request to clarify the following doubt

[Guest guest]

Dear co-vaishnavas,

 

Adiyen has a doubt which is lingering adiyen's

mind...Hence this request to clarify

the following doubt...

 

Today is the last day of Margazhi maasam..There is

an episode in bhagavatam where in ,

On this day the gopis performed vratam to kaatyaayini

devi to attain lord krishna as their husband...after

performing the vratam , they all were taking bath in

yamuna with out any

vastram..At that time lord krishna took away all their

vastram and sat atop a tree..

Lord krishna told them that they should all come one

by one and request him to give

back their vastram..Once they come near the foot of

the tree , he says that taking bath

nakedly is a sin and therefore they should raise their

hands and request yamuna devi

to pardon their sin..after this act he promises their

nonbu will frutify and their sins

have been burnt....

 

According to what I have heard from the elders of my

family , lord krishna wanted to

teach a lesson to the gopies that taking bath without

vastram is a wrong thing....

I have read the baghavatam(published by lifco) , which

also substantiates the view held

above...In the vishnu puranam (pub by lifco) , in the

chapter where parasarar mentiones

about the duties and life style of grihasta , it is

mentioned that a husband should never

see his wife(when she takes bath without vastram)....

 

But yesterday I was reading a telugu book called "

devaadi devudu sri krishna bagavaanudu "

authored by prabupada(acharya of iskcon)...The

explanation given by srila prabu pada is

completely different.......he says "lord krishna

wanted to enjoy the beaty of gopies to

the fullest possible extent and so he told them to

come and request him to

give back their vastrams..further he wanted to enjoy

the beauty of them one by one ,

hence he asked them to come one by one...though lord

told that taking bath nakedly is a sin..he was just

kidding..his tiru ullam was different..to enjoy

their beauty " I dont want to post the remaining

explanations

of prabupada as it is still more offending .........

 

I beleive that this is not the view held by RAMANUJA

sampradayam..

Pls help me clarify this doubt.....if the view held by

prabupada is wrong then ,

then probably we should avoid reading such books....

 

 

adiyen

ramanuja daasan

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Balaji,

 

I have read very little of Srila Prabhupada's voluminous

translation and commentary on Srimad BhAgavatham. But, I am a

little taken aback that he would suggest something mundane in his

interpretations of Sri Krishna's leelas. From attending

discourses at our local ISKCON temple, I was under the impression

that ISKCON is very much in line with other Vaishnava traditions

in its understanding that the relationship that the Lord shared

with the Gopis of BrindAvanam is far beyond worldly pleasures,

and indeed, is far outside the realm of understanding of

baddhajivAtmas.

 

The residents of BrindAranyam are indicative of the three types

of people we find in the world: the rare souls who have given

themselves completely to God, those who need Him only to help

them in self-interested pursuits, and those who neither know

about God nor care to know about Him. Of these three, the first

are the gopikas who, out of their pure sAtvika nature, simply and

innnocently lived only for Krishna and His enjoyment. It is this

anubhAvam that our Andal has been sharing in her words with all

of us over this month long celebration of mArgazhi, and it is in

our hearing Her words and our AchAryans' pravachanams about them

that we can

begin to at least slightly understand to know what Pure Love for

Him is really like.

 

I am unaware of a formal SriVaishnava vyAkhyAnam on Srimad

bhAgavatham (perhaps more erudite members can enlighten us on

this). But based on what I have learned, would like to suggest

that Sri Potana's translation and elaboration of the work in

Telugu is considered by many scholars to be more supportive of

the SriVaishnava position. I hope that readings of this work may

help you in gaining further clarification on this subject. I

would also suggest that you make efforts to contact an ISKCON

devotee to determine whether or not the work that you have read

is really Srila Prabhupada's commentary or has just been

attributed to him.

 

Ramanuja Dasan

Mohan