The Reality of Gopa Kumara -

Here's something I wrote to a fellow devotee a couple of weeks back, as I was asked about whether Gopa Kumara was a real or a fictional character. It brings up a number of important concerns in exploring the nature of Puranic reality.

---

We'd have to first decide what we consider reality. If the narration of Gopa Kumara indeed was revealed to Sanatana in samadhi, then certainly he is a real character who existed at some time in whatever dimension. I suppose the question is whether he is an intentional literary device or not, and whether the entire episode was a fictive narration meant to bring up a number of philosophical points. It's not only the nature of Gopa Kumara we are talking about, it's the nature of the entire epic.

Verses 11 and 12 in Sanatana's prologue do not suggest anything of the sort. In verse 11 Sanatana states that Br. Bhag. was revealed to him upon receiving the darsana of Sri Caitanya, and in verse 12 he says that this narration was told by Jaimini Rishi to Janamejaya. If Gopa Kumara was a fictive character, it would be a creation of Jaimini's, not Sanatana's. That is, if we agree that Sanatana didn't just make up the statement that Jaimini told the story to Janamejaya. Now, why would he start putting words in the mouths of persons who have (supposedly) been great sages of the past?

Certainly Sanatana would not lie to us, so if we want to develop the premise that the narration is fictive, we'd have to conclude that Jaimini, Janamejaya and the rest (including Janamejaya's father, Pariksit Maharaja) are in fact commonly adopted fictive characters who can be freely employed for fictive narratives which seek to establish certain philosophical points.

What we are faced with in Br. Bhag. is in fact a very typical Puranic scenario.

If we indeed conclude that the epic is fictive, the logical next step is to ask whether any of the Puranic narratives describe actual events or whether they are fictive narrations. Then, the next logical step is to ask whether the Bhagavata, which shares a great deal of common premises with the Puranas, is fictive. Then, since we are probably not willing to declare that the pastimes of Sri Krishna and His avataras are fictive, we have to resolve which passages of the Bhagavata can safely be declared fictive without interfering with the framework in which the lila takes place.

It seems to me that the issue is larger than Gopa Kumara or Brihat Bhagavatamritam. The question is, how far those who propose this are willing to take their approach? They cannot reasonably grab just half the hen and think that they can get away with it. And though admittedly some of the ideas in such a proposal seem appealing, the logical conclusion to which they lead is way out of my comfort zone.

Nobody has anything to say on this?

It seems that if none of the principle acharyas, that came after Sanatana Goswami, have really questioned the authenticity of Gopa Kumara, the question might not even be a legitimate question. Why have not Jiva Goswami or Vishvanatha Cakravarti addressed this question. Maybe it was not even something that came up in their mind. In fact, the very question itself could possibly considered unthinkable to them. If Sanatan Goswami never gave any hint at all, anywhere in his works, that Gopa Kumara was an allegorical character used as a literary device, then what is the grounds for speculation? What does it matter if he was allegorical or factual? If none of the great acharyas have ever raised this question or addressed this question, then maybe the question should not be a question at all?

{I started writing this earlier but didn't get far.}


This post seems so lonely, but I have to say that it is quite brilliant. Very thought provoking. I want to consider this more but will add something now.

I'm taking a class on Buddhism at the moment. This week we covered Nagarjuna, "the Plato of the East," along with the differences between the Theravada and Mahayana schools. There was a lot of discussion about knowing, language, perception and the like. (So much so that one young guy went up to the teacher during the break and exclaimed, "What if a child was raised without ever knowing the limitations of this world--would they be able to fly?" Sadly, he seemed quite serious.) In the midst of trees that are seen and those that are known, treeness, the name "tree," etc. the teacher spoke of mermaids and how they don't exist. As soon he said that, I thought, "They do exist." (OK, I'm no smarter than the flying baby guy.) They exist as an enduring motif, as an image that can be called to mind. They do have an existence of a kind. Is that existence really any less than that of a physical object? If it can affect the consciousness and exist in the consciousness, it is real.

{Break into discussion on Plato and absolutes, Jung and symbols...}

And what of those monsters/bogeymen that Mother Yasoda speaks of? (What are they called again?) There are fictional devices even in Vraja?

I'd suggest that our ideas of real and unreal, fact and fiction, are ultimately and necessarily incorrect. Reality is that which supports bhakti.

It seems that we Westerners have a commendable ability for digging up the most abstract questions there are, the kinds of things no "normal" person would ever come to even think of.

Advaitadas, I remember you once telling how you asked from your guru about the jiva-issue. If my memory doesn't fail, he said that he'd never really given thought to it even.

Western psyche is very different, and in a sense it forces us study our tradition from very different perspectives, exploring new ideas not thought of before.

You mean the Haubilau? All is fair in love, war and getting kids home in time!



Quite so. However, some are very obsessed about whether the narrations we read are something you can measure in millimeters, count in seconds, minutely observe, pack into a box and put on the shelf. It doesn't really make much difference, considering that the realm we explore is within us, and the dimension of lila is very different from gross, physical reality.

I always thought that BB was a completely fictional work authored by Sri Sanatana Gosvami, all with the intention of showing how Vraja-lila is the topmost and how the love of the gopis is superior to all. As such, it is a very nice narrative but it could not count as a scripture as such because this is one of the "internal" works of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It is regarded as an internal scripture and is quoted as authority in the lectures of several gurus. It's all very well if Sanatana Gosvami saw all this happen in his spiritual vision, but who "outside" would believe that, and that it is an authentic "scripture" at the Puranic level?

Then again, who knows what the future holds? Gaudiya Vaishnavism is still in it's "baby" stages (or perhaps it's a toddler now) so who knows what may happen in the future? With the amount of interpolation and dogmatism that has occurred over the centuries, who is there to say that BB will not be regarded as "scripture" in the future, even by Gaudiya Vaishnavas?

A parallel can be seen with the Jaiva-dharma of Srila Bhaktivinoda. I assume everyone is in agreement that it is a fictional work with the exception of some real figures mentioned such as Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra Gosvamis. It seems that only the school of Narayana Maharaja say that the events of Jaiva-dharma are real incidents. Could this be the beginning of a dogmatization of the Jaiva-dharma? Who knows?

Let's define "a scripture" to begin with. What's your definition?

If you ask me, the practical difference between BBhag and some of the Puranas, such as Brahma-vaivarta, along with many sections of other Puranas, is that we know the author of BBhag.

I'd be curious to hear from Jagat about the less ancient, say post-Caitanya, Puranas.

Good question! Not a clue!

But now that I'm forced to think about it, I'd say that (in Vedic terms and boundaries, of course) that texts such as the Four Vedas, Upanisads, etc., are scriptures on acount of their being sruti. The element of "revelation" is certainly there, but the sruti texts are apparently revealed by God Himself. Their authority is unquestionable.

The later texts such as Puranas and so on, are smritis. These were written later than the srutis. Who knows who revealed them? All or most were written by Vyasa certainly, and thus will count as "scripture" for many, but their authority is subjective on account of how many different school take different things from them. For example, Shaivites will take tamasic puranas as authority, Saktas take rajasic, Vaishnavas satvic, and so on. The element of "revelation" here is pretty subjective depending what group you are in, thus their authority is questionable.

And I'm not even thinking about the amount of additions, subtractions, interpolations and rescensions that have occurred over the centuries!

In the context of BBhag, where does it stand on the scale? It was "revealed" by one of "our" authorities: Srila Sanatana Gosvami. Apart from Gaudiyas, who knows of Sanatana Gosvami much less respect him?

In regards to your comment about Brahma-vaivarta Purana (BVP), what do you mean that you know the author of BBhag as opposed to Brahma-vaivarta Purana? I was always under the impression that Vyasa wrote all of the Puranas, what do you think? In this case does it strictly matter who the author of a text is? Does the authorship of a text give it any authority?
This could be misused in that any Tom, Dick or Harry can write a scripture and it suddenly gets an air of "authority" about it. But in the case of BVP, we know that it has been "around" for some time? I don't know the situation about BVP here, kindly tell me of its status in the Vedic canon. Is it's authorship in dispute or was it written by Vyasa and is thus part of the Vedic canon?

Getting back to revelation by a subjective authority, groups like the Madhvas or Ramanujas are not obliged to accept the authority of Sanatana Gosvami or the BBhag, despite the fact that the text deals with godly subjects. By the same standard, no one else is obliged to accept their "internal" texts either no matter how much sense they may make.

This is why I think it is important to determine the "reality" of a text such as BBhag. It would not be a good idea to quote it in a debate with a Madhva or Ramanuja as it's authority is decidedly subjective. However, is it an important issue for Gaudiyas? This may depend on how seriously one is to take it. On the face of it, BBhag is a text that elaborately and conclusively shows the superiority of Vraja-bhava above all others, and Krishna above all other divinities. These two conclusons fit in nicely with Gaudiya siddhanta, so does it really matter if the events really happened or whether it is a fictional account?

The danger, I feel, is in making an absolute statement about such texts when one is unsure of their "real" status.

For some afterthoughts, it's very funny how Vyasa is commonly (?) accepted as an incarnation of God, yet his "authority" in the authorship of Puranas is questionable because of so many diversions in his writing. One may argue that Vyasa presented different concepts for sadhakas who are on different spiritual levels with the intention of having them graduate to the "topmost" level, but that has not stopped everyone from taking what they like to hear from his works.

In contrast, nobody questions the authority or authorship of the srutis.

It appears, therefore, that there are two important factors at work here:

• Text Author
  
• Text Content

Getting back to my Jaiva-dharma example, what is the real reason why some people choose to believe that the events were historical happenings? Is it because of the "flawless" siddhanta present in the work, or is it because it was written by Bhaktivinoda therefore it MUST be authoritative? What if Jaiva-dharma had been written by Ananta das Babaji, for example? Would it receive the same veneration as we see now or would it be regarded as a "sahajiya" text despite the fact that it's siddhanta is "flawless"? So content and authorship of a text are two very important factors to determining the authority of it. Unfortunately it seems to me that both are subjective.

So for BBhag, everyone in all Gaudiya branches accepts Sanatana Gosvami as an unquestionable authority and that the contents of the book are consistent with rupanuga-siddhanta. It matters little if the text is true: if it is, good; if it isn't, doesn't matter as it is still a good book.

Having a look at Sanatana's tika in the Gopiparanadhana editon, it appears that Sanatana is "retelling" the story of the conversation of Jaimini and Janamejaya. anubhUtasya caitanya-deve tat-priya-rUpataH, he heard it from Sri Rupa Gosvami though. GP offers two definitions for tat-priya-rUpataH; he says it could be either a reference to the "all-attractive golden form" of Caitanya thus indicating that Sanatana could have heard it direct from Caitanya Himself, or that it could refer to Rupa Gosvami after all.

[This is probably why GP's "tika" may not be considered reliable as he is speaking his own ideas rather than translating Sanatana's real tika.]

Text 13 tells us:

munindrAj jaiminaH zrutvA
bhAratAkhyAnam adbhutam
parIkSin-nandano 'pRcchat
tat-khilaM zravaNotsukaH
After Janamejaya, the son of Pariksit, heard the wonderful Mahabharata recited by the great sage Jaimini, Janamejaya was still eager to hear more, and so he inquired about the supplement to that epic.

This is a good indication. We know that there is an edition of Mahabharata that was spoken by Jaimini Rsi, not Vyasa. However due to the influence of time (the Muslim invasion, more like!) that scripture no longer exists in totality. I have hear that all that exists of the Jaimini Bharata is the 'Asvamedha-parva,' the section dealing with the performance of Asvamedha-yagnas. Who knows what else Jaimini would have spoken to Janamejaya? If Janamejaya wants to hear "more" and requiring a "supplement," well...

This is more or less a parallel of the situation of Srimad-bhagavatam. In that text, we are actually hearing the narration of Suta Gosvami who is "retelling" the conversation of Pariksit and Sukadeva. So it is possible that BBhag in it's original form was told from Jaimini Rsi to Janamejaya, and that Sanatana Gosvami is "retelling" that story after hearing it from Caitanya or Rupa.

If he got it "revealed" in his samadhi then that is a whole other ball game...

Really? I thought it was quite common to divide Upanishads into earlier and later, the Tapani-Upanishads such as Gopala-tapani being among the later.



If it is completely fictional, we'll have to address the concerns in my opening post. How much license do we have in grabbing real characters and attributing ideas to them?

Guess it is alright so long as the text is consistent with siddhanta, isn't it?

bhaktivinoda wrote several "novels" to elucidate siddhanta. Prema-pradipa is an interesting one not to mention Harinama-cintamani. Now did that conversation between Mahaprabhu and Haridasa Thakura really happen or did it "happen" in Bhaktivinoda's samadhi? Or is it a complete work of fiction for the sake of explaining siddhanta?

Are there any other examples of "novels" like BBhag? Well, it is possible to argue that some or all the works of the acharyas are all fictions. After all, Lalita-madhava, Vidagdha-madhava, Caitanya-candrodaya-nataka, Camatkara-candrika, and so on; these are all works that pulled "real" characters such as Radha-Krishna and Gauranga, and put them into a "fictional" scenario with the intent of revealing some aspects of siddhanta. Again it is a subjective consideration whether all the events in the text were revealed in the acarya's samadhi to an objective viewer, but all the same these works are still regarded as "scripture" and are quoted within the sampradaya as authority.

Bhakti is by definition subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The believer in Bhaktivinod will see his novels as a transcendental reality and the non believer wont. Of course, Rupa, Sanatana and Kavi Karnapura had all been empowered by Mahaprabhu; it has been declared about them and they have also declared that they were enlightened by Him from within. Their statements should never be seen as fictional by any serious Caitanya-Vaishnava. Furthermore, Krishna is like a spiritual touchstone - whatever situation you put him in, it will become real. He is the Absolute Reality. The only things that could pervert stories about Him and make them unreal are rasabhasa (bad taste) or viruddha siddhanta (bogus theories).

Here's how American Heritage Dictionary defines fiction"




Since Srimad-Bhagavatam and Brihad-Bhagavatamritam were composed to help us understand the ultimate reality--"actuality"--I'm not convinced it's quite accurate to call it fiction. In the case of these literatures, the work is produced by inspriration rather than raw imagination. I think the same would hold for Bhaktivinoda's works, such as Jaiva Dharma and Harinama Chintamani, at least for those who have faith in him.

Dear Madhava,

This is an interesting discussion. Thank you for bringing it up. I believe that it a topic that a serious practitioner ought to give some thought to.

I understand your concerns. As Sadaputa writes in Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy (p. 165): "According to this passage [a citation from Bhaktivinoda's The Bhagavata], not only the hells but also the material heavens are dismissed as poetic inventions. But if the heavens are inventions, what can one say about their inhabitants, such as Indra? If Indra is also imaginary, then how are we to understand the story of the lifting of Govardhana Hill? This must also be imaginary, and we are led to an allegorical interpretation of Krsna's pastimes." Even though a proposal may be appealing, we do need to reflect in its deeper implications.

However, the idea of attributing works and ideas to semi-mythological personages is common and one confined to India. An example that is fresh in my mind is a text that we are in the process of editing from two manuscripts. The text, an Arabic translation of a Pahlavi work on astrology (it is, in fact, the earliest work on astrology in Arabic), is attributed to Zarathustra, and in the beginning of it, we learn that "the tongue of light" spoke the secret contents of the text into Zarathustra's ears. So the knowledge in the text is presented as a revelation to the prophet Zarathustra. It is, of course, highly unlikely that Zarathustra had anything to do with this text. I can also mention that when the Jewish tradition adopted astrological ideas, they quickly attributed them to people like Enoch and Abraham. This is a common phenomenon and it is seen very often in India. An example is that the Greek theories of epicycles that was adopted by the Indian astronomers were presented as a revelation from Brahma or other deities.

Does such attributions diminish the value of the knowledge conveyed or put cherished beliefs in danger? Attaching Zarathustra's name to the work certainly brings prestige and authority; it may even be necessary to do in order to have the work taken seriously. As Vaishnava-das has pointed in a later post in this thread, the authorship of a text does play an important role when it comes to the text's acceptance by others. I am thinking that when a person like Sanatana Gosvamin puts his own doctrine in the mouths of great sages of the past (if that is what he did) there may be factors involved that we, enveloped as we are in a certain paradigm, do not truly appreciate. From the point of view there need not be any dishonesty or other qualities that we might attach to the scenario involved. It is part of the tradition and as such is hard to judge by our current standards.

Personally I feel that adopting the view that the conversation between Jaimini and Janamejaya never took place in history need not create problems. Who spoke the story and where seems less significant than its actual content. "What is history but a fable agreed upon," as Napoleon put it. To my mind how the story affects us is more important than its historical frame. Even if it is made up, Sanatana Gosvamin's spirituality and feeling is so strong that the story gains reality for those who have faith in them. Ultimately the story is that of an inner journey. It can be placed comfortably in a subjective reality by putting it in some frame, such as a dialogue between two great personalities of a hoary past. Perhaps for devotees in the past, the ancient conversation provided a frame for the story suitable for their spiritual progress. Perhaps we need to change the frame to suit our needs. That seems like a possibility to me.

Let me conclude by citing Aristotle: "The lover of myth is in a sense a lover of Wisdom, for myth is composed of wonders" (Metaphysics, A, 2, 982 b18).

Sincerely,
Elpis

The distinction between inspiration and raw imagination appears somewhat porous to me.

Sincerely,
Elpis

Elpis:


It does to me, too. As I wrote that, it occurred to me that there's no real dichotomy, that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Nice quote from Aristotle.

I have pondered the role of mythology for a number of years now. Is it really just the Jungian archetypes lurking under the surface, or is there something even deeper there? Then you have the Bly/Moore/Gillette crowd that see such a elements as hardwired into our genome and neural pathways. At any rate, it is really a complex issue, and not something to be written off as either purely symbolic or (at the other extreme) historical fact. Since it is not possible to hop into a time machine and go back and interview Sukadeva to find out what he had in mind, we can only surmise from the texts as they have been handed down (and undoubtedly modified and embellished over the centuries), as well as from the practices of the various traditions based upon such writings, what we can that our analyses may (or may not) yield. A lot of work has been done on common patterns that constantly emerge.

It makes one wonder: Since dolphins actually communicate with a real language, do they also have their own mythology?

When I was younger, I used to like the songs of Enigma. Here is the lyrics for their song "The Dream of the Dolphin":

In every colour there's the light.
In every stone sleeps a crystal.
Remember the Shaman, when he used to say:
"Man is the dream of the dolphin".

Maybe dolphins do have their own mythology. Who knows?

Sincerely,
Elpis

Richard Adams' classic novel, Watership Down, describes a mythology of Rabbits in their own world (or was that Mel Blanc?)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...434264?v=glance