Kåñëa’s Return to Våndävana
In Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé’s Laghu-bhägavatämåta (Pürva-khaëòa 5.467), he describes Kåñëa’s return to Våndävana:
vraje prakaöa-léläyäà
trén mäsän viraho ‘munä
taträpy ajäni visphürtiù
prädurbhävopamä hareù
tri-mäsyaù paratas teñäà
äkñät kåñëena saìgatiù
“During the Lord’s prakaöa pastimes, the people of Vraja were separated from him for three months. Lord Kåñëa then reappeared among them and spent three months with them.”
[Garga-saàhitä (5.19) elaborately describes how Kåñëa returned to Våndävana from Mathurä after killing Kaàsa and comforted the Vraja-väsés for three months]The words kåñëena saìgatiù therefore indicate the Vraja-väsés’ meeting with Kåñëa. Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé explains the word saìgatiù in two ways: “appearance” and “return.” He then gives substantial çästric evidence to support both readings. [Laghu-bhägavatämåta 1.5.468] But in whichever way one understands the word saìgatiù, Rüpa Gosvämé’s conclusion is that after Kåñëa left Våndävana for Mathurä, he again met the Vraja-väsés in Vraja.
Çrémad-Bhägavatam thrice records Kåñëa’s promise to return to Våndävana. [In Çrémad-Bhägavatam, Kåñëa promised to return to Våndävana three times: (1) while leaving for Mathurä he promises the gopés (10.39.35); (2) after killing Kaàsa he promises Nanda Mahäräja (10.45.23); (3) in the letter that Uddhava delivered to the gopés Kåñëa promises to return (10.46.34–35)] But with the exception of one çloka (1.11.9), which alludes to his visiting Mathurä district, there is no mention in the Bhägavatam of Kåñëa fulfilling his promise. Laghu-bhägavatämåta, however, firmly establishes Kåñëa’s return to Våndävana. And had Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé not done so, it would have appeared that Kåñëa did not keep his word.
Of all revealed scriptures, Çrémad-Bhägavatam carries the greatest authority. Therefore, Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé goes to great lengths to prove how the aforementioned Bhägavatam verse (1.11.9) clearly substantiates that Kåñëa repeatedly returned to Våndävana. Çréla Prabhupäda translates this verse as follows:
yarhy ambujäkñäpasasära bho bhavän
kurün madhün vätha suhåd-didåkñayä
taträbda-koöi-pratimaù kñaëo bhaved
ravià vinäkñëor iva nas tväcyuta
“O lotus-eyed Lord, whenever You go away to Mathurä, Våndävana, or Hastinäpura to meet Your friends and relatives, every moment of Your absence seems like a million years. O infallible one, at that time our eyes become useless, as if bereft of the sun.”
The Dvärakä-väsés spoke these words when Kåñëa returned to Dvärakä after the Kurukñetra war. Among those present at the time were the florist Sudämä, the barber, and others who had served Kåñëa directly. [Préti-sandarbha 92] The word yarhi (whenever) indicates Kåñëa’s repeated outings to the land of the Kurus and Madhus.
No one argues that Kåñëa visited the Kurus. Çrémad-Bhägavatam clearly describes his visits to the Päëòavas. But how should we understand the word madhün, which refers to the land of the Madhu clan? Rüpa Gosvämé explains as follows:
“O lotus-eyed Lord (bho ambujäkña), you have gone (bhavän apsasära) to Mathurä (madhün), eagerly desiring to see Nanda Mahäräja and your other friends and relatives there (suhåd-didåkñayä).” [Laghu-bhägavatämåta 1.5.480]
There may be some doubt about the interpretation of the word madhün, since it may mean either Mathurä or Våndävana. Rüpa Gosvämé therefore says, “The word ‘madhün’ means ‘the village of Vraja in the district of Mathurä.’ Because the city of Mathurä cannot be meant here, the friends referred to are the Lord’s friends in Vraja.”
Why cannot the word madhün refer to Mathurä City? Because when Jaräsandha attacked Mathurä City, Kåñëa took his close friends amongst the Madhus to Dvärakä. Thus, the only “friends” the Dväraka-väsés could have been referring to at the time they spoke this verse were the Vraja-väsés.
Çréla Çrédhara Svämé, in his commentary to this verse, also says that the word “madhün” refers to “the residents of Våndävana, which is situated in the district of Mathurä.”
Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé further substantiates Kåñëa’s return to Våndävana by quoting a passage from the Padma Puräëa (Uttara-khaëòa 279.24–26). These verses narrate Çré Kåñëa’s fight with Dantavakra in front of the gates of Mathurä and Kåñëa’s subsequent visit to Vraja, where he gives pleasure to the Vraja-väsés for two months before returning to Dvärakä.
Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé [Çrémad-Bhägavatam 10.77.37, 78.1–13] and Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura, [Ibid., 10.78.13–16, purport] in their commentaries to Çrémad-Bhägavatam, also confirm this episode of Kåñëa’s return to Våndävana. And Çréla Jéva Gosvämé goes one step further to base the final portion of his magnum opus, Gopäla-campü, entirely upon the historical authenticity of Padma Puräëa. In nine lengthy chapters, Jéva elaborates in detail Kåñëa’s Vraja pastimes in the two months following Dantavakra’s death.
Such evidence presented by highly respected äcäryas should eradicate any doubt that Kåñëa returned to the Vraja-väsés.
The question now arises, why does the Bhägavatam not discuss Kåñëa’s return to Vraja? Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura answers this question in his commentary on Çrémad-Bhägavatam 10.78.16: [The identity of the Vraja-väsés’ plenary expansions and how they were transported to the spiritual world is described later in this introduction, in the section called “The Ontological Background of Kåñëa’s Associates.”] “When Kåñëa returned to Våndävana, he gave great pleasure to his relatives and childhood friends. And before returning to Dvärakä, he miraculously expanded himself and took the plenary expansions of the Vraja-väsés to the spiritual world.
“… Çukadeva thought that Parékñit Mahäräja might wonder how Kåñëa, who caused the cowherds to attain Vaikuëöha in their selfsame bodies, could also have caused the residents of Dvärakä to attain such an inauspicious end in the mauñala-lélä. Thus, Çukadeva withheld this pastime from Parékñit—even though the Uttara-khaëòa of Çré Padma Puräëa recounts it—because Parékñit Mahäräja, due to his own affinity for the Yadus, might have considered Kåñëa unfair.”
Yet even without the substantial evidence given by Çré Rüpa, the reasoning of Çré Viçvanätha, or the testimony of other äcäryas, devotees familiar with Kåñëa’s personality accept his own integrity as evidence enough that he kept his word. Such devotees know that wonderful Kåñëa is truthful, grateful, gentle, and compassionate. They know that he is completely honourable, that he is the protector of surrendered souls, that he is the well-wisher of his devotees—and that ultimately love controls him. [These are some of Kåñëa’s 64 qualities listed in The Nectar of Devotion,] Such endearing qualities make it impossible for Hari to deceive his dearest devotees.
Both Rüpa and Jéva Gosvämés quote Uddhava, who reassured Nanda Mahäräja and Mother Yaçodä of the truthfulness of their son’s words: “Kåñëa has promised that he will come back to Våndävana after finishing his business in Mathurä. This promise he will surely fulfil.” [Çrémad-Bhägavatam 10.46.35]
Çré Jéva comments on this quote: “Kåñëa… must have returned to Vraja, for otherwise Uddhava would have spoken a lie… .” And after Kåñëa’s declaration in the Gétä that his devotee never perishes, [Bhagavad-gétä 9.31] it appears even more unlikely that he would make his devotee into a liar than lie himself.
It should be doubtlessly clear, then, that after having promised the Vraja-väsés he would return to Våndävana, Kåñëa did return. But, as will be disclosed in Kåñëa-saìgati, the reason Kåñëa came back was not that he was a moralist concerned for his reputation, or even that he possessed a wealth of transcendental qualities that made him unfailing in his word. Kåñëa returned to Våndävana because of his most endearing characteristic, prema-vaçyaù—love controls him.
Does Kåñëa Really Leave Våndävana?
The evidence cited in the previous section overwhelmingly supports the argument that after leaving for Mathurä, Kåñëa returned to Vraja. And that evidence and its conclusion are correct.
However, Kåñëa’s leaving Våndävana is but one perspective of his inconceivable pastimes. It is the perspective manifest on the earth over five thousand years ago.
Yet there is another perspective, the unmanifest perspective, which enjoys equal support from scripture and the äcäryas. According to Çréla Jéva Gosvämé, a complete understanding of Kåñëa’s pastimes must include knowledge of this second perspective. [Kåñëa-sandarbha 153.5]
Çréla Prabhupäda describes these two aspects of Kåñëa’s pastimes in the following way: “Çré Kåñëa’s pastimes in this material world are called prakaöa-lélä (manifested pastimes), and His pastimes in the spiritual world are called aprakaöa-lélä (unmanifested pastimes). By ‘unmanifested’ we mean that they are not present before our eyes.” [Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 15.237, purport]
Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé [Laghu-bhägavatämåta (1.5.435) states: prakaöäprakaöä ceti lélä seyaà dvidhocyate, “The Lord’s pastimes are said to be of two kinds: 1. prakaöa (manifest), and 2. aprakaöa (not manifest).”] has described the subject of prakaöa and aprakaöa, and Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has presented it even more extensively in his writings, especially in Kåñëa-sandarbha. The terms prakaöa and aprakaöa are applicable to Kåñëa’s presence, his dhämas, as well as his pastimes.
The aprakaöa-lélä is eternally taking place in the aprakaöa-dhäma, Goloka-Våndävana in the spiritual sky, beyond the vision of the souls living in the material world. When the unmanifested pastimes become visible in the prakaöa-dhäma, the terrestrial counterpart of the aprakaöa-dhäma, they are known as prakaöa-lélä. In the prakaöa-lélä, Kåñëa and his associates are visible to everyone, even conditioned souls.
In Kåñëa-sandarbha (153.7), Jéva Gosvämé clarifies the distinction between the prakaöa and aprakaöa pastimes: “The Lord’s unmanifested (aprakaöa) pastimes are completely distinct from the material world, being free from the limitations of matter and material time. In his aprakaöa-dhäma, Lord Kåñëa eternally enjoys pastimes. Day after day, he enters the assembly hall of Dvärakä as the king of the Yadus, and day after day, he grazes surabhi cows as the young prince of Vraja.
“Although Lord Kåñëa’s pastimes are always free from the influence of matter, in his manifested (prakaöa) pastimes, by his own will and by the workings of his internal potency, those pastimes appear to be material. In that prakaöa-lélä, both the Lord and his pastimes appear to be under the jurisdiction of time and thus display a beginning, growth, dwindling, and an apparent end.”
The description of Kåñëa’s departure from Våndävana given in this book, and recorded in Çrémad-Bhägavatam, takes place in his prakaöa-lélä. In that pastime everyone, from his eternal associates to the conditioned souls, observed Kåñëa leaving Våndävana. In fact, even Kåñëa was convinced that he had gone to Mathurä.
But in his aprakaöa-lélä, Kåñëa remained in Våndävana, as he does eternally.
In view of these two perspectives, prakaöa and aprakaöa, how should we understand Kåñëa’s departure from Våndävana?
It should be understood in this way: Kåñëa simultaneously went from Våndävana to Mathurä in his prakaöa pastimes and stayed in Våndävana in his aprakaöa pastimes.
And how are we to comprehend the simultaneous occurrence of two contradictory events?
In this regard, Çréla Prabhupäda quotes Jéva Gosvämé: “Unless you accept [the] inconceivable power of the Supreme Lord, there is no [possibility of] understanding [him].” [Çréla Prabhupäda’s lecture on Çrémad-Bhägavatam 7.9.6, 26 February, 1977, Mäyäpur] Thus, in order to understand something that defies both logic and our experience, we must accept Kåñëa’s inconceivable potencies, which effortlessly harmonise simultaneous contradictory events in what Çréla Prabhupäda calls “two kinds of existence” [Çréla Prabhupäda’s lecture on Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.15.33, 11 December, 1973, Los Angeles]—the manifested and the unmanifested.
The above explanation may be acceptable in a philosophical discussion, but how should readers adjust to the dual perspectives of prakaöa and aprakaöa as they read Kåñëa-saëgati?
I have already quoted Çréla Prabhupäda, who clearly indicates that in hearing about Kåñëa, the reader should be aware of the principles of rasa, the emotional tastes, and tattva, the philosophical truths underlying Kåñëa’s pastimes.
Now let us examine in more detail the principles of rasa and tattva a person should be aware of while reading this book.
It is important to hear Kåñëa’s pastimes in the proper mood. [Kåñëa states in Bhagavad-gétä (4.10) that the correct mood in which to serve him is obtained through knowledge and practice] Çréla Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura advises that Vaiñëavas worshipping Kåñëa should be in harmony with the moods of his revealed pastimes. [Räga-vartma-candrikä 2.6] In other words, the hearer’s moods should reflect those of the pastimes themselves as they unfold. Thus, when Kåñëa plunges himself and his associates into the pastime of leaving Våndävana, the reader should be absorbed in the moods that Kåñëa establishes in that lélä.
There is another subject the reader must consider before understanding Kåñëa’s pastime of leaving Våndävana. Kåñëa, in his original form, replete with all the qualities of Godhead, appears only in Våndävana. All other forms of Kåñëa—whether in Mathurä, Dvärakä, or any other place outside Våndävana—are expansions of that original form of Çyämasundara in Vraja. These extra-Våndävana forms of Kåñëa do not reveal all the qualities of Godhead. In fact, in his prakaöa-lélä, even when Kåñëa is seen by everyone to leave Våndävana, he does not actually leave Våndävana, his expansion does.
We should understand the last paragraph in the following way: In Våndävana, Mathurä, and Dvärakä, Kåñëa displays different natures to reciprocate different moods cherished by his associates in those respective dhämas. [This concept corresponds to Kåñëa’s promise in Bhagavad-gétä 4.11: “In whatever way My devotees surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Påthä.”] This principle holds for both the prakaöa- and aprakaöa-dhämas. For instance, devotees whose love is dominated by awe of Kåñëa’s opulence reside in the realm of opulence, Dvärakä; whereas, devotees whose love is drawn to Kåñëa’s sweetness, reside in the land of sweetness, Våndävana.
Thus in Våndävana, Mathurä, and Dvärakä, Kåñëa is said to display three different natures. And the distinct nature of each place arises from the distinct qualities Kåñëa manifests in each place. In Dvärakä, Kåñëa, although complete in every way, does not manifest all his divine qualities. In Mathurä, he is more complete, for he manifests all his qualities, though not fully. But in Våndävana, he is most complete, for there he manifests all the qualities of Godhead in full. [This paragraph and the next are based on Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya-lélä 20.401–402]
The conclusion of learned Vaiñëavas, and of revealed scripture, is that Kåñëa is the most complete Personality of Godhead only in Våndävana. Elsewhere, all his expansions are either complete or more complete.
This is what scriptures mean when they say that Çyämasundara, the original, full-fledged form of Godhead never leaves Våndävana, for only in Våndävana do his devotees possess the quality of love that makes him display all his personal qualities in full.
The famous çloka of the Yämala Tantra describes the difference between Kåñëa’s appearance in Våndävana and his appearance in Mathurä and Dvärakä:
kåñëo ‘nyo yadu-sambhüto
yaù pürëaù so ‘sty ataù paraù
våndävanaà parityajya
sa kvacin naiva gacchati
“The Kåñëa known as Yadukumära is Väsudeva-Kåñëa. He is different from the Kåñëa who is the son of Nanda Mahäräja. Yadukumära-Kåñëa manifests his pastimes in the cities of Mathurä and Dvärakä, but Kåñëa the son of Nanda Mahäräja never leaves Våndävana at any time.” [As quoted in Laghu-bhägavatämåta 1.5.461]
This raises another question: If the original form of Kåñëa never leaves Våndävana, what happens in his manifest pastimes when the time arrives for him to leave Vraja?
The answer is that Çyämasundara rides on Akrüra’s chariot to the boundary of Vraja, but goes no further. Kåñëa’s expansion as Väsudeva crosses the border of Våndävana and continues his pastimes in Mathurä and Dvärakä. [In chapter 39 of the tenth canto of Çrémad-Bhägavatam, Kåñëa’s journey to Mathurä is described. When Akrüra went to bathe in the Yamunä at Brahma-hrada, he saw Kåñëa and Balaräma in two forms—their original forms and their expansions as Mahä-Viñëu and Çeña. From the sequence of events in the pastime, it can be deduced that the original form of Kåñëa and Balaräma remained in Våndävana and that their expansions continued the trip to Mathurä with Akrüra. This is evidence that Väsudeva-Kåñëa separates himself from Çyämasundara upon leaving Våndävana. The former is seen in prakaöa-lélä while the latter remains unmanifest.
Çréla Prabhupäda, in his purport to Çrémad-Bhägavatam 10.3.48–49, quotes Viçvanätha Cakravarté Öhäkura, who explains that Kåñëa took birth simultaneously from both Devaké and Yaçodä. The son of Devaké was Väsudeva-Kåñëa, which is obvious since he displayed a Viñëu form. When Vasudeva took Devaké’s baby to Gokula, unseen to Vasudeva, that baby merged into the body of Yaçodä’s son. This is evidence that when Väsudeva-Kåñëa enters Våndävana in prakaöa-lélä, he merges into the body of Çyämasundara, who was aprakaöa up to that time] As Väsudeva’s pastimes unfold in prakaöa Dvärakä, Çyämasundara stays in Våndävana in his aprakaöa form and enjoys his aprakaöa pastimes. During those times, however, the Vraja-väsés in prakaöa Våndävana accept the pastimes Kåñëa has with them to be merely dreams. Thus they display even more intense symptoms of separation from their Çyämasundara.
The Vraja-väsés’ love in separation draws Väsudeva-Kåñëa back to Våndävana. At the border of Vraja, Çyämasundara appears from his aprakaöa-lélä and Väsudeva merges into his body. Kåñëa, in his original form, enters Våndävana again to be visible in his prakaöa-lélä. [In every account of Kåñëa’s return to Våndävana, whether it be in Padma Puräëa, Gopäla-campü, or Garga-saàhitä, Kåñëa changes from the dress of a king, into the dress of a cowherd. This episode is more than a symbolic gesture of Kåñëa’s change of mood. It displays Çyämasundara’s return to his prakaöa-lélä, just as the incident at Akrüra-ghaööa did]
To review this section: In Kåñëa’s prakaöa-lélä, he only appears to leave Våndävana. What actually happens is that Kåñëa’s Väsudeva expansion continues his pastimes outside Våndävana. His original feature of Çyämasundara, tied by bonds of pure affection to his original dhäma and his original associates, [In Båhad-bhägavatämåta (2.6.202–203), Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé describes that Kåñëa’s Goloka associates are his original associates who expand themselves to serve his pastimes in Vaikuëöha, among the demigods, and on earth. The cowherd boy Çrédämä in Goloka, for instance, expands to become Garuòa (the associate of Lord Näräyaëa in Vaikuëöha), and a second Garuòa (the son of Vinatä), amongst the demigods] does not leave Våndävana. Instead, Çyämasundara enters his aprakaöa-lélä and stays forever in his aprakaöa-dhäma.
The same principle applies to any of Kåñëa’s dhämas. When he is not visible in a particular dhäma in prakaöa-lélä, he is always present in his aprakaöa-lélä in a state of completeness complementary to that particular dhäma. Externally, Kåñëa appears to come and go, but from the aprakaöa point of view, he is eternally present in each of his dhämas.
