Appendix 1 332 OR 335
Scholars disagree about the number of chapters in Çrémad Bhägavatam. Some consider chapters Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen of the Tenth Canto interpolated. These chapters describe the killing of Aghäsura, Lord Brahmä's stealing the calves and cowherd boys, and Brahmä's prayers to Lord Kåñëa. The controversy is an old one and the dissenting scholars are a diverse group. Some are Bhägavatam commentators from the Puñöi-märga sampradäya of Vallabhäcärya; some are from the Madhva sampradäya, and others are from the Çré sampradäya of Rämänuja. Of these only äcäryas in the Vallabha sampradäya 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, Gauòéya äcäryas, along with äcäryas of the Nimbärka and Çaìkara sampradäyas, and some other well-known commentators on Çrémad Bhägavatam, consider these three chapters authentic. In the Gauòéya line Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé's Båhad-vaiñëava Toñané, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's Vaiñëava Toñané, and Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa's Siddhänta Darpaëa, give in brief the Gauòéya sampradäya's view on the authenticty of the three chapters.
In the 19th century an äcärya in the Vallabha sampradäya, Giridhara Läl Gosvämé, wrote a strongly worded and lengthy essay attempting to refute Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's statements. In it he describes Çréla Jéva Gosvämé as an äcärya-drohi, or one who rebels against the previous äcäryas. Läl claimed that Çréla Jéva Gosvämé is not even a devotee, let alone a recipient of the mercy of Lord Kåñëa. Läl wrote, "His heart is completely filled with the sinful qualities of Kali Yuga. Jéva Gosvämé is unable to understand the learned opinion of Çré Vallabhäcärya."
In Sanskrit there is a saying äcärya kåtvä na nivartante, "The äcäryas do not come back to support their writings." Hence it is the duty of their followers to defend the conclusion of their predecessor äcäryas. Since Läl's critique includes virtually all the points his predecessor äcäryas give favoring 332 chapters to the Bhägavatam, in this essay we shall give the gist of his views. Then we shall respond based primarily on the evidence given by the Gauòéya äcäryas.
My purpose is not to criticize those who do not accept these three chapters as part of the Çrémad Bhägavatam, but to uphold by logic, scriptural references, history, and the testimony of saintly persons that the opinion of Çréla Jéva Gosvämé is conclusive. Na hi nindä nindayituà pravartate api tu vidheyaà 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 iñöaà tena gamyatäm, "Ultimately everyone is free to follow their desired path."
Of all the essays on the subject Läl'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 Pradhän-malla-barhaëa nyäya--if the champion wrestler is defeated, then all other contenders are defeated.
Vallabhäcärya, in his book Çrémad Bhägavatärtha Prakaraëam, in which he gives the gist of Çrémad Bhägavatam, writes that Çrémad Bhägavatam has three types of languages: (1) Samädhi bhäñä, or language of trance; (2) Laukiké bhäñä, or the language of the people, which is used to give material descriptions; (3) anyabhäñä, another language, which gives opinions of other sages. The last two support the first. (Çrémad Bhägavatärtha-prakaraëam 1.11,12):
While explaining this verseVallabäcärya says that in Çrémad Bhägavatam somewhere there is glorification of knowledge, somewhere there is contradiction between earlier and later parts, somewhere there are defects of repetition. To resolve this Vallabhäcärya says that there are three types of languages.
Here the Puñöi märgis have accepted the two types of apparent problems--
(1) Contradictory parts of a story. (2) Repetition of some statements. Vallabhäcärya and every other commentator, recognizes these problems in Çrémad Bhägavatam 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 Çrémad Bhägavatam.
Çréla Jéva Gosvämé 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 Läl Gosvämé have let off steam.
If the internal disharmony or contradiction can be resolved if it is demonstrated that these chapters have been accepted by äcäryas of yore then there is no reason for debate. Giridhara Läl 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 Vallabhäcärya. Since Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has done it successfully and thus he says there is no reason to label these chapters spurious. If the äcäryas of Vallabha sampradäya or any other sampradäya 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 Çrémad Bhägavatam. The popular saying is dhanaïjaye häöakasaà parékñä vidyävatäà bhägavate parékñä, "one's scholarship is tested in Çrémad Bhägavatam just as gold is tested in fire." The real reason for rejecting these chapters is that both the Tattvavädis and the Puñöi-märgis do not accept that demons killed by Kåñëa can attain personal liberation as granted to Pütanä.
I begin with an extract from Çréla Jéva Gosvämé's Vaiñëava Toñani. 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 Pütanä. 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 Väsanäbhäñya, Sambandhokti, Vidvat-kämadhenu, Çukamanoharä, and Paramahaàsa Priyä. If someone says that these are not authentic, being unacceptable to their sampradäya, then, by the same logic, why not consider them authentic since they are accepted by other sampradäyas?
One should not say that in the Çrémad Bhägavatam Lord Kåñëa is not mentioned as the killer of Aghäsura, Aghäbhid, like the killer of Mura demon, Murabhid. In verse 3.15.23 of the S.B. He is called Aghäbhit, or the destroyer of the Aghä demon or dispeller of sins. One cannot say that these pastimes described in the chapters in question are not mentioned in the Bhägavatam list of the Lord's pastimes, because Çrédhara Svämé has mentioned them in these lists. Thus when Çrédhara Svämé says dvätrimçat triçatäà ca yasya vilasat çäkhä, "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 dvätriàçat triñatam as 332, which it appears to be at a cursory look). This phrase has a dvanda-samäsa and the word çatäni (hundreds) means three hundred because in Sanskåt the plural means three or more. Here the number three is indicated by the kapiïjala-älabhana nyäya[1], otherwise the plural can mean any number three and above, and will remain ambiguous. If it is not accepted as a dvanda-samäsa the word should become triçaté according to the grammer rules and not triçatam.
These chapters should not be rejected because Aghäsura's liberation is described after he was killed by Lord Kåñëa. (The Madhvaites do not accept that demons Kåñëa kills become liberated. This indeed is one of the reasons for their rejection of these chapters) Liberation of the demons killed by Kåñëa is not against the principles established in Çrémad Bhägavatam.
Bhagavad-gétä 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 Kåñëa. If they had attained Kåñëa, like the demons He killed, they would not go to the lower species. Thus it is said in Çrémad Bhägavatam (2.7.34,35):
"All demonic persons like Pralamba, Dhenuka, Baka, Keçé, Ariñöa, Canura, Muñöikä, Kuvalayapéòa, Kaàsa, Yavana, Narakäsura and Paundraka, great marshals like Çälva, Dviviòa and Balvala, Dantavakra, the seven bulls, Çambara, Vidüratha, and Rukmi, as also great warriors from Kämboja, Matsya, Kuru, Såïjaya and Kekaya, would all fight vigorously, either with Lord Hari directly or with Him under His names of Baladeva, Arjuna, Bhéma, etc. The demons thus being killed attained either the impersonal brahmajyoti or His personal abode in the Vaikunöha planets."
These pastimes are also decribed in the Padma and Brahmäëòa Puräëa, 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 Våndävana. We have no reason to reject the liberation of Aghäsura 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, Çrémad Bhägavatam 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 Pütanä'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-veça, 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 Våndävana. You have already arranged to give Yourself to even Pütanä and her family members in exchange for her disguising herself as a devotee. So what is left for You to give these devotees of Våndävana, whose homes, wealth, friends, dear relations, bodies, children and very lives and hearts are all dedicated to You."
Here the real cause of Pütanä's liberation was her dress as mother, so only the position of mother is being glorified. Vijayadhvaja Tértha has tried to make this verse faultless by using the principle of two souls in Pütanä, But this does not resolve the problem. One should not be bewildered just by reading the word gopé used for the women whose breasts Lord Kåñëa suckled during the one year period of the Brahma-mohana lélä and conclude that He could not have engaged in the rasa dance with the gopés. The gopés whose breasts He suckled were of the same age as mother Yaçodä 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 Çré Çuka (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 Båhad Vaiñëava Toñané, Çréla Sanätana Gosvämé makes two additional points. He says that the Tattvavädé Vaiñëavas, 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 Kåñëa's sucking the gopés breasts.
Sanätana Gosvämé's second point is in response to the objection that Lord Kåñëa cannot perform Räsa Lélä with the same gopés whose breasts He suckled (in His expanded forms as the cowherd boys during the Brahma-vimohana lélä). Those motherly gopés were on the same level as Mother Yaçodä and were not the same beloved young girlfriends with whom Kåñëa engaged in conjugal pastimes.
From the references and explanations of Jéva and Sanätana Gosvämés it is clear they were not trying to refute Vallabhäcärya of whom they made no mention, while Çréla Sanätana mentions the Tattvavädis, the followers of Çré Madhväcärya. Considering all this the Puñöi-märga äcäryas have no cause to feel offended by Jéva Gosvämé's conclusions and attack him directly with bitter statements as Giridhara Läl has done.
Giridhar Läl, the author of the Bäl-prabodhiné commentary on Çrémad Bhägavatam, mentions Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa in his essay making it clear that Baladeva predated him. This means he had the advantage of seeing all the previous arguments and counterarguments.
Läl's critique was written in Sanskåt 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 Gosvämé said: When Kåñëa and Balaräma reached the paugaëòa age (six to ten) while living in Våndävana, the cowherd men allowed Them to tend the cows. Thus engaged in the company of Their friends, the two boys made the land of Våndävana 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 Kåñëa and Balarama passing the kaumära age (below five) and the later verses speak of Their entering the paugaëòa age (above five). The interim three chapters describe Their kaumära 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 Çré Çukadeva Gosvämé did not speak these three chapters.
Vallabhäcärya says they were added later to excite people by presenting such wonderous pastimes. Çré Çukadeva Gosvämé, being a perfected sage cannot forget his earlier statement that Lord Kåñëa gave up the kaumära 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, evaà vihäraiù kaumäraiù, is repeated at the end of chapter fourteen because of Çukadeva getting into an ecstatic mood after telling of the wonderful brahma-vimohana-lélä. Çréla Vyäsadeva has declared that the Çrémad Bhägavatam is the mature fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge and it is full of rasa, juice. In Section Twenty-nine of Tattva Sandarbha, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé describes how Çukadeva Gosvämé gave up his attachment to impersonal Brahman after hearing the beautiful pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, svasukha-nibhåta-ceñöästadvyudastänya-bhävo' pyajitäruciralélä kåñöasärastadéyam. He personally tasted the rasa of the Bhägavatam by reciting it, and was completely immersed in it as is stated in the Padma Puräëa, Uttarakhaëòa, Bhägavata-mahätmya 6.101 rasa pravähasaàsthena çréçukeneritä kathä, "The Çrémad Bhägavatam was recited by Çré Çuka, who was absorbed in the flow of rasa." There are similar statements in the Bhägavatam (10.80.5):
"Thus questioned by King Viñëurata, the powerful sage Bädaräyaëi replied, his heart fully absorbed in meditation on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Väsudeva."
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 Sähitya-darpaëa, 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. lätänupräsa (a type of alliteration); 7. showing mercy; 8. pleasing someone; 9. arthäntar-saìkramita-väcya-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 Çukadeva Gosvämé into deep ecstatic feelings, causing him to lose his external consciousness as stated in Çrémad Bhägavatam (10.12.44):
Süta Gosvämé said: O Çaunaka, greatest of saints and devotees, when Mähäräja Parékñita inquired from Çukadeva Gosvämé in this way, Çukadeva, immediately remembering subject matters about Kåñëa 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 Mähäräja Parékñita about Kåñëa-kathä."
While commenting on this verse, Çréla Jéva Gosvämé writes that the word punaù 'again' indicates the he went into such a state time and again. Läl comments that the word kåcchrät 'with difficulty' means that they had to play musical instruments to bring Çukadeva back to external consciousness. Under such a circumstance it is not a defect if Çukadeva repeated a verse.
As for verses being repeated, in the Seventh Canto, Närada Muni repeats three verses twice while instructing Yudhiñöhira Mähäräja. 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. Närada Muni is giving instructions on the varëäçrama system and not on some wonderful esoteric pastimes of Kåñëa. Still he repeats these verses to give stress. Why then should it be considered spurious if Çré Çuka repeats one verse especially when speaking about one of Lord Kåñëa's most wonderful pastimes which bewildered even Lord Brahmä and caused Çukadeva to go into ecstasy?
Moreover, in some editions of Bhägavatam the fifty-ninth verse of the eleventh chapter is not found as is stated in the anvitärtha Prakäça commentary ayaà çloko na särvatrika "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 Tattvavädés and Puñöi-märgés.
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 hyavidyamäne'pi is spoken five times in Bhägavatam, once by Lord Kapila, twice by Närada Muni in the fourth canto and twice by Kåñëa 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 bhäva, 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 Çré Uddhava does not mention these pastimes found in the disputed chapters during his meeting with Vidura. They are also not mentioned in Süta's list of the Lord's activities in the Twelfth Canto, nor in Brahmä's list in the Second Canto, nor are they in the list of pastimes imitated by the gopés when Lord Kåñëa disappeared from the Räsa Dance.
Response: The assumption here is that these lists are intended to be all-inclusive, but none of these lists include all of Kåñëa's pastimes. It does not follow therefore that because neither Uddhava nor Süta Gosvämé nor Brahmä lists the pastimes in the disputed chapters, nor did the gopés imitate them, that they are interpolations. Süta Gosvämé'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 Kåñëa'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 Kubjä
The killing of the washerman
The story of the Syamantaka jewel and the marriage of Jämbavati and Satyabhämä
The liberation of King Någa
The marriage with Laxmaëä by shooting the fish
Kåñëa's dealings with Sudämä Vipra
The Lord's trip to Kurukñetra to meet the cowherd people
The kidnapping of Subhadrä
The Lord's trip to Mithilä
The return of the six sons of Devaki from Yamapuri
The Lord's visit to Mähä-viñëu with Arjuna
Lord Balaräma's pilgrimage tour
The killing of Romaharñaëa Süta
The release of Sämba from the Kauravas
Thus in keeping with the reasoning of those who reject aghäsura mokña and brahma mohana, on the basis of their not being mentioned in the lists of Kåñëa's pastimes, these 14 pastimes should also be considered spurious.
The gopés and Uddhava were just recalling certain pastimes for their own satisfaction, being guided by their bhäva, or emotional state and not by a sense of accuracy. To expect a complete list from them is illogical. Except for Süta Gosvämé, who was giving a summary of the whole Bhägavatam, no one was attempting to list all Kåñëa's pastimes. Even so, Süta's list was not all-inclusive, as already shown. His summary list does not include pastimes like liberating the Yamalarjuna trees and Lord Kåñëa's visit to Varuëaloka and so on.
C. In Caitanyamata-Candrikä, Çrénätha Cakravarti's commentary on Çrémad Bhägavatam, he writes that the liberation of the Yamala Arjuna trees is not mentioned in Süta's list of the Lord's pastimes in the twelfth canto, similarly, the killing of Aghäsura and the brahma-mohana lélä, are not included in that list as they are very confidential pastimes. This is a hasty statement born of zeal because Brahmä does mention the yamala-arjuna-lélä 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 gopés imitated the same pastime. So even if not mentioned in the twelfth canto, it is mentioned elsewhere, but Aghäsura-lélä is not mentioned anywhere so it is not part of Çrémad Bhägavatam.
Response: Giridhara Läl says that Çrénätha Cakravarti has made a hasty statement because of zeal regarding the omission of the Yamalärjuna-lélä from the pastime list of Süta Gosvämé and he cites the second and tenth cantos to refute Çrénätha Cakravarti, but it is Läl who hastily criticizes because Çrénätha 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, Aghäsura and Brahma mohan léläs are mentioned in some editions of the Çrémad Bhägavatam, in verse 12.12.23, aghäsurbadho dhatra vatsapälavagühanam, "The killing of Aghäsura and Lord Brahmä's hiding the cowerd boys." These editions along with their commentaries are the Krama sandarbha, Särärtha Varñiné, Bhakta Manoranjané, Vaiñëava Toñiëé, Bhägavat Candrikä and so on.
D. The bewilderment of Brahmä goes against his own statement in the following verse (S.B.2.6.34):
"O Närada, 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 Brahmä has realized knowledge about the Lord it is ludicrous for him to test Lord Kåñëa. Indeed Lord Brahmä was already blessed by the Lord as stated below (2.9.37):
"O Brahmä, 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 Brahmä's full understanding about Lord Kåñëa being the Supreme Person is furnished by him (SB. 2.7.27):ç
"There is no doubt about Kåñëa being the Supreme Lord, otherwise how was it possible for Him to kill a giant demon like Pütanä 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 Brahmä is not independent enough to test Lord Kåñëa.
Response: Lord Brahmä was blessed by Lord Kåñëa not to be bewildered by Mäyä. Brahmä is in complete knowledge of Lord Kåñëa. So how can Brahmä get bewildered? In the second canto, ninth chapter, verses 29 and 30 Lord Brahmä 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 Mäyä 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 Mäyä potencies, Mahämäyä and Yogamäyä. Mahämäyä causes bewilderment and makes the living entity forget Kåñëa and thus become a non-devotee. Yogamäyä also makes one to forget Kåñëa 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 Yogamäyä, the devotee does not understand that Kåñëa is the Supreme Controller and the devotee is His servant. If devotees always think of Kåñëa 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 Yogamäyä is seen in this Çrémad Bhägavatam verse(10.45.1):
"Sukadeva Gosvämé 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 Yogamäyä, which bewilders His devotees."
1] Vasante kapiïjalän älabhet. According to this Vedic injunction one should perform sacrifice in the spring season with kapiïjala birds. The number is not indicated, but because it is in the plural case, three is accepted by the Purva mimäàsakas. Otherwise the statement remains unclear.