BY: SUN STAFF
Jan 30, CANADA (SUN) —
Tattva Sandarbha
by Srila Jiva Goswami
APPENDIX ONE -- 332 OR 335
Scholars disagree about the number of chapters in Srimad Bhagavatam. Some consider chapters Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto interpolated. These chapters describe the killing of Aghasura, Lord Brahma's stealing the calves and cowherd boys, and Brahma's prayers to Lord Krishna. The controversy is an old one and the dissenting scholars are a diverse group. Some are Bhagavatam commentators from the Pushti-marga sampradaya of Vallabhacarya; some are from the Madhva sampradaya, and others are from the Sri sampradaya of Ramanuja. Of these only acaryas in the Vallabha sampradaya have gone to great lengths to disprove the authenticty of these three chapters. Others have only mentioned it in passing that they consider these chapters interpolated.
In contrast to those claiming interpolation, Gaudiya acaryas, along with acaryas of the Nimbarka and Sankara sampradayas, and some other well-known commentators on Srimad Bhagavatam, consider these three chapters authentic. In the Gaudiya line Srila Sanatana Gosvami's Brihad-vaishnava Toshani, Srila Jiva Gosvami's Vaishnava Toshani, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana's Siddhanta Darpana, give in brief the Gaudiya sampradaya's view on the authenticty of the three chapters.
In the 19th century an acarya in the Vallabha sampradaya, Giridhara Lal Gosvami, wrote a strongly worded and lengthy essay attempting to refute Srila Jiva Gosvami's statements. In it he describes Srila Jiva Gosvami as an acarya-drohi, or one who rebels against the previous acaryas. Lal claimed that Srila Jiva Gosvami is not even a devotee, let alone a recipient of the mercy of Lord Krishna. Lal wrote, "His heart is completely filled with the sinful qualities of Kali Yuga. Jiva Gosvami is unable to understand the learned opinion of Sri Vallabhacarya."
In Sanskrit there is a saying acarya kritva na nivartante, "The acaryas do not come back to support their writings." Hence it is the duty of their followers to defend the conclusion of their predecessor acaryas. Since Lal's critique includes virtually all the points his predecessor acaryas give favoring 332 chapters to the Bhagavatam, in this essay we shall give the gist of his views. Then we shall respond based primarily on the evidence given by the Gaudiya acaryas.
My purpose is not to criticize those who do not accept these three chapters as part of the Srimad Bhagavatam, but to uphold by logic, scriptural references, history, and the testimony of saintly persons that the opinion of Srila Jiva Gosvami is conclusive. Na hi ninda nindayitum pravartate api tu vidheyam stotum, "The purpose of criticism is not for criticizing others; it is to establish the proper conclusion about the subject", for the truth must be revealed to enlighten sincere students. Yena ishtam tena gamyatam, "Ultimately everyone is free to follow their desired path."
Of all the essays on the subject Lal's is the most thorough thus I have chosen it so that if it is repulsed then all lesser such essays will automatically collapse by the logic called Pradhan-malla-barhana nyaya--if the champion wrestler is defeated, then all other contenders are defeated.
Vallabhacarya, in his book Srimad Bhagavatartha Prakaranam, in which he gives the gist of Srimad Bhagavatam, writes that Srimad Bhagavatam has three types of languages: (1) Samadhi bhasha, or language of trance; (2) Laukiki bhasha, or the language of the people, which is used to give material descriptions; (3) anyabhasha, another language, which gives opinions of other sages. The last two support the first. (Srimad Bhagavatartha-prakaranam 1.11,12):
While explaining this verseVallabacarya says that in Srimad Bhagavatam somewhere there is glorification of knowledge, somewhere there is contradiction between earlier and later parts, somewhere there are defects of repetition. To resolve this Vallabhacarya says that there are three types of languages.
Here the Pushti margis have accepted the two types of apparent problems--
(1) Contradictory parts of a story. (2) Repetition of some statements. Vallabhacarya and every other commentator, recognizes these problems in Srimad Bhagavatam and they all try to resolve them.
In light of this it is astonishing that some commentators insist on labeling these three chapters as spurious by citing these same two defects, which they themselves have resolved in other sections of the Srimad Bhagavatam.
Srila Jiva Gosvami has resolved these contradictions in a very easy and simple manner and thus he sees no reason for rejecting them. Seeing this, some persons like Giridhara Lal Gosvami have let off steam.
If the internal disharmony or contradiction can be resolved if it is demonstrated that these chapters have been accepted by acaryas of yore then there is no reason for debate. Giridhara Lal has also accepted this principle. While commenting on verses 10.11.10 to 10.11.20 he writes: "Some commentators have explained these eleven verses and some have not. But because they are found in the books and they are not against the topic under narration, we shall explain them." Then he comments on these eleven verses although they have been left out even by Vallabhacarya. Since Srila Jiva Gosvami has done it successfully and thus he says there is no reason to label these chapters spurious. If the acaryas of Vallabha sampradaya or any other sampradaya are unable to resolve the contradiction it is because of their deficiency in scholarship and in the grace of the Lord. Indeed it is easier to brand the three chapters spurious and do away with them rather than to delve into them deeply and see how wonderfully they fit into Srimad Bhagavatam. The popular saying is dhananjaye hatakasam pariksha vidyavatam bhagavate pariksha, "one's scholarship is tested in Srimad Bhagavatam just as gold is tested in fire." The real reason for rejecting these chapters is that both the Tattvavadis and the Pushti-margis do not accept that demons killed by Krishna can attain personal liberation as granted to Putana.
I begin with an extract from Srila Jiva Gosvami's Vaishnava Toshani. In commenting on the first verse of the Twelfth Chapter, Tenth Canto, he writes:
"We see no reason why some people do not accept the three chapters, i.e. twelve, thirteen, and fourteen, and the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 and verse 10.6.44, which explain the liberation of Putana. These pastimes are known to people all over the land by hearing from their superiors. Numerous commentators of old times as well as modern ones have explained these chapters. Some of these commentaries are Vasanabhashya, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kamadhenu, Sukamanohara, and Paramahamsa Priya. If someone says that these are not authentic, being unacceptable to their sampradaya, then, by the same logic, why not consider them authentic since they are accepted by other sampradayas?
One should not say that in the Srimad Bhagavatam Lord Krishna is not mentioned as the killer of Aghasura, Aghabhid, like the killer of Mura demon, Murabhid. In verse 3.15.23 of the S.B. He is called Aghabhit, or the destroyer of the Agha demon or dispeller of sins. One cannot say that these pastimes described in the chapters in question are not mentioned in the Bhagavatam list of the Lord's pastimes, because Sridhara Svami has mentioned them in these lists. Thus when Sridhara Svami says dvatrimsat trisatam ca yasya vilasat sakha, "It has 335 chapters", he does not mention that three chapters are not included, because he has commented on all the chapters and mentioned all the verses. (Supporters of interpolation have translated the word dvatrimsat trishatam as 332, which it appears to be at a cursory look). This phrase has a dvanda-samasa and the word satani (hundreds) means three hundred because in Sanskrit the plural means three or more. Here the number three is indicated by the kapinjala-alabhana nyaya [1], otherwise the plural can mean any number three and above, and will remain ambiguous. If it is not accepted as a dvanda-samasa the word should become trisati according to the grammer rules and not trisatam.
These chapters should not be rejected because Aghasura's liberation is described after he was killed by Lord Krishna. (The Madhvaites do not accept that demons Krishna kills become liberated. This indeed is one of the reasons for their rejection of these chapters) Liberation of the demons killed by Krishna is not against the principles established in Srimad Bhagavatam.
Bhagavad-gita 16.20 states:
"Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kunti, such deluded persons, not attaining Me, sink down to the most abominable type of existence."
The demons go to the lower species not having attained Krishna. If they had attained Krishna, like the demons He killed, they would not go to the lower species. Thus it is said in Srimad Bhagavatam (2.7.34,35):
"All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhenuka, Baka, Kesi, Arishta, Canura, Mushtika, Kuvalayapida, Kamsa, Yavana, Narakasura and Paundraka, great marshals like Salva, Dvivida and Balvala, Dantavakra, the seven bulls, Sambara, Viduratha, and Rukmi, as also great warriors from Kamboja, Matsya, Kuru, Srinjaya and Kekaya, would all fight vigorously, either with Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhima, etc. The demons thus being killed attained either the impersonal brahmajyoti or His personal abode in the Vaikuntha planets."
These pastimes are also decribed in the Padma and Brahmanda Purana, therefore they cannot be rejected as if they are not mentioned in any other scriptures. Also, the very sites where these pastimes occured are still popularly known in Vrindavana. We have no reason to reject the liberation of Aghasura thinking that it is not possible for a demon to achieve a destination similar to the one attained by a devotee, because a pure devotees do not covet such liberation, as is known from hundreds of verses. For example, Srimad Bhagavatam 3.15.48:
"Persons who are very expert and most intelligent in understanding things as they are engage in hearing narrations of the auspicious activities and pastimes of the Lord, which are worth chanting and worth hearing. Such persons do not care even for the highest material benediction, namely liberation, to say nothing of other less important benedictions like the material happiness of the heavenly kingdom, which are destroyed just by a flick of your eyebrow."
The six verses explaining Putana's attaining the position of mother should not be rejected by those who are aware of the glory of such a post, thinking that such a destination is not possible for her. It should be known that she attained such a place due to the sad-vesa, or the saintly dress of a mother as is clear from verse 10.14.35:
"My mind becomes bewildered just trying to think what reward other than You could be found anywhere. You are the embodiment of all benedictions, which You bestow upon the residents of the cowherd community of Vrindavana. You have already arranged to give Yourself to even Putana and her family members in exchange for her disguising herself as a devotee. So what is left for You to give these devotees of Vrindavana, whose homes, wealth, friends, dear relations, bodies, children and very lives and hearts are all dedicated to You."
Here the real cause of Putana's liberation was her dress as mother, so only the position of mother is being glorified. Vijayadhvaja Tirtha has tried to make this verse faultless by using the principle of two souls in Putana, But this does not resolve the problem. One should not be bewildered just by reading the word gopi used for the women whose breasts Lord Krishna suckled during the one year period of the Brahma-mohana lila and conclude that He could not have engaged in the rasa dance with the gopis. The gopis whose breasts He suckled were of the same age as mother Yasoda while those with whom He danced were His age. Thus there is no contradiction. In these chapters the glory of devotion, the devotees, and the Lord have been explained in an extraordinary manner, but these can be realized only by the special mercy of the Lord, hence these are very secret pastimes as is said by Sri Suka (SB 10.13.3):
"O king, kindly hear me with great attention. Although the activities of the Lord are confidential, I shall speak about them to you, for spiritual masters explain to a submissive disciple even subject matters that are very confidential and difficult to understand."
This is enough of an explanation.
In Brihad Vaishnava Toshani, Srila Sanatana Gosvami makes two additional points. He says that the Tattvavadi Vaishnavas, who consider liberation the supreme goal of life, owing to their straight forward thinking, are intolerant of these three chapters, the six verses beginning from 10.6.35 and 10.6.44, because these describe the liberation of demons and Lord Krishna's sucking the gopis breasts.
Sanatana Gosvami's second point is in response to the objection that Lord Krishna cannot perform Rasa Lila with the same gopis whose breasts He suckled (in His expanded forms as the cowherd boys during the Brahma-vimohana lila). Those motherly gopis were on the same level as Mother Yasoda and were not the same beloved young girlfriends with whom Krishna engaged in conjugal pastimes.
From the references and explanations of Jiva and Sanatana Gosvamis it is clear they were not trying to refute Vallabhacarya of whom they made no mention, while Srila Sanatana mentions the Tattvavadis, the followers of Sri Madhvacarya. Considering all this the Pushti-marga acaryas have no cause to feel offended by Jiva Gosvami's conclusions and attack him directly with bitter statements as Giridhara Lal has done.
Giridhar Lal, the author of the Bal-prabodhini commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, mentions Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana in his essay making it clear that Baladeva predated him. This means he had the advantage of seeing all the previous arguments and counterarguments.
Lal's critique was written in Sanskrit and a complete translation is not practical so I give here the gist of his arguments against the S.B. having 335 chapters in the original. My response immediately follows each of his remarks:
A. It is clear that these three chapters are interpolated because there is a mismatch between former and latter statements and the same verse comes at the end of the eleventh chapter and the fourteenth chapter:
"In this way the boys passed their childhood, below age five, in the land of Vrndavan playing hide-and go-seek, building play bridges, jumping about like monkeys and engaging in many other such games." (SB. 10.14.61 and 10.11.59)
The first verse of the fifteenth chapter reads:
"Sukadeva Gosvami said: When Krishna and Balarama reached the pauganda age (six to ten) while living in Vrindavana, the cowherd men allowed Them to tend the cows. Thus engaged in the company of Their friends, the two boys made the land of Vrindavana most auspicious by marking it with the imprint of Their lotus feet."
Thus there is a proper continuity between the last verse of the eleventh chapter and the first verse of the fifteenth, because the earlier verses speak of Krishna and Balarama passing the kaumara age (below five) and the later verses speak of Their entering the pauganda age (above five). The interim three chapters describe Their kaumara pastimes and therefore they do not fit after the above quoted final verse of the eleventh chapter. The repitition of the same verse at the end of the fourteenth chapter shows Sri Sukadeva Gosvami did not speak these three chapters.
Vallabhacarya says they were added later to excite people by presenting such wonderous pastimes. Sri Sukadeva Gosvami, being a perfected sage cannot forget his earlier statement that Lord Krishna gave up the kaumara stage. Nor is it possible that he forgot to speak these three chapters and only after speaking verse 10.11.59 did he suddenly remember to narrate them.
Response: Verse 10.11.59, evam viharaih kaumaraih, is repeated at the end of chapter fourteen because of Sukadeva getting into an ecstatic mood after telling of the wonderful brahma-vimohana-lila. Srila Vyasadeva has declared that the Srimad Bhagavatam is the mature fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge and it is full of rasa, juice. In Section Twenty-nine of Tattva Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Gosvami describes how Sukadeva Gosvami gave up his attachment to impersonal Brahman after hearing the beautiful pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, svasukha-nibhrita-ceshtastadvyudastanya-bhavo' pyajitaruciralila krishtasarastadiyam. He personally tasted the rasa of the Bhagavatam by reciting it, and was completely immersed in it as is stated in the Padma Purana, Uttarakhanda, Bhagavata-mahatmya 6.101 rasa pravahasamsthena srisukenerita katha, "The Srimad Bhagavatam was recited by Sri Suka, who was absorbed in the flow of rasa." There are similar statements in the Bhagavatam (10.80.5):
"Thus questioned by King Vishnurata, the powerful sage Badarayani replied, his heart fully absorbed in meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vasudeva."
According to the rules of rhetorics, although repetition of a word or verse is considered a defect in poetry yet there are certain exceptions to the rule. The Sahitya-darpana, a standard work on rhetoric states (7.19):
"A repitition is not considered a defect in 1. restating the subject; 2. distress; 3. surprise; 4. anger; 5. dejection; 6. latanuprasa (a type of alliteration); 7. showing mercy; 8. pleasing someone; 9. arthantar-sankramita-vacya-dhvani; 10, happiness; 11. confirming something."
The pastimes described in the Chapters Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto are very wonderful and this certainly put Sukadeva Gosvami into deep ecstatic feelings, causing him to lose his external consciousness as stated in Srimad Bhagavatam (10.12.44):
Suta Gosvami said: O Saunaka, greatest of saints and devotees, when Maharaja Parikshita inquired from Sukadeva Gosvami in this way, Sukadeva, immediately remembering subject matters about Krishna within the core of his heart, externally lost contact with his senses. Thereafter, with great difficulty, he revived his external sensory perception and began to speak to Maharaja Parikshita about Krishna-katha."
While commenting on this verse, Srila Jiva Gosvami writes that the word punah 'again' indicates the he went into such a state time and again. Lal comments that the word kricchrat 'with difficulty' means that they had to play musical instruments to bring Sukadeva back to external consciousness. Under such a circumstance it is not a defect if Sukadeva repeated a verse.
As for verses being repeated, in the Seventh Canto, Narada Muni repeats three verses twice while instructing Yudhishthira Maharaja. The verses 7.10.48, 49 and 50 are repeated again in 7.15.75, 76 and 77. No commentator has charged that these verses as spurious. Narada Muni is giving instructions on the varnasrama system and not on some wonderful esoteric pastimes of Krishna. Still he repeats these verses to give stress. Why then should it be considered spurious if Sri Suka repeats one verse especially when speaking about one of Lord Krishna's most wonderful pastimes which bewildered even Lord Brahma and caused Sukadeva to go into ecstasy?
Moreover, in some editions of Bhagavatam the fifty-ninth verse of the eleventh chapter is not found as is stated in the anvitartha Prakasa commentary ayam sloko na sarvatrika "this verse in not found in all editions." That removes the controversy altogether. Still, if these three chapters were interpolated then it is very unlikely that the person who did it would make such obvious mistakes that they would be so easily detected. Instead of writing long essays to disprove these three chapters, it would have been more proper to reject the fifty-ninth verse of the Eleventh Chapter. But as said earlier, the ulterior reason is that these chapters go agaisnt the philosophy of the Tattvavadis and Pushti-margis.
The verse 8.9.28 and 8.10.1 have the same meaning although composed differently. They are only seperated by one verse and yet no one considers 8.10.1 interpolated. The verse arthe hyavidyamane'pi is spoken five times in Bhagavatam, once by Lord Kapila, twice by Narada Muni in the fourth canto and twice by Krishna in the eleventh canto. This repetition is simply to give emphasis. Another reason for repetition is when the narrator is speaking about a person for whom he has strong loving feelings. Then it is not unusual that repetition is used and that the narrative is not handled in strict chronological order, because the bhava, or the mood of the speaker is what guides the narration. Thus the tenth canto is not meticulously chronological, nor is it necessarily without repetition.
B. In the Third Canto Sri Uddhava does not mention these pastimes found in the disputed chapters during his meeting with Vidura. They are also not mentioned in Suta's list of the Lord's activities in the Twelfth Canto, nor in Brahma's list in the Second Canto, nor are they in the list of pastimes imitated by the gopis when Lord Krishna disappeared from the Rasa Dance.
Response: The assumption here is that these lists are intended to be all-inclusive, but none of these lists include all of Krishna's pastimes. It does not follow therefore that because neither Uddhava nor Suta Gosvami nor Brahma lists the pastimes in the disputed chapters, nor did the gopis imitate them, that they are interpolations. Suta Gosvami's list, 12.12.27-40, is the most exhaustive, because he gives the summary of the Tenth Canto. Still, it does not include all Krishna's pastimes explained in the tenth canto. The following pastimes, which are described in the Tenth Canto are not mentioned in any of the three lists:
The Lord's name-giving ceremony
The Lord's mercy on Kubja
The killing of the washerman
The story of the Syamantaka jewel and the marriage of Jambavati and
Satyabhama
The liberation of King Nriga
The marriage with Laxmana by shooting the fish
Krishna's dealings with Sudama Vipra
The Lord's trip to Kurukshetra to meet the cowherd people
The kidnapping of Subhadra
The Lord's trip to Mithila
The return of the six sons of Devaki from Yamapuri
The Lord's visit to Maha-vishnu with Arjuna
Lord Balarama's pilgrimage tour
The killing of Romaharshana Suta
The release of Samba from the Kauravas
Thus in keeping with the reasoning of those who reject aghasura moksha and brahma mohana, on the basis of their not being mentioned in the lists of Krishna's pastimes, these 14 pastimes should also be considered spurious.
The gopis and Uddhava were just recalling certain pastimes for their own satisfaction, being guided by their bhava, or emotional state and not by a sense of accuracy. To expect a complete list from them is illogical. Except for Suta Gosvami, who was giving a summary of the whole Bhagavatam, no one was attempting to list all Krishna's pastimes. Even so, Suta's list was not all-inclusive, as already shown. His summary list does not include pastimes like liberating the Yamalarjuna trees and Lord Krishna's visit to Varunaloka and so on.
C. In Caitanyamata-Candrika, Srinatha Cakravarti's commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, he writes that the liberation of the Yamala Arjuna trees is not mentioned in Suta's list of the Lord's pastimes in the twelfth canto, similarly, the killing of Aghasura and the brahma-mohana lila, are not included in that list as they are very confidential pastimes. This is a hasty statement born of zeal because Brahma does mention the yamala-arjuna-lila is mentioned in verse 2.7.27. Verse 10.26.7 states that the gopas related this pastime, and again verse10.30.23 mentions that the gopis imitated the same pastime. So even if not mentioned in the twelfth canto, it is mentioned elsewhere, but Aghasura-lila is not mentioned anywhere so it is not part of Srimad Bhagavatam.
Response: Giridhara Lal says that Srinatha Cakravarti has made a hasty statement because of zeal regarding the omission of the Yamalarjuna-lila from the pastime list of Suta Gosvami and he cites the second and tenth cantos to refute Srinatha Cakravarti, but it is Lal who hastily criticizes because Srinatha is only explaining the reason for their exclusion in the list of the twelfth canto. He does not claim that the pastime is not mentioned elsewhere.
Furthermore, Aghasura and Brahma mohan lilas are mentioned in some editions of the Srimad Bhagavatam, in verse 12.12.23, aghasurbadho dhatra vatsapalavaguhanam, "The killing of Aghasura and Lord Brahma's hiding the cowerd boys." These editions along with their commentaries are the Krama sandarbha, Sarartha Varshini, Bhakta Manoranjani, Vaishnava Toshini, Bhagavat Candrika and so on.
D. The bewilderment of Brahma goes against his own statement in the following verse (S.B.2.6.34):
"O Narada, because I have caught hold of the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari within my heart, with great zeal, whatever I say has never proven false; nor is the progress of my mind ever deterred; nor are my senses ever degraded by temporary attachment to matter."
Since Brahma has realized knowledge about the Lord it is ludicrous for him to test Lord Krishna. Indeed Lord Brahma was already blessed by the Lord as stated below (2.9.37):
"O Brahma, just follow this conclusion by fixed concentration of mind and no pride will disturb you, neither in the various types of creations nor in the final devastation."
Also, it cannot be said that this blessing was applicable only in the matter of creation since that will go against the verses (S.B. 2.9.30,31,32.):
"O my Lord, the unborn, You have shaken hands with me just as a friend with a friend. I shall be occupied in Your service creating different types of living entities and I shall have no perturbation. I therefore pray that all this may not give rise to pride, as if I were the Supreme."
"The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me, including its realization, is most confidential. Take it from Me, along with its secret meaning and its limbs as I describe it to you."
"By My mercy let true knowledge about me, as I am, about My existence, form, qualities, and activities become available to you."
The proof of Lord Brahma's full understanding about Lord Krishna being the Supreme Person is furnished by him (SB. 2.7.27):
"There is no doubt about Krishna being the Supreme Lord, otherwise how was it possible for Him to kill a giant demon like Putana when He was just on the lap of His mother? How could He kick over a cart with His leg when He was only three months old, or uproot a pair of arjuna trees, so high that they touched the sky, when He was only crawling? All these activities are impossible for anyone other than the Lord Himself."
Thus Lord Brahma is not independent enough to test Lord Krishna.
Response: Lord Brahma was blessed by Lord Krishna not to be bewildered by Maya. Brahma is in complete knowledge of Lord Krishna. So how can Brahma get bewildered? In the second canto, ninth chapter, verses 29 and 30 Lord Brahma asked a boon to remain free from pride while creating. From 2.9.37 it is clear that the Lord's blessing protected him from Maya only in the matter of creating and not while participating in the Lord's pastimes. Those with a thorough understanding of the science of transcendental knowledge know that the Lord has two Maya potencies, Mahamaya and Yogamaya. Mahamaya causes bewilderment and makes the living entity forget Krishna and thus become a non-devotee. Yogamaya also makes one to forget Krishna as the Supreme Master, replete with all opulences, but this is to facilitate the devotee's participating in the Lord's pastimes. By the influence of Yogamaya, the devotee does not understand that Krishna is the Supreme Controller and the devotee is His servant. If devotees always think of Krishna as the Supreme Lord there would be no intimate pastimes of friendship and so forth. Only the majestic pastimes of master and servant would exist. An example of this Yogamaya is seen in this Srimad Bhagavatam verse (10.45.1):
"Sukadeva Gosvami said: Understanding that His parents were becoming aware of His transcendental opulences, the Supreme Personality of Godhead thought that this should not be allowed to happen. Thus He expanded His Yogamaya, which bewilders His devotees."
1] Vasante kapinjalan alabhet. According to this Vedic injunction one should perform sacrifice in the spring season with kapinjala birds. The number is not indicated, but because it is in the plural case, three is accepted by the Purva mimamsakas. Otherwise the statement remains unclear.
Go to Appendix Two
Return to Section Sixty-three
