Ujjvala Nilamani part 1
Choice of Rupa Gosvamipad’s Ujjvala Nilamani with commentaries.
Ujjvala Nilamani is a sequel of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, written by Sri Rupa Goswami because he found the topic of amorous love of Krishna was too extensive to include in it. Naturally this is a confidential item of shastra, yet it should be discussed, for true devotees will appreciate it in its true value. In his brief commentary Jiva Goswami appears to support svakiya vAda (married love of Radha-Krishna) and in his lengthier commentary Sri Visvanath Cakravartypad seems to support parakiya vada (extramarital love). They only clash in a few places, though, not throughout the book. This scripture shows an almost endless variety of male and female lovers and the situations they may end up in.
Chapter 1 deals with the varieties of Nayaks (amorous heroes). In his commentary of verse 1.23, Visvanath Cakravartypad argues that, why Krishna was named Govinda during His abhisekha by the Surabhi cow after He lifted Mount Govardhan? Is this name not eternal? anyathA govindAbhiSekAt pUrvam eva pUtanA supayaH pAnAnantaraM bIja-nyAsaM kurvatyo vraja-vara-vadhvaH krIDantaM pAtu govindaH [S.B. 10.6.25] iti guNa-gAne ca govinda-veNum anumatta-mayUra-nRtyam iti kathaM vadeyuH - Previously in the 10th canto, during the narration of the killing of Putana, the Vrajabasi women assigned nyAsa [seed-letters] to Krishna, saying ‘may Govinda protect You at play’ (though this is more likely to refer to the Vaikuntha-deity Govinda) and the young gopis praised Krishna’s flute long before the abhisekha-pastime, in chapter 21’s ‘Venu Gita’ ‘the peacocks dance like mad, when they hear Govinda’s flute’
….tena bhagavAn govardhanam uddharann eva sadaiva vartate iti | govardhanoddharaNAdhAra iti kriyA-nAmAbhyAM sahito govardhanoddharaNa-rUpaH sadaiva vartate | ata eva adyApi bhaktAnAM tathAnubhavaH
Mount Govardhan is eternally lifted by Bhagavan, and so both the name and the pastime of lifter/lifting of Govardhan are eternal. Thus they are experienced like this by the devotees even today. See also my blog of June 27, 2011.
abhimanyu-prabhRtiSu pati-bhAvas tu mAyika eva | cid-rUpANAM zrI-rAdhAdInAM cid-rUpeSu patiSv abhimanyu-prabhRtiSu sArvakAlika-dveSAnyathAnupapattyA madhye pati-bhAva-rUpA mAyA svAMza-bhUtA zrI-yoga-mAyayaiva sthApitA | prAkRtInAM strINAM pariNetRSu pati-bhAvasya prApaJcikatvAd anityatvam | gopInAM tu pariNetRSu patibhAvasya mAyA-kalpitatve bhagaval-lIlA-tantra-madhya-vartitvAt mAyAyAz cAsyA yogamAyAnumoditatvAc ca nityatvam eveti vizeSaH | mohanaM tu tAsAM yogamAyyaiva guNAtIttvAn na tu mAyayA
“Abhimanyu and other cowherd men’s esteem of being the gopis’ husbands is false [mAyik]. The forms of Sri Radha and other gopis are transcendental; it would be inappropriate for Abhimanyu and others like him to cherish eternal hatred towards them. Mahamaya is an expansion of yogamaya and she arranges their husband-esteem. To think of oneself as the husband of a material woman is mundane and temporary. The gopis’ idea that these men are their husbands is also created by maya, but since it all takes place in the context of the Lord’s transcendental pastimes it is endorsed by Yogamaya and thus also eternal.”
Chapter 2 deals with the variety of assistants of the hero. In his commentary on verse 2.15, Visvanatha mentions manjari bhava - tAz ca lalitAdyAH parama-preSTha-sakhy-Adaya uttarAs tu tad-dvayAbhAvAt kadApi kRSNAGga-saGga-spRhAvatyo na bhavanti | tAz ca kastUryAdayo nitya-sakhyas tatra vyAkyAta-lakSaNaM pUrvAsAM zrI-kRSNAGga-saGga-spRhA-rUpam aMzam udAhartum Aha yathA veti ‘There are parama prestha sakhis like Lalita and others, and there are nitya sakhis, like Kasturi Manjari, who never ever desire the bodily association of Krishna.
Chapter 3 deals with the variety of Hari’s sweethearts. Visvanatha Cakravartypad comments on UN 3.2 - kAminInAM yauvana-mada eva lalitAnIti nyAyenoktir vastutas tu tAsAM nitya-siddhaiva sarva-vaidagdhI svAvasaraM prApya udayate | dRSTaM ca tathA rAsa-krIDAyAM gAna-nRtyAdiSu prAvINyam tat-tac-chAstra-kRdbhirapi durgamam
“Pride of youth causes the attainment of all cleverness in nitya siddha girls. They learn expertise in the arts of dancing, singing, etc. during the Rasa pastimes, that are rarely attained even by the authors of shastra, just by looking.” So no long studies at Bharat Natyam colleges or lengthy mridanga lessons in manjari svarupa. Visvanatha writes elsewhere that to attain perfection a devotee needs to take birth first in Krishna’s earthly pastimes before being promoted to Goloka, but that is not to gain practical skills. Only to develop further prema.
Visvanatha Cakravarti comments on UN 3.13 tatrApi paroDhAnAM zrI-rAdhAdInAM dAsyaH kAzcana zrI-vRSabhAnv-Adibhir vivAha-kAle dattAH kanyakA eva kAzcana tad-anyA rUpa-maJjary-AdayaH paroDhA eva jJeyAH | bimbAdhare kSatam anAgata bhartRkAyAH [vilApa-kusumAJjali 1] iti zrI-dAsa-gosvAmy-ukteH | arvAcInAnAM sAdhaka-bhaktAnAM tu bhAvo yathA-ruci yathA-sampradAyaM vA phaliSyatIti boddhavyam
“Some of the maidservants that were given at marriage by the fathers of the brides like Vrishabhanu, were not married and some, like Rupa Manjari, were. The evidence for Rupa Manjari being married is found in the opening verse of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami’s Vilapa Kusumanjali. The feelings of the contemporary sadhakas will bear fruit according to feeling and sampradaya.” Yatha sampradaya cannot mean ‘according to sampradaya like Ramanuja, Madhva etc.’, because only the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradya has manjari bhava. Therefore it should mean according to Gaudiya Vaishnava sub branch like Advaita and Nityananda parivaras. Ironically Sadhu Baba quoted exactly the same verse to me to prove that Rupa Manjari is not married, as anAgata means ‘not come’, in other words Rupa Manjari’s husband was not yet found. Anyway, Visvanathji reconciles it neatly afterwards by saying yathA ruci yathA sampradAya, it is accomplished according to one’s own taste and lineage.
3.19 kanyakAz ca paroDhAz ca parakIyA dvidhA matAH
Verse by Rupa Goswami – “there are two kinds of parakiya relationships – not only of a married girl with another man but also of an unmarried [maiden] with a man.”
Visvanatha Cakravarti comments on UN 3.19: kAzcit tadAnIM dezAntarAt samAgatyApi samAtRkAH sthitA iti jJeyAH : “Some unmarried gopis came from outside of Vraja, with their mothers.”
3.21 yatra niSedha-vizeSaH sudurlabhatvaM ca yan mRgAkSINAm
tatraiva nAgarANAM nirbharam Asajjate hRdayam
“When a woman forbids a man to approach her and is hard to attain, it increases the attachment of the heart for the amorous hero (suitor).”
Rupa Goswami condemns sahajiya imitationists in UN 3.24: vartitavyaM zam icchadbhir bhaktavan na tu kRSNavat - “Those who desire their own welfare should act as devotees, not as Krishna.”
Visvanath Cakravarty comments on UN 3.33: gopInAM gopair vivAhasya mAyikatve`pi nitya-satyatvam eva jJeyam | manyamAnA ity abhiprAya-mAtraM na tu mAyA-kalpitAnAm api tAsAM patibhiH sambhoga iti tAsAM tad-AkAra-tulyAkArANAm anya-sambhuktatvasyAnaucityAt | ata eva sva-pArzva-sthAn iti | na tu talpa-sthAn ity uktam | tac ca samAdhAnaM yogamAyayaiva tat-patInAM puMstve`pi kAma-vikArAn udbhAvanAt | ata eva tan-mAtrAdibhiH prArthitAnAm api teSAM teSAM gopAnAM gopAlAnAM zAlli-kSetrAdAv eva zizayiSA prAyo na tu sva-gRheSv api svIya-tad-bhAvasya prAkaTyAbhAvAyeti jJeyam –
“Though the gopis’ marriages with the gopas are false they are also eternally real. The cowherds did not enjoy those forms made of mAyA as it would be inappropriate to enjoy other forms that looked just like them. Hence it is said (in this Bhagavat verse 10.33.38 quoted here) ‘they thought their wives to be by their sides’, not ‘they thought their wives to be in their beds. The solution was provided by yogamaya: though the husbands were potent they had no male transformations in the presence of their gopi wives. Though their mothers asked them (to sleep with their wives) they slept in the cow-barns, because they did not have that bhava (desire) for their wives.”
3.37 aprasUtitve sati tAsAm AlambanatvaM vairUpyeNa dUSyate
“The gopis could not have delivered babies because the disfigurement would have polluted them (made them unqualified for enjoyment by Krishna).”
ata eva duhantyo’bhiyayuH ityAdau, pAyayantyaH zizUn payaH ity eva zrI-zuka-vAkyaM na tu pAyayantyaH sutAn stanam iti | kvacit tad-vidheSu putrAdi-vyapadezo dRzyate yathA sAmba-kRta-lakSmaNA-haraNe zrI-baladevam uddizya |
pratigRhya tu tat-sarvaM bhagavAn sAtvatarSabhaH |
sa-sutaH sa-snuSaH prAgAt suhRdbhir abhinanditaH || iti ||37||
"Sometimes it is mentioned that the gopis abandoned their children to dance with Krishna, but wherever there is any mentioning of them having sons it does not mean their own sons, just as when Lord Baladev rescued Samba (Srimad Bhagavat 10.68.52), Samba is mentioned as his son though he was not directly his son. Also the Bhagavat mentions the gopis fed milk to children, but not their breast milk. It is said zizun payaH, they fed milk to children (cows’ milk), not ‘they breast-fed their own children’ (pAyayantyaH sutAn stanam)."
Ujjvala Nilamani is a sequel of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, written by Sri Rupa Goswami because he found the topic of amorous love of Krishna was too extensive to include in it. Naturally this is a confidential item of shastra, yet it should be discussed, for true devotees will appreciate it in its true value. In his brief commentary Jiva Goswami appears to support svakiya vAda (married love of Radha-Krishna) and in his lengthier commentary Sri Visvanath Cakravartypad seems to support parakiya vada (extramarital love). They only clash in a few places, though, not throughout the book. This scripture shows an almost endless variety of male and female lovers and the situations they may end up in.
Chapter 1 deals with the varieties of Nayaks (amorous heroes). In his commentary of verse 1.23, Visvanath Cakravartypad argues that, why Krishna was named Govinda during His abhisekha by the Surabhi cow after He lifted Mount Govardhan? Is this name not eternal? anyathA govindAbhiSekAt pUrvam eva pUtanA supayaH pAnAnantaraM bIja-nyAsaM kurvatyo vraja-vara-vadhvaH krIDantaM pAtu govindaH [S.B. 10.6.25] iti guNa-gAne ca govinda-veNum anumatta-mayUra-nRtyam iti kathaM vadeyuH - Previously in the 10th canto, during the narration of the killing of Putana, the Vrajabasi women assigned nyAsa [seed-letters] to Krishna, saying ‘may Govinda protect You at play’ (though this is more likely to refer to the Vaikuntha-deity Govinda) and the young gopis praised Krishna’s flute long before the abhisekha-pastime, in chapter 21’s ‘Venu Gita’ ‘the peacocks dance like mad, when they hear Govinda’s flute’
tena yat-karma-viziSTasya yasya rUpasya yan nAma tat-karma-viziSTaM tad-rUpaM nityam eva | loke paraM teSAM bhaktAnAM tat-tad-rasAnubhavArthaM krameNAvirbhAvaH
“Thus the name related to a form of the Lord performing some action is as eternal as that action. They gradually manifest in the world so the devotees can experience their divine flavours.”
“Thus the name related to a form of the Lord performing some action is as eternal as that action. They gradually manifest in the world so the devotees can experience their divine flavours.”
….tena bhagavAn govardhanam uddharann eva sadaiva vartate iti | govardhanoddharaNAdhAra iti kriyA-nAmAbhyAM sahito govardhanoddharaNa-rUpaH sadaiva vartate | ata eva adyApi bhaktAnAM tathAnubhavaH
Mount Govardhan is eternally lifted by Bhagavan, and so both the name and the pastime of lifter/lifting of Govardhan are eternal. Thus they are experienced like this by the devotees even today. See also my blog of June 27, 2011.
abhimanyu-prabhRtiSu pati-bhAvas tu mAyika eva | cid-rUpANAM zrI-rAdhAdInAM cid-rUpeSu patiSv abhimanyu-prabhRtiSu sArvakAlika-dveSAnyathAnupapattyA madhye pati-bhAva-rUpA mAyA svAMza-bhUtA zrI-yoga-mAyayaiva sthApitA | prAkRtInAM strINAM pariNetRSu pati-bhAvasya prApaJcikatvAd anityatvam | gopInAM tu pariNetRSu patibhAvasya mAyA-kalpitatve bhagaval-lIlA-tantra-madhya-vartitvAt mAyAyAz cAsyA yogamAyAnumoditatvAc ca nityatvam eveti vizeSaH | mohanaM tu tAsAM yogamAyyaiva guNAtIttvAn na tu mAyayA
“Abhimanyu and other cowherd men’s esteem of being the gopis’ husbands is false [mAyik]. The forms of Sri Radha and other gopis are transcendental; it would be inappropriate for Abhimanyu and others like him to cherish eternal hatred towards them. Mahamaya is an expansion of yogamaya and she arranges their husband-esteem. To think of oneself as the husband of a material woman is mundane and temporary. The gopis’ idea that these men are their husbands is also created by maya, but since it all takes place in the context of the Lord’s transcendental pastimes it is endorsed by Yogamaya and thus also eternal.”
Chapter 2 deals with the variety of assistants of the hero. In his commentary on verse 2.15, Visvanatha mentions manjari bhava - tAz ca lalitAdyAH parama-preSTha-sakhy-Adaya uttarAs tu tad-dvayAbhAvAt kadApi kRSNAGga-saGga-spRhAvatyo na bhavanti | tAz ca kastUryAdayo nitya-sakhyas tatra vyAkyAta-lakSaNaM pUrvAsAM zrI-kRSNAGga-saGga-spRhA-rUpam aMzam udAhartum Aha yathA veti ‘There are parama prestha sakhis like Lalita and others, and there are nitya sakhis, like Kasturi Manjari, who never ever desire the bodily association of Krishna.
Chapter 3 deals with the variety of Hari’s sweethearts. Visvanatha Cakravartypad comments on UN 3.2 - kAminInAM yauvana-mada eva lalitAnIti nyAyenoktir vastutas tu tAsAM nitya-siddhaiva sarva-vaidagdhI svAvasaraM prApya udayate | dRSTaM ca tathA rAsa-krIDAyAM gAna-nRtyAdiSu prAvINyam tat-tac-chAstra-kRdbhirapi durgamam
“Pride of youth causes the attainment of all cleverness in nitya siddha girls. They learn expertise in the arts of dancing, singing, etc. during the Rasa pastimes, that are rarely attained even by the authors of shastra, just by looking.” So no long studies at Bharat Natyam colleges or lengthy mridanga lessons in manjari svarupa. Visvanatha writes elsewhere that to attain perfection a devotee needs to take birth first in Krishna’s earthly pastimes before being promoted to Goloka, but that is not to gain practical skills. Only to develop further prema.
Visvanatha Cakravarti comments on UN 3.13 tatrApi paroDhAnAM zrI-rAdhAdInAM dAsyaH kAzcana zrI-vRSabhAnv-Adibhir vivAha-kAle dattAH kanyakA eva kAzcana tad-anyA rUpa-maJjary-AdayaH paroDhA eva jJeyAH | bimbAdhare kSatam anAgata bhartRkAyAH [vilApa-kusumAJjali 1] iti zrI-dAsa-gosvAmy-ukteH | arvAcInAnAM sAdhaka-bhaktAnAM tu bhAvo yathA-ruci yathA-sampradAyaM vA phaliSyatIti boddhavyam
“Some of the maidservants that were given at marriage by the fathers of the brides like Vrishabhanu, were not married and some, like Rupa Manjari, were. The evidence for Rupa Manjari being married is found in the opening verse of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami’s Vilapa Kusumanjali. The feelings of the contemporary sadhakas will bear fruit according to feeling and sampradaya.” Yatha sampradaya cannot mean ‘according to sampradaya like Ramanuja, Madhva etc.’, because only the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradya has manjari bhava. Therefore it should mean according to Gaudiya Vaishnava sub branch like Advaita and Nityananda parivaras. Ironically Sadhu Baba quoted exactly the same verse to me to prove that Rupa Manjari is not married, as anAgata means ‘not come’, in other words Rupa Manjari’s husband was not yet found. Anyway, Visvanathji reconciles it neatly afterwards by saying yathA ruci yathA sampradAya, it is accomplished according to one’s own taste and lineage.
3.19 kanyakAz ca paroDhAz ca parakIyA dvidhA matAH
Verse by Rupa Goswami – “there are two kinds of parakiya relationships – not only of a married girl with another man but also of an unmarried [maiden] with a man.”
Visvanatha Cakravarti comments on UN 3.19: kAzcit tadAnIM dezAntarAt samAgatyApi samAtRkAH sthitA iti jJeyAH : “Some unmarried gopis came from outside of Vraja, with their mothers.”
3.21 yatra niSedha-vizeSaH sudurlabhatvaM ca yan mRgAkSINAm
tatraiva nAgarANAM nirbharam Asajjate hRdayam
“When a woman forbids a man to approach her and is hard to attain, it increases the attachment of the heart for the amorous hero (suitor).”
Rupa Goswami condemns sahajiya imitationists in UN 3.24: vartitavyaM zam icchadbhir bhaktavan na tu kRSNavat - “Those who desire their own welfare should act as devotees, not as Krishna.”
Visvanath Cakravarty comments on UN 3.33: gopInAM gopair vivAhasya mAyikatve`pi nitya-satyatvam eva jJeyam | manyamAnA ity abhiprAya-mAtraM na tu mAyA-kalpitAnAm api tAsAM patibhiH sambhoga iti tAsAM tad-AkAra-tulyAkArANAm anya-sambhuktatvasyAnaucityAt | ata eva sva-pArzva-sthAn iti | na tu talpa-sthAn ity uktam | tac ca samAdhAnaM yogamAyayaiva tat-patInAM puMstve`pi kAma-vikArAn udbhAvanAt | ata eva tan-mAtrAdibhiH prArthitAnAm api teSAM teSAM gopAnAM gopAlAnAM zAlli-kSetrAdAv eva zizayiSA prAyo na tu sva-gRheSv api svIya-tad-bhAvasya prAkaTyAbhAvAyeti jJeyam –
“Though the gopis’ marriages with the gopas are false they are also eternally real. The cowherds did not enjoy those forms made of mAyA as it would be inappropriate to enjoy other forms that looked just like them. Hence it is said (in this Bhagavat verse 10.33.38 quoted here) ‘they thought their wives to be by their sides’, not ‘they thought their wives to be in their beds. The solution was provided by yogamaya: though the husbands were potent they had no male transformations in the presence of their gopi wives. Though their mothers asked them (to sleep with their wives) they slept in the cow-barns, because they did not have that bhava (desire) for their wives.”
3.37 aprasUtitve sati tAsAm AlambanatvaM vairUpyeNa dUSyate
“The gopis could not have delivered babies because the disfigurement would have polluted them (made them unqualified for enjoyment by Krishna).”
ata eva duhantyo’bhiyayuH ityAdau, pAyayantyaH zizUn payaH ity eva zrI-zuka-vAkyaM na tu pAyayantyaH sutAn stanam iti | kvacit tad-vidheSu putrAdi-vyapadezo dRzyate yathA sAmba-kRta-lakSmaNA-haraNe zrI-baladevam uddizya |
pratigRhya tu tat-sarvaM bhagavAn sAtvatarSabhaH |
sa-sutaH sa-snuSaH prAgAt suhRdbhir abhinanditaH || iti ||37||
"Sometimes it is mentioned that the gopis abandoned their children to dance with Krishna, but wherever there is any mentioning of them having sons it does not mean their own sons, just as when Lord Baladev rescued Samba (Srimad Bhagavat 10.68.52), Samba is mentioned as his son though he was not directly his son. Also the Bhagavat mentions the gopis fed milk to children, but not their breast milk. It is said zizun payaH, they fed milk to children (cows’ milk), not ‘they breast-fed their own children’ (pAyayantyaH sutAn stanam)."
posted by advaitadas at
3:44 PM
2 Comments:
Proper layout will have to wait until I am on a better connection. Even this blog took almost an hour to post..........
I'm very happy you are posting on Sri Ujjvala Nilamani. Thank you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home