Two questions regarding krsna-lila

40 views
Skip to first unread message

BVKS Sanga

unread,
Jan 31, 2024, 8:10:07 AM1/31/24
to BVKS Sanga
From "Jay Nityananda Das" 
Date 21-01-2024 19:08:49
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Gaura Nitai Prbahu, and other devotees,

Namo Namah

Disclaimer: In case there is need to say this, I did not bring this up in order to show that I know things better than our acaryas. Instead, I simply wanted to show that when one looks at what different texts say, one may find some of his beliefs challenged. A prime example of that would be the fact that both the Hari-vamsa and the Visnu Purana speak of Krsna as an avatara of Visnu, and the three occurrences of the word amsa in the Tenth Canto cited above can also be understood in the same way because that would be their direct meaning. All of that contradicts the statement krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. 

I would request your goodself to read the following passage from the book "Vraisvarya-kadambini", prathama vrsti, verse 9 of Baladeva Vidyabhusana (along with the commentary of Vrndavana Tarkalankara Bhattacarya--translated by HG Baldeva Prabhu) to get some insight into how to understand "krsnas tu bhagavan svayam" when Hari-vamsa and Vishnu Purana speak of Krsna as an avatara of Vishnu (This is only for showing a hint, for detailed analysis Sandarbhas can be consulted):

==========================
(emphasis added for better understanding of the readers)

वैकुण्ठाधीशतद्व्यूहतदंशपुरूषत्रयतदंशलीलावताराणां वैकुण्ठनिलयानां महतां स्वधिष्ण्यस्थितानामेवांशै रूपान्तरैर्युक्तः सन्नित्यर्थः। यथा दिग्विजयाय प्रस्थितं सार्वभौमं मण्डलेश्वरास्तथा प्रपञ्चेश्वतितीर्षं कृष्णं स्वयं भगवन्तं ते महान्तो निजांशैरनुवर्तन्त इति भावः । तथा च कृष्णान्तर्गततदधीशादिमात्रदृष्टयो मुनयः कृष्णं तत्तद्रूपमाहुस्तद्वाक्यानि च व्यासो भगवाननुवदति यथा कर्णपर्वण्यर्जुनात् कर्णस्य कृष्णाच्छल्यस्य च श्रैष्ठ्यं लोकैः प्रतीतं सोऽन्वाह तद्वदिति तत्कथा सङ्गतेति। अत एव कृष्णेन तैस्तै रूपैस्तत्तल्लीलाः प्रकाशिताः ।

He appears together (yuktaḥ) with His other forms (aṁśaiḥ), expansions of His powerful manifestations (mahat): the Lord of Vaikuntha (Nārāyaṇa), His quadruple expansions, the three puruṣāvatāras Who are Their expansions, and the lilāvatāras Who are Their expansions, Who are all situated in their respective abodes in the various Vaikuntha planets. The meaning is that just as kings follow the emperor when he sets out for conquering all directions, these powerful manifestations together with their expansions follow Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person Himself, when He desires to descend into the material universe. Accordingly, sages who have seen only the Lord of Vaikuntha and other expansions- which are actually included within Kṛṣṇa-say that Kṛṣṇa is a form of such and such personality, and Bhagavan Vyāsadeva merely repeats their statements. For instance, in the Karṇa-parva of the Maha-bhārata, the superiority of Karṇa over Arjuna, and of Śailya over Kṛṣṇa is presumed by someone people, and Vyāsadeva just repeated that. So is the case with other narrations, and thus the narrations found in the Purāņas are coherent.

यत्तु तत्केशत्वं भारते कृष्णस्योक्तमिति वदन्ति तत् किलातीव स्थूलमुक्तनिर्णयादेव । ननु प्रतीतिः कथमपलपनीयेति चेत्। शृणु । तत्र हि केशशब्देनांशुरेवोच्यते। अंशवो ये प्रकाशन्ते मम ते केशसंज्ञिताः । सर्वज्ञाः केशवं तस्मान्मामाहुर्मुनिसत्तमा इति नारायणीये पार्थं प्रति कृष्णवाक्यादेव । नानावर्णानां तदंशूनां तत्र देवर्षिणा दृष्टत्वाच्च । अतस्तत्र सर्वत्र केशशब्द एव प्रयुक्तः । स चांशुरुक्तरीत्यावतितीर्षं कृष्णं प्रविवेशेति।

Some claim that in the Mahā-bhārata is it stated that Kṛṣṇa is the hair (kesa) of Vişņu. On the basis of the aforementioned conclusion, this is indeed utter foolishness. Someone may argue, "How can the obvious meaning of the text be evaded?" Listen. By the word keśa there, what is actually meant is 'ray of light,' as understood from the following words of Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in the Nārāyaṇīya section : aṁśavo ye prakāśante mama te keśa-saṁjñitāḥ, sarvajñāḥ keśavaṁ tasmān mām āhur muni-sattamāḥ (Mahā-bhārata, 12.328.43), "The effulgent rays that emanate from Me are called 'keśa.' Therefore, the best of sages who know everything call me Kesava." Moreover, it is also described there that Narada saw His multi-coloured rays.Therefore, in all instances in that narration, only the word keśa has been used.That ray of light entered the body of Kṛṣṇa in the described manner when He desired to descend on earth.

ननु किमेवं भगवत्तत्त्वेऽपि भेदोऽङ्गीक्रियते। मैवम्। एकमेव तच्छक्तिव्यक्तितारतम्यादेव स्वयंविलासव्यूहादिभावेनावतिष्ठते शास्त्रोद् ग्राहतारतम्येनेव विद्वानेकोऽपि सर्वज्ञविज्ञकिञ्चिज्ज्ञभावेनेति न किञ्चिदवद्यं किन्त्वंशिनांशो व्यंग्यो न त्वंशेनांशीति मन्तव्यम्। अन्यथोक्तार्थवैपरीत्यापत्तिरिति सन्दर्भादिभ्यो विस्तरतोऽवगन्तव्यम् ॥९॥

Someone may argue, "So, is difference admitted to exist even in the ontological state of the Supreme Lord?" Not at all, for His svarūpa remains only one, manifested as His original form (svayam), His expansion (vilāsa), His quadruple expansion (vyūha), and so on, according to the gradation of His potency and manifestation, just as according to the level of the argument on a particular treatise, a learned scholar, although one, appears as knowing everything, as knowing something, or as knowing little. Therefore, there is no fault here. It should be rather considered that the expansion (aṁśa) is manifested by whole (aṁśī), and not the whole by the expansion. Otherwise, the meaning of all the above statements would be contradictory. This topic should be understood in detail from the Sandarbhas and other texts.

 ==============================
To read the complete book:


So, one is faced with two options: either to somehow try to interpret everything according to this axiomatic (at least in our tradition) statement as our acaryas did or to simply accept the direct meaning of such passages and reinterpret that one statement as the acaryas of other sampradayas did. (Of course, we choose the first option out of allegiance to our sampradaya.) Admittedly, this is less problematic than the issue at hand because Visnu and Krsna are at least the same in terms of their essential nature, which cannot be said of the para and apara prakrtis. 

I think it is unreasonable or even bold statement (without any sastra-sangati) how Gaudiya Vaisnava Acaryas or any other Sampradaya Acaryas (for that matter) interpret any texts when we ourselves haven't received proper training into Vyakarana-Kavya-Kosa-Nyaya-Mimamsa-Vedanta. (BTW Srila Jiva Gosvami did not compose Sandarbhas only for Gaudiya Vaisnavas) I request your goodself to present arguments, try to analyze sastras as any traditional scholars would do (through Guru-parampara) and then come to any unambiguous conclusions. That would be befitting an intelligent personality like you. 

Wish you all the best for your journey into traditional learning,

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa


On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 2:51 PM BVKS Sanga wrote:
From "Jay Nityananda Das" 
Date 20-01-2024 14:08:07
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Devotees,

Namo Namah.

>> "none of our acaryas says that sakti and saktiman are literally non-different."

There is no dispute over this, for to accept that sakti and saktiman are equal in all respects is Advaitavada.

However, we need to recognize that sakti is inseparably connected with saktiman in a way that it is impossible to conceive that both are different, at the same time, it is to be recognized that sakti is not equal to saktiman in all respects, and hence we recognize bheda. Let us not underestimate the power of the word "acintya" in all of our discussions, for to think "nothing is inconceivable by conditioned souls" is also another form of illusion. 

Jiva Goswami says (emphasis added):

asmāt svarūpād abhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedaḥ | bhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaś ca pratīyate iti śakti-śaktimator bhedābhedāv evāṅgīkṛtau

"Therefore, because it is impossible to think of the śakti as being non-different from the svarūpa, bheda is apparent. And because it is impossible to think of the śakti as different from the svarūpa, abheda is apparent. As such, bheda and abheda alone must be accepted between the śakti and the śaktimān."

It is to be noted that the words "bhedah" (difference) and  "abhedah" (non-difference) are connected to the word "pratiyate"(it appears so). And this is the proper harmonization of "bheda" vakyas and "abheda" vakyas of Vedic scriptures, as presented by our Gaudiya Acaryas. 

>>I am not sure that this quote can be traced to the extant Pancaratra texts, but I could try to find it. In any case, the fact is that we do not hear anything like this from the Bhagavatam itself or from the Hari-vamsa and the Visnu Purana. All of them speak only of one sakti. (emphasis added)

Many of the statements from Vaisnava Acaryas' Commentaries cannot be traced back to their originals, however, that does not mean we reject them. They are still pramana for us, for recollections of knowers of Vedas is also treated as pramana according to Manu-samhita (2.6). Moreover, Shastra-study has to be undertaken through Guru-parampara Acaryas who are aware of the science of "samanvaya" or harmonization ("tat tu samanvayat" Vedanta-sutra 1.1.4), for without "samanvaya" whole shastra-body will serve no other purpose than "confusion" or, for lack of better word "illusion" (yaya sammohito jivah).

I would request your goodself to not doubt over what our Acaryas have already stated as "Tattva" or fact, but try to understand why they have said so. At the same time, we should try our best to locate exact sastra-pramana for enhancing our sastra-sraddha, however, as Brhaspati said "kevalam sastram asritya na kartavyo vinirnayah / yukti-hina-vicare tu dharma-hanih prajayate", we can't rapidly come to any conclusion reading only one section of sastra and neglect to harmonize it with the large body of sastra (i.e.pada-sangati / adhyaya-sangati / sastra-sangati and so on). For better understanding of "samanvaya", I request everyone (those who can) to study Vedanta-sutras with Govinda-bhasya.      

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa

("Nandagrama" Varnasrama Community Project)



On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 11:39 AM BVKS Sanga wrote:
From "Luke Vanderlinden" 
Date 20-01-2024 11:22:48
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Gaura-Nitai Prabhu,

Dandavat pranams! Jaya Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga! Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to compose such an elaborate reply. Feel free to take your time continuing the conversation. I speak strongly in a few places because by now I am making the same points repeatedly, but you are not getting it. So I am citing different evidence and trying to present the point from different angles of vision, with the hope that somehow, by Krishna's grace, you will understand. I am not a very good preacher, nor do I have much purity, so it's not surprising that I have not been able till now to explain these topics in a way that helps you get over your current misunderstanding. Still, by trying, at least I am getting purified.

So now I will address your main objections. I read both emails but will reply to everything here.

You wrote: "... none of our acaryas says that sakti and saktiman are literally non-different."

Prabhu, please don't mind my pointing out that you are clearly not reading the writings of our acharyas very closely.

Here are three verses, among many, that emphasize the abheda nature of Radha and Krishna. We cannot reject abheda in favor of bheda, nor can we reject bheda in favor of abheda. This is the mystery of acintya-bhedabheda tattva. Please stop twisting this tattva to suit the limited capacity of your intellect. It is not doing you any good, and it will carry you away from the Gaudiya sampradaya.

Evidence #1: CC Adi 1.5

"The loving affairs of Śrī Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are transcendental manifestations of the Lord’s internal pleasure-giving potency. Although Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are one in Their identity, previously They separated Themselves. Now these two transcendental identities have again united, in the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa Caitanya. I bow down to Him, who has manifested Himself with the sentiment and complexion of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī although He is Kṛṣṇa Himself."

The word used here is ekātmānau, eka ātmānau, "both the same in identity."

Evidence #2: CC Adi 4.56

"Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are one and the same, but They have assumed two bodies. Thus They enjoy each other, tasting the mellows of love."

The words used here are rādhā kṛṣṇa eka ātmā. They are one soul in two bodies. This is a statement of tattva, not just a poetic expression.

Evidence #3: CC Adi 4.96

Śrī Rādhā is the full power, and Lord Kṛṣṇa is the possessor of full power. The two are not different, as evidenced by the revealed scriptures.

In this verse, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja explicitly states dui vastu bheda nāi, śāstra-paramāṇa.

They are not two entities. They are ONE. This is the meaning of abheda.

You have cited Srila Jiva Goswami's Bhagavat-sandarbha. Please, I am begging you to actually read this citation and carefully consider what the acharya is saying! Somehow you are not recognizing your half-hen, faulty logic! You state one thing and then cite a pramanam that disproves you! It is quite astonishing.

You wrote: "none of our acaryas says that sakti and saktiman are literally non-different."

But this is exactly what Jiva Goswami says:

asmāt svarūpād abhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedaḥ | bhinnatvena cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaś ca pratīyate iti śakti-śaktimator bhedābhedāv evāṅgīkṛtau

"Therefore, because it is impossible to think of the śakti as being non-different from the svarūpa, bheda is apparent. And because it is impossible to think of the śakti as different from the svarūpa, abheda is apparent. As such, bheda and abheda alone must be accepted between the śakti and the śaktimān."

You say that "Positing literal non-difference would be tantamount to accepting advaitavada..."

We DO accept advaitavada. Brahman-realization is a genuine spiritual attainment, but it is INCOMPLETE realization of the Absolute Truth.

We accept inconceivable oneness (advaitavada) and difference (dvaitavada) and our acharyas have termed this siddhanta acintya-bhedabheda tattva.

Your misunderstanding of this tattva has created all of your confusion.

Regarding shakti-tattva, Radha is the purna-shakti (CC Adi 4.96). All shaktis expand from Her, and as such are nondifferent from Her.

There is no harm in Srila Prabhupada's referring to Durgā as the hladinī-śakti, since Durgā is also a name of Rādhā:

yan-nāmnā nāmnī durgāhaṁ guṇair guṇavatī hy aham |
yad-vaibhavā mahā-lakṣmī rādhā nityāparādvayā

"The name Durga, by which I am known, is Her name. The qualities for which I am famous are Her qualities. The majesty with which I am resplendent is Her majesty. That Maha-Lakshmi, Sri Radha, is nondifferent from Sri Krishna. She is His dearmost sweetheart and the crest-jewel of His beloveds." (Sammohana-tantra, cited by Sri Jiva Goswami in his Brahma-samhita commentary, text 3)

You are putting an ontological limitation in Kṛṣṇa's spiritual energy, claiming it is invisible, cannot be touched, etc. But this is your own mental concoction, please don't mind my saying so.

A clear example is when Aghāsura was killed. Everyone present, even the demigods, saw the ātmā depart Aghāsura's dead corpse and hang in the sky, and then enter Krishna's body. So there is no ontological conundrum like you are positing. This is your own invention, because you aren't accepting the plain teachings of our acharyas regarding the flexible nature of shakti. It acts according to Krishna's will. As soon as we give up our aversion to His will, then we will be under the shelter of daivi-prakrti, the antaranga-shakti. But so long as we oppose His will, we are under the jurisdiction of mahā-maya, the bahiranga-shakti. Thus, His shakti is simultaneously one and different, just as He and His shakti are one and different. We must first understand the real meaning of acintya-bhedabheda tattva. 

Srila Prabhupada gives the analogy of an electrical engineer who can cool or heat using the same electricity. Still the stubborn mind insists, "But are they one? Or are they different?" In this way, we try to intellectually grasp (cintayati) that which is inconceivable (acintyā). We will never get it this way.

I also read your other email with your research work on the identity of Yoganidra. To me it appears that you are giving excess weight to your own interpretation of śāstra, leaving aside the interpretations of our acharyas. We must approach śāstra THROUGH our guru-varga, not separately. Otherwise we will embarrass ourselves, like Vallabhacharya. Please see CC Antya-lila Ch. 7 in this regard.

It is alright to try to directly understand the Sanskrit text of the scriptures, but we must never do this independently of the authorized commentaries. If we neglect the commentaries, we are lost. Therefore, Srila Rupa Goswami advises that we study scripture under the shelter of Sri Guru, and that we always follow the path laid out by the saintly devotees (sādhu-vartmānuvartanam).

If you find some senior Vaisnava who can guide you in your study of Bhagavatam, the Sandarbhas, Brahma-samhita, etc. then you will find all your confusion will be resolved. That is, if you are sincere. Posing questions and doubts are good, but we must not presume to think we know better than the acharyas.

Hare Krishna! Wishing you all the best with your exams

your servant,
Lokarama Dasa

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM BVKS Sanga <bvks....@gmail.com> wrote:
From "Gaura Nitai Dasa"
Date 18-01-2024 21:31:36
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Lokarama Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. 

Thank you for bringing up those quotes from Srila Prabhupada. Although I am currently busy and should probably reply to your email after the exams, I will do so now.

I personally do not find these points to be confusing. But perhaps this is because I am not a very intelligent person.

My confusion regarding Krsna's interactions with nondevotees has nothing to do with my intelligence. Its cause is a philosophical problem which has apparently not been directly addressed by our acaryas. On the other hand, my confusion concerning the relationship between Yogamaya and Durga is a result of the fact that the Bhagavatam does not state anywhere that Yogamaya transformed into her partial, material expansion when she appeared on earth as Yasoda's daughter. Instead, they seem to be the same person just as Visnu and Krsna are the same person in slightly different forms. Hari-vamsa and Visnu Purana support the conclusion that Yogamaya is none other than Yoganidra, who is just one of Durga's forms (or perhaps the main one). I will present the relevant textual evidence after I make some comments on your quotes.

On Krishna appearing to materialistic persons

Māyā-manuṣyasya (10.1.17). Because of being covered by yoga-māyā (nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ), Kṛṣṇa is sometimes called māyā-manuṣya, indicating that although He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He appears like an ordinary person. A misunderstanding arises because yoga-māyā covers the vision of the general public. The Lord’s position is actually different from that of an ordinary person, for although He appears to act like an ordinary man, He is always transcendental. The word māyā also indicates “mercy,” and sometimes it also means “knowledge.” The Lord is always full of all transcendental knowledge, and therefore although He acts like a human being, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full of knowledge. In His original identity, the Lord is the controller of māyā (mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram). Therefore the Lord may be called māyā-manuṣya, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead playing like an ordinary human being, although He is the controller of both the material and spiritual energies. The Lord is the Supreme Person, Puruṣottama, but because we are deluded by yoga-māyā, He appears to be an ordinary person. Ultimately, however, yoga-māyā induces even a nondevotee to understand the Lord as the Supreme Person, Puruṣottama. In Bhagavad-gītā we find two statements given by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For the devotees, the Lord says:

teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ
bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ
yena mām upayānti te

“To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.” (Bg. 10.10) Thus for the willing devotee the Lord gives intelligence by which to understand Him and return home, back to Godhead. For others, for nondevotees, the Lord says, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham: “I am all-plundering, inevitable death.” A devotee like Prahlāda enjoys the activities of Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva, whereas nondevotees like Prahlāda’s father, Hiraṇyakaśipu, meet death before Lord Nṛsiṁhadeva. The Lord therefore acts in two ways, by sending some onto the path of repeated birth and death and sending others back home, back to Godhead.

This quotation obviously does not directly address my question regarding the interactions involving the Lord's spiritual body and the material bodies of nondevotees. As for the references to Yogamaya, I would like to make the following observation. We hear that Yogamaya controls liberated souls while Mahamaya controls conditioned souls. That is because the former is supposed to be the Lord's spiritual energy and the latter His material energy. This leads us to ask the following question: If that is so, how come that Krsna says that the conditioned souls' vision of Him is covered by Yogamaya? After all, they are covered by the material energy, not by the spiritual energy. Therefore, it logically follows that the word yogamaya in the naham prakasah sarvasya verse refers to material nature.

On the relationship between Yoga-māyā and Durgā

The word kāryārthe refers to one who attracted the pregnancy of Devakī and bewildered mother Yaśodā. These pastimes are very confidential. The Supreme Personality of Godhead ordered Yoga-māyā to bewilder His associates in His pastimes and bewilder demons like Kaṁsa. As stated previously, yoga-māyāṁ samādiśat. To give service to the Lord, Yoga-māyā appeared along with Mahā-māyā. Mahā-māyā refers to yayā sammohitaṁ jagat, “one who bewilders the entire material world.” From this statement it is to be understood that Yoga-māyā, in her partial expansion, becomes Mahā-māyā and bewilders the conditioned souls. In other words, the entire creation has two divisions — transcendental, or spiritual, and material. Yoga-māyā manages the spiritual world, and by her partial expansion as Mahā-māyā she manages the material world.

As I wrote above, there is no mention in the original text of Yogamaya appearing with Mahamaya. We only hear about Yogamaya. The verse under discussion (10.1.25) speaks of Yogamaya as Bhagavati, Visnu's maya who bewilders the (material) world. It is not stated that some kind of her partial expansion does that.

As stated in the Nārada-pañcarātra, Mahā-māyā is a partial expansion of Yoga-māyā. The Nārada-pañcarātra clearly states that the Supreme Personality has one potency, which is sometimes described as Durgā.


Srila Prabhupada here refers to the following part of Visvanatha Cakravarti 's commentary:

The Śruti Vidyā of Nārada Pañcarātra states that mahāmāyā is an expansion of yogamāyā: “Yogamāyā is the svarūpa-śakti of Lord Viṣṇu. She is completely surrendered and unswerving in devotion to the Lord. Her nature is prema and she rules over Gokula like a queen. One immediately attains the Lord by her mercy. Her āvaraṇikā-śakti is mahāmāyā, the controller of the material realm. By her influence all jīvas identify with their bodies and become bewildered. Mahāmāyā is also called Durgā, Eka or Ekānaṃśā.”

I am not sure that this quote can be traced to the extant Pancaratra texts, but I could try to find it. In any case, the fact is that we do not hear anything like this from the Bhagavatam itself or from the Hari-vamsa and the Visnu Purana. All of them speak only of one sakti.

The Brahma-saṁhitā says, chāyeva yasya bhuvanāni bibharti durgā. Durgā is not different from Yoga-māyā. When one understands Durgā properly, he is immediately liberated, for Durgā is originally the spiritual potency, hlādinī-śakti, by whose mercy one can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. Rādhā kṛṣṇa-praṇaya-vikṛtir hlādinī-śaktir asmād. The mahā-māyā-śakti, however, is a covering of Yoga-māyā, and she is therefore called the covering potency. By this covering potency, the entire material world is bewildered ( yayā sammohitaṁ jagat).

I find this part quite confusing. We usually hear of Radha as being the hladini-sakti, not Durga, who is supposed to be identical with Mahamaya. So, the only way to equate Durga and Yogamaya that I can think of would be to say that both of those names refer to the material energy.

In conclusion, bewildering the conditioned souls and liberating the devotees are both functions belonging to Yoga-māyā. Transferring the pregnancy of Devakī and keeping mother Yaśodā in deep sleep were both done by Yoga-māyā. Mahā-māyā cannot act upon such devotees, for they are always liberated. But although it is not possible for Mahā-māyā to control liberated souls or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, she did bewilder Kaṁsa. The action of Yoga-māyā in presenting herself before Kaṁsa was the action of Mahā-māyā, not Yoga-māyā. Yoga-māyā cannot even see or touch such polluted persons as Kaṁsa. In Caṇḍī, in the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, Eleventh Chapter, Mahā-māyā says, “During the twenty-eighth yuga in the period of Vaivasvata Manu, I shall take birth as the daughter of Yaśodā and be known as Vindhyācala-vāsinī.”

The distinction between the two māyās — Yoga-māyā and Mahā-māyā — is described as follows. Kṛṣṇa’s rāsa-līlā with the gopīs and the gopīs’ bewilderment in respect to their husbands, fathers-in-law and other such relatives were arrangements of Yoga-māyā in which Mahā-māyā had no influence. The Bhāgavatam gives sufficient evidence of this when it clearly says, yoga-māyām upāśritaḥ. On the other hand, there were asuras headed by Śālva and kṣatriyas like Duryodhana who were bereft of devotional service in spite of seeing Kṛṣṇa’s carrier Garuḍa and the universal form, and who could not understand Kṛṣṇa to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This was also bewilderment, but this bewilderment was due to mahā-māyā. Therefore it is to be concluded that the māyā which drags a person from the Supreme Personality of Godhead is called jaḍa-māyā, and the māyā which acts on the transcendental platform is called yoga-māyā. When Nanda Mahārāja was taken away by Varuṇa, he saw Kṛṣṇa’s opulence, but nonetheless he thought of Kṛṣṇa as his son. Such feelings of parental love in the spiritual world are acts of yoga-māyā, not of jaḍa-māyā, or mahā-māyā. This is the opinion of Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura.

I have nothing special to say here. It is logical that liberated souls should be under the control of the spiritual energy and that the material energy should control conditioned souls.

Now, it is time to look at the relevant texts. Although I should start this analysis with the Hari-vamsa, I will first say something about the Bhagavatam version of the story of Krsna's birth and its relation to Yogamaya. We are told that Yogamaya appeared as Yasoda's daughter not personally, but as her partial expansion Mahamaya. However, if we look at the original text, we will see that Visnu explicitly refers to Balarama as His amsa and He seemingly does the same in Krsna's case. He does not say that in relation to Yogamaya. Instead, He directly tells her that she should appear as Yasoda's daughter, that humans will worship her with animal sacrifices and that she will be known under various names such as Durga, Ambika, Vaisnavi, Madhavi, Narayani, Maya, Candika, etc. Moreover, verse 10.3.47 explicitly states that Yogamaya rather than Mahamaya took birth as Yasoda's daughter. 

Moving on to the Hari-vamsa, I will first address Yoganidra's first and most significant appearance in the story. Following Visnu's victory over Kalanemi in Chapter Forty-eight, Chapter Fifty of the First Book of the Hari-vamsa describes how Visnu went back to Narayanasrama and fell into his creative sleep (yoganidra). The following verses clarify who this Yoganidra (or, simply, Nidra) is.

lokānāmantakālajñā kālī nayanaśālinī | 
upatasthe mahātmānaṁ nidrā taṁ kālarūpiṇī ||1.50.8||

8. The death-like sleep, having dark eyes and being informed of the last days of men, appeared before that high-sould deity.

na taṁ veda svayaṁ brahmā nāpi brahmarṣayo'vyayāḥ | 
viṣṇornidrāmayaṁ yogaṁ praviṣṭaṁ tamasāvṛtam ||1.50.15||

15. Even Brahma and all the brahmarsis are not familiar with this dark yoga made of sleep which Visnu has entered.

yā hyeṣā gahvarā māyā nidreti jagati sthitā | 
sākasmād dveṣiṇī ghorā kālarātrirmahīkṣitām ||1.50.27||
tasyāstanustamodvārā niśā divasanāśinī | 
jīvitārdhaharā ghorā sarvaprāṇabhṛtāṁ bhuvi ||1.50.28||
naitayā kaścidāviṣṭo jambhamāṇo muhurmuhuḥ | 
śaktaḥ prasahituṁ vegaṁ majanniva mahārṇave ||1.50.29||
annajā bhuvi mānāṁ śramajā vā kathaṁcana | 
saiṣā bhavati lokasya nidrā sarvasya laukikī ||1.50.30||
svapnānte kṣīyate hyeṣā prāyaśo bhuvi dehinām | 
mṛtyukāle ca bhūtānāṁ prāṇān nāśayate bhṛśam ||1.50.31||
deveṣvapi dadhāraināṁ nānyo nārāyaṇādṛte | 
sakhī sarvaharasyaiṣā māyā viṣṇuśarīrajā ||1.50.32||
saiṣā nārāyaṇamukhe dṛṣṭā kamalalocanā | 
lokānalpena kālena grasate lokamohinī ||1.50.33||
evam eṣā hitārthāya lokānāṁ kṛṣṇa-vartmanā | 
dhriyate sevanīyā hi patyeva ca pativratā ||1.50.34||
sa tayā nidrayā cchannas tasmin nārāyaṇāśrame | 
svapiti sma tadā viṣṇur mohayañ jagad avyayaḥ ||1.50.35||

27. The illusion of darkness, sleep, that exists in the world and that is like a night of death to the kings, brings ruination upon them who kill one another by fighting.

28. By its body of darkness it destroys the nights and days. And this dreadful illusion pilfers half of the life of all creatures in the world.

29. Being possessed by this sleep and yawning repeatedly some people cannot bear its power as if they are almost drowned in a vast ocean.

30. This sleep, engendered by the food or toil of the mortals in this world, does not conduce to the well-being of all.

31. It grows enfeebled after the termination of the dream of creatures in this world; and this, at the time of their death, destroys all their vital airs.

32. Amongst the gods, none, but Narayana, can withstand the power of this sleep. This Maya or illusion is the female companion, begotten by his own body, of Vishnu who destroys all.

33. That one, of lotus eyes, was seen on the face of Narayana. This one, who stupifies all the creatures, eats up all the worlds in no time.

34. For the behoof of mankind she is kept by Vishnu. She is adored of all as a chaste lady serves her husband.

35. Being possessed by this sleep and having stupified the eternal world the Lord Vishnu slept in the Narayana hermitage.

I think that the above quotes leave no doubt as to her identity: Nidra is none other than Visnu's maya-sakti. Moreover, their relationship seems more intimate than one would expect it to be given that her nature is radically different from His.

Now, we come to the preparations for Krsna's appearance. It would be best for you and anyone else who is interested in this topic to read M. N. Dutt's translation of Chapter Two of Book Two, more precisely, the part that begins at verse 24 and runs until the end. I will summarise the important points.


Here is the Sanskrit of the first sevnteen verses of that section:

vaiśaṁpāyana uvāca—
jagāmātha tato viṣṇuḥ pātālaṁ yatra te’surāḥ |
ṣaḍgarbhāḥ saṁyatāḥ santi jale garbhagṛheśayāḥ ||2-2-24
sandadarśa jale suptān ṣaḍgarbhān garbha-saṁsthitān |
nidrayā kāla-rūpiṇyā sarvān antarhitān sa vai ||2-2-25
svapna-rūpeṇa teṣāṁ vai viṣṇur dehān athāviśat |
prāṇeśvarāṁś ca niṣkṛṣya nidrāyai pradadau tadā ||2-2-26
tāṁ covāca tato nidrāṁ viṣṇuḥ satya-parākramaḥ |
gaccha nidre mayotsṛṣṭā devakī-bhavanāntikam ||2-2-27
imān prāṇeśvarān gṛhya ṣaḍ-garbhān dānavottamān |
sarva-prāṇeśvarāṁś caiva ṣāḍgarbhān nāma dehinaḥ |
ṣaḍgarbhān devakī-garbhe yojayasva yathā-kramam ||2-2-28
jāteṣv eteṣu garbheṣu nīteṣu ca yama-kṣayam |
kaṁsasya viphale yatne devakyāḥ saphale śrame ||2-2-29
prasādaṁ te kariṣyāmi mat-prabhāva-samaṁ bhuvi |
yena sarvasya lokasya devi devī bhaviṣyasi ||2-2-30
saptamo devakī-garbho yo’ṁśaḥ saumyo mamāgrajaḥ |
sa saṁkrāmayitavyas te saptame māsi rohiṇīm ||2-2-31
saṁkarṣaṇāt tu garbhasya sa tu saṁkarṣaṇo yuvā |
bhaviṣyaty agrajo bhrātā mama śītāṁśu-darśanaḥ ||2-2-32
patito devakīgarbhaḥ saptamo’yaṁ bhayāditi |
aṣṭame mayi garbhasthe kaṁso yatnaṁ kariṣyati ||2-2-33
yā tu sā nanda-gopasya dayitā bhuvi viśrutā |
yaśodā nāma bhadraṁ te bhāryā gopa-kulodvahā ||2-2-34
asyās tvaṁ navamo garbhaḥ kule’smākaṁ bhaviṣyasi |
navamyām eva saṁjātā kṛṣṇa-pakṣasya vai tithau ||2-2-35
ahaṁ tv abhijito yoge niśāyāṁ yauvane sthite |
ardha-rātre kariṣyāmi garbha-mokṣaṁ yathā-sukham ||2-2-36
aṣṭamasya tu māsasya jātāv āvāṁ tataḥ samam |
prāpsyāvo garbha-vyatyāsaṁ prāpte kaṁsasya nāśane ||2-2-37
ahaṁ yaśodāṁ yāsyāmi tvaṁ devi bhaja devakīm |
āvayor garbha-saṁyoge kaṁso gacchatu mūḍhatām ||2-2-38
tatas tvāṁ gṛhya caraṇe śilāyāṁ pātayiṣyati |
nirasyamānā gagane sthānaṁ prāpsyasi śāśvatam ||2-2-39
mac-chavī-sadṛśī kṛṣṇā saṁkarṣaṇa-samānanā |
bibhratī vipulau bāhū mama bāhūpamau divi ||2-2-40

In a nutshell, here is what happens. Visnu goes to the lower planets in order to extract Sadgarbhas' vital airs and leaves them in Nidra’s care. He tells her to transfer them to Devaki’s womb one by one. He orders her to transport Balarama from Devaki’s to Rohini's womb. He tells her that they will be born at the same time (or maybe not): Visnu as Devaki's child and Nidra as Yasoda's daughter. After Kamsa’s unsuccessful attempt at killing her, she will go to Svarga and be adopted by Indra as his sister. She will then come to the Vindhyas and kill the demons Sumbha and Nisumbha. Since she is fond of meat, people will offer her animal sacrifices on navamis. She will confer various boons on them. As for her appearance, she will wear blue clothes, a yellow belt, a shining necklace and celestial earrings. She will hold a trident, a sword, a cup of wine and a lotus. Evidently, we are talking about Durga here. Chapter Three, the so-called Āryā-stava is also interesting, though P. L. Vaidya notes in his critical edition that all but the first few verses of this chapter are a later interpolation. 

Chapter Four describes Krsna's and Ekanamsa's births. Later in the chapter we find three interesting verses which do not appear in all manuscripts, but they fit nicely with the last quotation from the Hari-vamsa I will cite.

sā kanyā vavṛdhe tatra vṛṣṇīsaṅghasupūjitā |
putravatpālyamānā sā vasudevājñayā tadā ||2-4-46
viddhi caināmathotpannāmamśāddevīṁ prajāpateḥ |
ekānaṁśāṁ yogakanyāṁ rakṣārthaṁ keśavasya tu ||2-4-47
tāṁ vai sarve sumanasaḥ pūjayanti sma yādavāḥ |
devavaddivya-vapuṣā kṛṣṇaḥ saṁrakṣito yayā ||2-4-48
 
46. That girl (Ekanamsha), worshipped by Vrishnis, grew up there. By the command of their kings the gods brought her up like a child.

47. That daughter, who was formerly created by Brahma through his yoga, was born with the Lord for protecting Keshava.

48. The Yadavas daily worship her, who in her celestial form, protected Krishna.

Finally, we come to Ekanamsa's sudden appearance in the Yadus' assembly hall after Krsna's victory over Narakasura. Given that she had gone to Svarga after her encounter with Kamsa, it is unclear how she reappeared among the Yadus out of the blue. What is even more curious is that this story finds no mention in either the Visnu or the Bhagavata Purana. This fits well with the scholarly consensus that Hari-vamsa was written before those two Puranas because we know based on material evidence that the so-called Vrsni triads consisting of Ekanamsa flanked by Krsna and Balarama were very popular around the beginning of the Common Era but they fell out of fashion afterwards. I am not saying that they are necessarily right about that, but I am simply making an observation that the said fact fits with their narrative. I think that hardly anyone has heard of Ekanamsa nowadays. I had not known anything about her before I came across some articles on her. Dutt apparently did not know about her either because he did not realise that Ekanamsa is a proper name so he translated it.

tataḥ prāptā narāgryau tu tasyāḥ sā duhitā tadā |
ekānaṁśeti yām āhur narā vai kāma-rūpiṇīm ||2-101-11
tathā kṣaṇa-muhūrtābhyāṁ yathā jajñe sureśvaraḥ |
yat-kṛte sagaṇaṁ kaṁsaṁ jaghāna puruṣottamaḥ ||2-101-12
sā kanyā vavṛdhe tatra vṛṣṇi-sadmani pūjitā |
putravat pālyamānā vai vāsudevājñayā tadā ||2-101-13
ekānaṁśeti yām āhur utpannāṁ mānavā bhuvi |
yoga-kanyāṁ durādharṣāṁ rakṣārthaṁ keśavasya ha ||2-101-14
yāṁ vai sarve sumanasaḥ pūjayanti sma yādavāḥ |
devavad divya-puruṣaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ saṁrakṣito yathā ||2-101-15
tāṁ ca tatropasaṅgamya priyām iva sakhīṁ svasām |
dakṣiṇena karāgreṇa parijagrāha mādhavaḥ ||2-101-16
tathaiva rāmo’tibalaḥ sampariṣvajya bhāvinīm |
mūrdhny upāghrāya savyena pratijagrāha pāṇinā ||2-101-17
dadṛśus tāḥ striyo madhye bhaginīṁ rāma-kṛṣṇayoḥ |
rukma-padma-vyagra-karāṁ striyaṁ padmālayām iva ||2-101-18

11-18 Thereupon, the illusory daughter of Yashoda, whom the people call Ekanamsha, with whom Krishna, the king of gods, was born at the same moment and for whom he slew Kamsa with his relatives, appeared before Krishna and Rama, the foremost of men. Up to this time she was being adored in the Vrishni family and was being brought up and maintained like a daughter. She, whom the people of the world know as the irrepressible Yogakanya and Ekanamsha, was born for the protection of Keshava. Because she protected Keshava with her goddess-like celestial body, the Yadavas used to worship her with great pleasure. As soon as she entered the hall, Madhava approached her, like unto a man his beloved female friend and held her by the hand. The highly powerful Rama too held her by his right hand, embraced her and smelt her head. The Vrishni women then saw her between her two brothers Rama and Krishna like unto the goddess Shri, with golden lotuses in her hands and seated on a lotus too. 

The conclusions we can draw from the textual evidence in the Hari-vamsa is that Yoganidra is material nature herself and that she plays the same role in Krsna's pastimes as the person under the name of Yogamaya does in the Bhagavatam. Significantly, the word yogamaya appears only once in the whole of the Hari-vamsa (1.41.174). However, since it is used in the plural, Dutt's translation "illusive sports" seems to be more or less accurate. 

Nevertheless, I managed to find one verse where the words maya and yoga are used separately but they form one unit in terms of their meaning. It could be argued that we are dealing with the Lord's spiritual energy here, but I do not see how that fits with His descent to this world. In any case, the meaning of the verses I have already quoted seems quite clear as far as Nidra’s identity is concerned.

chādayitvātmanātmānaṁ māyayā yoga-rūpayā | 
tatrāvatara lokānāṁ bhavāya madhusūdana ||1.55.40||

Then covering thyself with the illusion in the form of yoga, O Madhusudana, do you go there for the well-being of the world.

Next, we have Visnu Purana's account of Krsna's appearance:

5.1.60-61 
śrī-parāśara uvāca 
evaṁ saṁstūyamānas tu bhagavān parameśvaraḥ 
ujjahārātmanaḥ keśau sita-kṛṣṇau mahā-mune  
uvāca ca surān etau mat-keśau vasudhā-tale 
avatīrya bhuvo bhāra-kleśa-hāniṁ kariṣyataḥ     

Śrī Parāśara continued: Thus praised, the Lord, the supreme controller, raised two hairs from Himself, one white and one black, O great sage. Then He addressed the gods: “These two hairs of Mine will descend on Earth and relieve her of the burden of her distress. 

5.1.62-63 
surāś ca sakalāḥ svāṁśair avatīrya mahī-tale 
kurvantu yuddham unmattaiḥ pūrvotpannair mahāsuraiḥ     
tataḥ kṣayam aśeṣās te daiteyā dharaṇī-tale 
prayāsyanti na saṁdeho mad-dṛk-pāta-vicūrṇitāḥ     

“Moreover, all the gods will descend on Earth as their respective aṁśas and wage war against those big haughty asuras who have taken birth. Then all those demons on the face of the Earth will perish by the withering glance of My eyes. There is no doubt about it.

5.1.70-71 
hiraṇyakaśipoḥ putrāḥ ṣaḍgarbhā iti viśrutāḥ 
viṣṇu-prayuktā tān nidrā kramād garbhān ayojayat     
yoga-nidrā mahā-māyā vaiṣṇavī mohitaṁ 
yayā avidyayā jagat sarvaṁ tām āha bhagavān hariḥ  

Those sons were formerly Hiraṇyakaśipu’s sons, well known by the name ṣaḍ-garbha (six sons). Ordered by Viṣṇu, Nidrā had placed them in Devakī’s womb one after the other. Yoganidrā, also called Mahā-māyā and Vaiṣṇavī, is she by the agency of whom the whole world is bewildered by ignorance. Lord Hari had given her directives.

5.1.72-75 
śrī-bhagavān uvāca 
nidre gaccha mamādeśāt pātāla-tala-saṁśrayān 
ekaikatvena ṣaḍgarbhān devakī-jaṭharaṁ naya     
hateṣu teṣu kaṁsena śeṣākhyoṁśas tato mama 
aṁśāṁśenodare tasyāḥ saptamaḥ sambhaviṣyati     
gokule vasudevasya bhāryānyā rohiṇī sthitā 
tasyāḥ sa sambhūti-samaṁ devi neyas tvayodaram     
saptamo bhoja-rājasya bhayād rodhoparodhataḥ 
devakyāḥ patito garbha iti loko vadiṣyati     

The Lord had said: “Nidrā, on My order, you must depart. One by one, transfer the ṣaḍ-garbhas, currently in Pātāla, to Devakī’s womb. Once they are killed by Kaṁsa, My aṁśa known as Śeṣa will become the seventh child in her womb, as an aṁśa of an aṁśa. In Gokula is another wife of Vasudeva, called Rohiṇī. Transfer that seventh fetus, O goddess, to her womb in such a way that the growth will appear to be the same. Then people will say, “Devakī had a miscarriage due to fear of Kaṁsa, because of her detention in an enclosed dwelling.” 

5.1.76-78 
garbha-saṁkarṣaṇāt so ’tha loke saṁkarṣaṇeti vai 
saṁjñām avāpsyate vīraḥ śvetādri-śikharopamaḥ     
tato ’haṁ sambhaviṣyāmi devakī-jaṭhare śubhe 
garbhaṁ tvayā yaśodāyā gantavyam avilambitam     
prāvṛṭ-kāle ca nabhasi kṛṣṇāṣṭamyām ahaṁ niśi 
utpatsyāmi navamyāṁ tu prasūtiṁ tvam avāpsyasi

“He will be called Saṅkarṣaṇa, since he will be drawn out (saṅkarṣaṇa) of the womb. He will become valiant, and his complexion will resemble the top of a white mountain. I will take birth afterward in Devakī’s womb, O beautiful one. You should obtain a birth from Yaśodā without delay. In the rainy season, during the month of Śrāvaṇa, on the eighth lunar day of the dark fortnight, I will be born at night. And you will take birth on the ninth day. 

5.1.79-81 
yaśodā-śayane māṁ tu devakyās 
tvām anindite mac-chakti-prerita-matir vasudevo nayiṣyati     
kaṁsaś ca tvām upādāya devi śaila-śilā-tale 
prakṣepsyaty antarikṣe ca saṁsthānaṁ tvam avāpsyasi     
tatas tvāṁ śatadṛk-chakraḥ praṇamya mama gauravāt 
praṇipātānata-śirā bhaginītve grahīṣyati     

“O blameless one, Vasudeva, whose mind is impelled by My potency, will put Me on Yaśodā’s bed and you on Devakī’s. Kaṁsa will take you, O goddess, and throw you on a slab of stone, but you will appear high in the air. At that time, Indra, who has hundreds of eyes, will show great respect to you out of reverence for Me: He will venerate you by bowing his head and consider you to be his sister. 

5.1.82-83 
tvaṁ ca śumbha-niśumbhādīn hatvā daityān sahasraśaḥ 
sthānair anekaiḥ pṛthivīm aśeṣāṁ maṇḍayiṣyasi     
tvaṁ bhūtiḥ sannatiḥ kṣāntiḥ kāntir dyauḥ pṛthivī dhṛtiḥ 
lajjā puṣṭī ruṣā yā tu kācid anyā tvam eva sā    

“In the course of time, after killing evil beings such as Śumbha and Niśumbha, you will adorn the entire Earth with thousands of abodes [as Durgā]. You are bhūti (wealth), sannati (humility), kṣānti (tolerance), kānti (splendor), div (the heavens), pṛthivī (the Earth), dhṛti (fortitude), lajjā (bashfulness), puṣṭi (nourishment), and ruṣā (anger). Whatever other feminine characteristic there is is you. 

5.1.84-85 
ye tvām āryeti durgeti veda-garbhāmbiketi ca 
bhadreti bhadra-kālīti kṣema-dā bhāgya-deti ca     
prātaś caivāparāhṇe ca stoṣyanty ānamra-mūrtayaḥ 
teṣāṁ hi prārthitaṁ sarvaṁ mat-prasādād bhaviṣyati 

“Those who bow to you and who praise you in the morning and in the late afternoon by addressing you as Āryā, Durgā, Vedagarbhā, Ambikā, Bhadrā, Bhadrakālī, Kṣemadā, and Bhāgyadā will have all their desires fulfilled by My grace. 

5.1.86-87 
surā-māṁsopahāraiś ca bhakṣya-bhojyaiś ca pūjitā 
nṛṇām aśeṣa-kāmāṁs tvaṁ prasannā saṁpradāsyasi     
te sarve sarvadā bhadre mat-prasādād asaṁśayam 
asaṁdigdhā bhaviṣyanti gaccha devi yathoditam 

“You will be revered with liquor, meat, gifts, edibles and delicacies. Thus satisfied, you will fulfill mankind’s desires. By My grace, O Bhadrā, all of them will always have doubtless faith in you. Now go, Devī, and carry out My order.”

5.2.1-3 
śrī-parāśara uvāca 
yathoktaṁ sā jagad-dhātrā deva-devena vai tathā 
ṣaḍgarbha-garbha-vinyāsaṁ cakre cānyasya karṣaṇam     
saptame rohiṇīṁ garbhe prāpte garbhaṁ tato hariḥ 
loka-trayopakārāya devakyāḥ praviveśa ha    
yoganidrā yaśodāyās tasminn eva tathā dine 
sambhūtā jaṭhare tadvad yathoktaṁ parameṣṭhinā     

Śrī Parāśara continued: Just as she was told by the god of gods, the mother of the universe placed the ṣaḍ-garbhas in Devakī’s womb and transferred the other fetus. When that seventh fetus was in Rohiṇī, Hari entered Devakī’s womb as a favor to the three worlds. And on that day, Yoganidrā became manifest in Yaśodā’s womb, in accordance with the Supreme Lord’s instructions. 

5.2.4 
tato graha-gaṇaḥ samyak pracacāra divi dvija 
viṣṇor aṁśe bhuvaṁ yāte ṛtavaś cābabhuḥ śubhāḥ     

Then, O Brāhmaṇa, once Viṣṇu’s aṁśa had gone to Earth, the course of the planets became eminent in the sky, and the seasons turned out resplendent. 

5.3.15-16
śrī-parāśara uvāca
ity uktvā bhagavāṁs tūṣṇīṁ babhūva muni-sattama
vasudevo ’pi taṁ rātrāv ādāya prayayau bahiḥ
mohitāś cābhavaṁs tatra rakṣiṇo yoga-nidrayā
mathurā-dvāra-pālāś ca vrajaty ānakadundubhau
Śrī Parāśara continued: After saying this, the Lord remained silent, O best of sages. Vasudeva too kept quiet. He took Hari and set out to go outside at night. The guards there and the gate-keepers of Mathurā were deluded by Yoganidrā when Ānakadundubhi was on his way out.

5.3.20-23
tasmin kāle yaśodāpi mohitā yoga-nidrayā
tām eva kanyāṁ maitreya prasūtā mohite jane
vasudevo ’pi vinyasya bālam ādāya dārikām
yaśodā-śayanāt tūrṇam ājagāmāmita-dyutiḥ 
dadṛśe ca prabuddhā sā yaśodā jātam ātmajam
nīlotpala-dala-śyāmaṁ tato ’tyarthaṁ mudaṁ yayau 
ādāya vasudevo ’pi dārikāṁ nija-mandire
devakī-śayane nyasya yathā-pūrvam atiṣṭhata

At that time, even Yaśodā was deluded by Yoganidrā. She gave birth only to that girl, after the people became deluded, O Maitreya. Vasudeva, whose radiance was not slight, put his boy down, took the baby girl from Yaśodā’s bed and briskly returned. Upon awakening, Yaśodā saw that a son had taken birth. He was the color of a dark blue lotus petal. Then she became exceedingly delighted. After taking the little girl to his dwelling, Vasudeva placed her on Devakī’s bed and remained as before.

As you can see, Visnu is talking here with Yoganidra, just like in the Hari-vamsa. Moreover, verse 5.1.71 makes it clear that she is the material nature herself. We even have the name Mahamaya there. Interestingly, the last two groups of verses show that Yoganidra deluded both the gatekeepers and Yasoda, which contradicts the logical idea that Mahamaya cannot touch pure devotees. The word yogamaya does not occur in the Visnu Purana at all (I am excluding the erroneous reading yogamāyām in 5.17.14 because the proper reading is yogī māyām).

Returning to the Bhagavatam, the name Yoganidra occurs twice in the Bhagavatam: in 10.2.15, where it is said that she transferred Balarama to Rohini's womb, and in 10.4.29, where it is stated that she was the one who spoke to Kamsa after he tried to kill her. The obvious conclusion is that Yogamaya is just another name of hers that is more frequent in the Bhagavatam for some reason.

The overall conclusion we can draw from the presented evidence is that Yoganidra is Visnu's material energy, that she played an important role in His pastimes and that Yogamaya is just one of her names. Her identity with Durga is unmistakable. The theological implications of this conclusion are certainly not negligible, but I have no time to consider them. 

I will not be able to reply to any comments on this for a certain period of time because of the obligations that I have. Of course, I think you will need some time to digest all this anyway.

Your servant,
Gaura Nitai Dasa 

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:11 PM BVKS Sanga wrote:
From "Gaura Nitai Dasa" 
Date 12-01-2024 19:27:37
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Prabhuji,

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. However, I am afraid that you did not exactly understand the crux of the issue. There is no problem with the fact that Krishna controls the material world through the agency of the Paramatma and the other purushavataras. Since He is the omnipotent controller of the material nature, it is easy for Him to do so. However, the point is that we cannot see Him because we are conditioned souls who cannot perceive spirit. Thus, the question arises: How could ordinary people perceive Him and interact with Him unless He used some sort of a material double? 

As I explained in one of my emails, I do not see any other way to account for those interactions because we would either end up with the unacceptable idea that the Lord assumes a material body (which does not affect Him) in order to interact with the conditioned souls or with the conclusion that His prakata-lila was actually imperceptible for ordinary people and hence virtually indistinguishable from His aprakata-lila. The question of what happens to His associates when they descend together with Him is also there, but I do not want to repeat what I have already written. The gist is that the issue is anything but simple.

As regards your comparison in the last paragraph, I am afraid that it misses the point. Yes, a jiva can control its gross body with the help of the subtle body which links those two and the Lord can do much more than that, but this has nothing to do with the issue of perceiving spiritual beings, which is factually impossible for the conditioned souls. We cannot even perceive ghosts and higher living beings which only have subtle material bodies, let alone something which is not material at all.

Lastly, I might add that there is evidence in the Hari-vamsha and the Vishnu Purana to suggest that the supposed distinction between Yogamaya and Durga is actually a terminological misconception, but I currently have no time to write about that since I have to prepare for the exam term. For now, I will simply say that I assume that I am probably not the only one who has always been confused with Yogamaya's apparent transformation into Durga when Kamsa tries to kill her.

Your servant, 
Gaura Nitai Dasa

BVKS Sanga

unread,
Jan 31, 2024, 8:11:29 AM1/31/24
to BVKS Sanga
From "Gaura Nitai Dasa" 
Date 21-01-2024 19:40:22
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Jaya Nityananda Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Thank you for making another contribution to the discussion. As regards your comment on acintya-bhedabheda, that is exactly what I have been trying to tell to Lokarama Prabhu all this time. I do not understand why he is stressing abheda so much and attributing to me the intention of trying to dismiss abheda in favour of bheda. Everything I wrote in that respect is based on my readings of Srila Prabhupada's books. There is no literal non-difference between Bhagavan and His saktis, but only in the sense that the saktis depend on Him for their existence and are thus inseparably connected with Him. The devotee from whose site I copied the quote from Jiva Gosvami which I cited says the same thing in his article on the differences between visistadvaita and acintya-bhedabheda:

The difference between Bhagavān and Brahman is that of perception. Bhagavān is the viśiṣṭa or qualified reality, while Brahman is the unqualified reality, but reality is only one. This theology, then, appears similar to the viśiṣṭa advaita tattva of Śrī Rāmānujachārya (advaita means non-dual). However, Śrī Jīva has proposed that Absolute Reality is acintya bheda-abheda tattva. What’s the difference between these two theologies?

As we discussed in a previous article, an example of a viśeṣaṇa is the redness of a red rose. The redness inheres in the rose, and cannot be separated from it. This type of relation is called saṁvāya saṁbandha in nyāya. The brilliance of Śrī Jīva was in recognizing a potential problem with considering everything in existence as a viśeṣaṇa of Bhagavān. For example, Śrī Rāmānujachārya considers the material world as a viśeṣaṇa of Bhagavān. If the world is related to Bhagavān in a similar way as the redness of the rose, then the negative, inferior qualities of the material world become an inherent quality of Bhagavān. This, however, is not correct. Furthermore, the material world continually transforms, which would then mean that Bhagavān will transform but that is not the case. Bhagavān remains as He is, while His śakti, this world, can transform.

This is one purpose for why Śrī Jīva proposed acintya bheda-abheda tattva. The material world does not inhere in Him unlike redness which inheres in the rose. The material world is not a viśeṣaṇa of Bhagavān, because it does not inhere in Bhagavān; it is different from His svarūpa. This is bheda.

However, the material world is also a type of śakti of Bhagavān, and is dependent on Him for its existence. Therefore, it is a type of viśeṣaṇa of Bhagavān; here the word viśeṣaṇa carries the meaning of śakti. In this sense, there is abheda.


Speaking of that devotee, he also quotes this passage from Sarva-samvadini on either anuccheda 78 or 79 of Paramatma-sandarbha where Jiva Gosvami first introduces the term acintya-bhedabheda. Could you please explain the part that begins with "They accept" and runs until the end of the quotation? The first part is clear to me, but this one is not.

apare tu, tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt [ve.sū. 2.1.11] iti nyāyena bhede’py abhede’pi nirmaryāda-doṣa-santati-darśanena bhinnatayā cintayitum aśakyatvād abhedaṁ sādhayantas tadvad abhinnatayāpi cintayitum aśakyatvād bhedam api sādhayanto’cintya-bhedābheda-vādaṁ svīkurvanti |

"Others accept acintya bhedābheda vāda on the basis of tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt. They recognize that accepting bheda or abheda, each, gives rise to the fault of being devoid of conformity with śruti. [They accept acintya bhedābheda vāda realizing the futility of] seeking abheda because of the impossibility of conceiving bheda, [and] similarly seeking bheda because of the impossibility of conceiving abheda."


Regarding the second part of your email, I completely agree that obscure quotes should not be rejected simply because they cannot be traced, but I think that it is sensible to give more weight to the statements that can be traced and to use untraceable quotes only as additional supporting evidence. That particularly holds for discussions with people who do not belong to our sampradaya because they would probably be reluctant to give much credence to such quotations, especially if those quotes happen to support the exact same position that we hold.

I do not doubt what our acaryas have stated. Instead, I simply wanted to point out that there are passages in the sastra which by all appearances contradict their opinion. I do not know about you, but I do not see how we could harmonise those two. If you have any ideas, let us know.

As for the Vedanta-sutra, I plan to read it after I finish reading the 12th Canto, which will be relatively soon. The Nyaya-sutra also ranks high on my reading list.

Finally, I would like to hear your opinion on the fact that some conditioned souls were apparently able to touch Krishna with their material bodies while He was present on earth and that some demons and warriors were apparently able to injure Him with material weapons, which should not have been possible. The only explanation for the latter that comes to my mind is that that was simply an illusion created by Krishna, but I am not sure about the former.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that pure devotees assume material bodies when they come to this world (the recent acaryas would be the most relevant example of that) but their consciousness is not materially contaminated by such a situation. If that is the case, should not the same hold for Krishna's associates such as the Pandavas? After all, we do not hear that their births were unusual in any way except for the fact that they were fathered by different demigods. So, that leads us to the same question as the one in relation to non-devotees: given the seeming (general) impossibility of contact between material and spiritual bodies, how should we account for those devotees's interactions with the Lord?

Your servant,
Gaura Nitai Dasa

BVKS Sanga

unread,
Feb 2, 2024, 11:14:56 AM2/2/24
to BVKS Sanga
From "Gaura Nitai Dasa" 
Date 31-01-2024 22:34:30
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila

Dear Jay Nityananda Prabhu,

Thank you very much for providing those noteworthy quotes from Baladeva Vidyabhushana. The first and third passage are especially illuminating. The explanation of the keśa controversy also seems good, though it could be said that, unlike a ray of white light, it is a bit difficult to imagine that Vishnu had some kind of a ray of black light, especially since to my knowledge we do not hear of black light elsewhere in the shastras. In any case, that is probably just a failure on the part of my imagination. 

I would really like to read the whole book, but since I am from Europe and since I do not have sufficient means to vist India, I will have to ask someone to buy that book for me, as well as Baladeva Prabhu's translations of Namartha-sudha and Prameya-ratnavali. I have already read his translations of Siddhanta-darpana, Tattva-dipika and Vedanta-syamantaka and I plan to read his translation of Siddhanta-ratna in the near future.

"I think it is unreasonable or even bold statement (without any sastra-sangati) [?] how Gaudiya Vaisnava Acaryas or any other Sampradaya Acaryas (for that matter) interpret any texts when we ourselves haven't received proper training into Vyakarana-Kavya-Kosa-Nyaya-Mimamsa-Vedanta."

I did not completely understand what you meant to say here because it seems you have left something out in the place where I put a question mark. In any case, here is what I meant to say. I do not know what other Vaishnava acaryas had to say on this topic because I have not read their works yet (I plan to read Ramanujacarya's Vedartha-sangraha and Madhvacarya's Visnu-tattva-vinirnaya in the near future; I think they will provide me a nice overview of those two great acaryas' viewpoints), but I think that it is common knowledge that Shri Vaishnavas and Madhvas consider Vishnu to be the source of all other forms of Bhagavan, whereas we Gaudiyas as well as Nimbarkas and Vallabhas think that Krishna is Svayam Bhagavan. As I said, the difference between these two positions is relatively subtle compared to the two possibilities regarding Yogamaya/Yoganidra's identity. Now, as for the arguments each of those sampradayas uses to support its own view, I can only say that I know the basics of our own position. 

Your servant,
Gaura Nitai Dasa

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, 14:10 BVKS Sanga, wrote:
From "Jay Nityananda Das" 
Date 21-01-2024 19:08:49
Subject Re: Two questions regarding krsna-lila
Dear Gaura Nitai Prbahu, and other devotees,

Namo Namah

Disclaimer: In case there is need to say this, I did not bring this up in order to show that I know things better than our acaryas. Instead, I simply wanted to show that when one looks at what different texts say, one may find some of his beliefs challenged. A prime example of that would be the fact that both the Hari-vamsa and the Visnu Purana speak of Krsna as an avatara of Visnu, and the three occurrences of the word amsa in the Tenth Canto cited above can also be understood in the same way because that would be their direct meaning. All of that contradicts the statement krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. 

I would request your goodself to read the following passage from the book "Vraisvarya-kadambini", prathama vrsti, verse 9 of Baladeva Vidyabhusana (along with the commentary of Vrndavana Tarkalankara Bhattacarya--translated by HG Baldeva Prabhu) to get some insight into how to understand "krsnas tu bhagavan svayam" when Hari-vamsa and Vishnu Purana speak of Krsna as an avatara of Vishnu (This is only for showing a hint, for detailed analysis Sandarbhas can be consulted):

==========================
(emphasis added for better understanding of the readers)

वैकुण्ठाधीशतद्व्यूहतदंशपुरूषत्रयतदंशलीलावताराणां वैकुण्ठनिलयानां महतां स्वधिष्ण्यस्थितानामेवांशै रूपान्तरैर्युक्तः सन्नित्यर्थः। यथा दिग्विजयाय प्रस्थितं सार्वभौमं मण्डलेश्वरास्तथा प्रपञ्चेश्वतितीर्षं कृष्णं स्वयं भगवन्तं ते महान्तो निजांशैरनुवर्तन्त इति भावः । तथा च कृष्णान्तर्गततदधीशादिमात्रदृष्टयो मुनयः कृष्णं तत्तद्रूपमाहुस्तद्वाक्यानि च व्यासो भगवाननुवदति यथा कर्णपर्वण्यर्जुनात् कर्णस्य कृष्णाच्छल्यस्य च श्रैष्ठ्यं लोकैः प्रतीतं सोऽन्वाह तद्वदिति तत्कथा सङ्गतेति। अत एव कृष्णेन तैस्तै रूपैस्तत्तल्लीलाः प्रकाशिताः ।

He appears together (yuktaḥ) with His other forms (aṁśaiḥ), expansions of His powerful manifestations (mahat): the Lord of Vaikuntha (Nārāyaṇa), His quadruple expansions, the three puruṣāvatāras Who are Their expansions, and the lilāvatāras Who are Their expansions, Who are all situated in their respective abodes in the various Vaikuntha planets. The meaning is that just as kings follow the emperor when he sets out for conquering all directions, these powerful manifestations together with their expansions follow Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person Himself, when He desires to descend into the material universe. Accordingly, sages who have seen only the Lord of Vaikuntha and other expansions- which are actually included within Kṛṣṇa-say that Kṛṣṇa is a form of such and such personality, and Bhagavan Vyāsadeva merely repeats their statements. For instance, in the Karṇa-parva of the Maha-bhārata, the superiority of Karṇa over Arjuna, and of Śailya over Kṛṣṇa is presumed by someone people, and Vyāsadeva just repeated that. So is the case with other narrations, and thus the narrations found in the Purāņas are coherent.

यत्तु तत्केशत्वं भारते कृष्णस्योक्तमिति वदन्ति तत् किलातीव स्थूलमुक्तनिर्णयादेव । ननु प्रतीतिः कथमपलपनीयेति चेत्। शृणु । तत्र हि केशशब्देनांशुरेवोच्यते। अंशवो ये प्रकाशन्ते मम ते केशसंज्ञिताः । सर्वज्ञाः केशवं तस्मान्मामाहुर्मुनिसत्तमा इति नारायणीये पार्थं प्रति कृष्णवाक्यादेव । नानावर्णानां तदंशूनां तत्र देवर्षिणा दृष्टत्वाच्च । अतस्तत्र सर्वत्र केशशब्द एव प्रयुक्तः । स चांशुरुक्तरीत्यावतितीर्षं कृष्णं प्रविवेशेति।

Some claim that in the Mahā-bhārata is it stated that Kṛṣṇa is the hair (kesa) of Vişņu. On the basis of the aforementioned conclusion, this is indeed utter foolishness. Someone may argue, "How can the obvious meaning of the text be evaded?" Listen. By the word keśa there, what is actually meant is 'ray of light,' as understood from the following words of Kṛṣṇa to Arjuna in the Nārāyaṇīya section : aṁśavo ye prakāśante mama te keśa-saṁjñitāḥ, sarvajñāḥ keśavaṁ tasmān mām āhur muni-sattamāḥ (Mahā-bhārata, 12.328.43), "The effulgent rays that emanate from Me are called 'keśa.' Therefore, the best of sages who know everything call me Kesava." Moreover, it is also described there that Narada saw His multi-coloured rays.Therefore, in all instances in that narration, only the word keśa has been used.That ray of light entered the body of Kṛṣṇa in the described manner when He desired to descend on earth.

ननु किमेवं भगवत्तत्त्वेऽपि भेदोऽङ्गीक्रियते। मैवम्। एकमेव तच्छक्तिव्यक्तितारतम्यादेव स्वयंविलासव्यूहादिभावेनावतिष्ठते शास्त्रोद् ग्राहतारतम्येनेव विद्वानेकोऽपि सर्वज्ञविज्ञकिञ्चिज्ज्ञभावेनेति न किञ्चिदवद्यं किन्त्वंशिनांशो व्यंग्यो न त्वंशेनांशीति मन्तव्यम्। अन्यथोक्तार्थवैपरीत्यापत्तिरिति सन्दर्भादिभ्यो विस्तरतोऽवगन्तव्यम् ॥९॥

Someone may argue, "So, is difference admitted to exist even in the ontological state of the Supreme Lord?" Not at all, for His svarūpa remains only one, manifested as His original form (svayam), His expansion (vilāsa), His quadruple expansion (vyūha), and so on, according to the gradation of His potency and manifestation, just as according to the level of the argument on a particular treatise, a learned scholar, although one, appears as knowing everything, as knowing something, or as knowing little. Therefore, there is no fault here. It should be rather considered that the expansion (aṁśa) is manifested by whole (aṁśī), and not the whole by the expansion. Otherwise, the meaning of all the above statements would be contradictory. This topic should be understood in detail from the Sandarbhas and other texts.

 ==============================
To read the complete book:


So, one is faced with two options: either to somehow try to interpret everything according to this axiomatic (at least in our tradition) statement as our acaryas did or to simply accept the direct meaning of such passages and reinterpret that one statement as the acaryas of other sampradayas did. (Of course, we choose the first option out of allegiance to our sampradaya.) Admittedly, this is less problematic than the issue at hand because Visnu and Krsna are at least the same in terms of their essential nature, which cannot be said of the para and apara prakrtis. 

I think it is unreasonable or even bold statement (without any sastra-sangati) how Gaudiya Vaisnava Acaryas or any other Sampradaya Acaryas (for that matter) interpret any texts when we ourselves haven't received proper training into Vyakarana-Kavya-Kosa-Nyaya-Mimamsa-Vedanta. (BTW Srila Jiva Gosvami did not compose Sandarbhas only for Gaudiya Vaisnavas) I request your goodself to present arguments, try to analyze sastras as any traditional scholars would do (through Guru-parampara) and then come to any unambiguous conclusions. That would be befitting an intelligent personality like you. 

Wish you all the best for your journey into traditional learning,

das,

Jaya Nityananda Dasa



Your servant,
Gaura Bhagavan Dasa
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages