is definitely the idea of sambandha--my specific worshipable deity, my specific identity in relationship to them, the specific relationship that I have with Chaitanya Mahaprabhu through an unbroken line of diksha gurus, who are passing down his mercy (anugraha) in the form of the mantra. These are all solidified by the act of affirming a relationship with the spiritual master, and these are the permanent, unbreakable, and specific basis of our lives as spiritual practitioners.

On the other hand, as Keshava was pointing out recently on the questions and answers thread about the Holy Name, rituals and sadhanas also become distinctive in specific disciplic successions. Where the Gaudiya Math is concerned, it does seem that the quibbles with the traditional forms of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are in relation to abhidheya matters rather than sambandha per se.

There are other questions that arise in my mind on points of detail in the Anubhashya passage as well. For instance, is sevAdhikAra not bestowed by initiation?