Vrunda Tulasi Jalandhara QA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri


Regarding Tulasi-Vrunda-Jalandhara and Vishnu several questions popped up. Despite the possibility and concern that the answers are repeated, I will attempt to answer all of them just to eliminate any possible concern that some questions are skipped.

Q(uote) and Q(uestion) from Gsb Madhva. Since this will be a long reply, the questions are many, and it will be difficult to separate question/comment with answer/explanation, I will enclose the questions between ???? and answers between ====   before and after. 
First I will give very brief answers and at the end give a detailed and full explanation.

???? Start of Comment-1 from Gsb ????  

My question here is about acceptability of the Vrunda-Vishnu angle of the story itself. 
The story of Jalandhara appears in Skanda Purana from chapter 14-22. Jalandhara's invincibility was addressed by Vishnu cheating Vrinda.
In general discussion, I find this popping up a lot when it comes to Nirdoshatva of Vishnu. And I have seen the arguments given to support nirdoshatva are really not strong. 

???? End of Comment-1 from Gsb ????

==== Brief answer-1 ==== 

Is that not a dangerous approach. Where ever there is difficulty, we start giving up? Skanda Purana was listed as Tamasika, but acharya himself had quoted extensively from that purana. So mere presence in that purana is not a good enough reason to reject it. Did Vishnu really cheat Vrinda? Wait for the final explanation. Just because the arguments that were seen to support nirdoshatva are not strong, we reject without trying to find the strong argument? 

==== End of Brief answer-1 ====

???? Start of Comment-2 from Gsb ???? 

I believe the Vrunda-Vishnu story from Skanda Purana - which is inherently Tamasa is out and out agrAhya. 
Not because there is no strong argument to support nirdoshatva, but because of the following summary of postulates in interpreting Purana derived based on how Acharya does nirnaya in MBTN and BTN 

???? End of Comment-2 from Gsb ????
 
==== Brief answer-2 ====
 
If the reason for rejecting is not because there is no trong argument to support nirdoshatva, but because of following summary of postulates, how correct is it to to go that route? How can the nirnaya of Acharya in MBTN and BTN lead for the rejection of this episode? let us see all those.

==== End of Brief answer-2 ====
 
???? Start of Comment-3 from Gsb ????

1.Puranas are classified into 3
2.Satvika purana have maximum acceptable stuff.
3.The rudhi meaning of a shloka, even in tamasa purana if indicates a correct prameya is graahya.
4. A shloka in satvika purana has to be reinterpreted if the rudhi meaning is not inline with prameya.
5.But there is no compulsion and no reason to do the same for a shloka from Tamasa Purana.

???? End of Comment-3 from Gsb ????
 
==== Brief answer-3 ====
 
Where is such guideline given? Infact Acharya clearly says that all the puranas have three kinds of language
If the concentration is only on rUDhi, then only samAdhi bhAsha is addressed. What about the other two? 
In all the purANas, the approach of reinterpretng is to be done if rUDhi meaning is not ok. In tAmasika puranas, there will be more need for that.
 
==== End of Brief answer-3 ====
 
???? Start of Comment-4 from Gsb ????

Consider another popular story of Linga purana where Brahma and Vishnu set out to start the beginning and end of Linga and Brahma lies and Vishnu cant find. Do we try to jump hoops to explain nirdoshatva of this story or we apply postulate 5 and write off the story as agraahya?
 
???? End of Comment-4 from Gsb ????
 
==== Brief answer-4 ====
 
If only that superficial meaning is taken then it has to be rejected. What if one way of reinterpretation is like this. The Linga is tamobhimAni Rudra. In that tamobhimni Laksmi pervades. In that Tamo niyAmaka BhagavrUpa as Sankarshana pervades. In One form The Lord takes up that Bruhadrupa and shows that if He wills, He can make the avara satvAbhimAnis not able to reach the ends of His Tamoniyamaka Rupa by making them small with His Vishnu rUpa. Similarly He makes the avara rajobhimanis not able to reach the ends of His Tamoniyamaka rUpa by making them small with His Brahmantargata Brahma rUpa (Remember "Brahmani BrahmarUposau shivarUpi shive sthitaH".). So it is the cosmic play of the Lord. 

==== End of Brief answer-4 ====
 
???? Start of Comment-5 from Gsb ????
 
Why cant we do the same with the Vrunda-Vishnu story? After all it is also from Tamasa Purana.The Vrunda story doesnt show up in any Satvika Purana, so there is no need to jump hoops to reconcile the story itself. Is there any problem with this approach?
 
???? End of Comment-5 from Gsb ????
 
==== Brief answer-5 ====
 
Why should we do the same with the Vrunda-Vishnu story? What if it is from Tamasa Purana. That was composed by Sri Vdavyasa and whay can't it increase the glory of the Lord and give more of His Mahatmya jnAna?
 
What if the Vrunda story doesnt show up in any Satvika Purana? There is no need to jump hoops to reconcile the story itself. But there is need to see this story as not justifying the Lord's action, but as a tremendous tool to increase His mAhAtmyajnAna.
 
==== End of Brief answer-5 ====
 
???? Question A ????

hi all a muslim posed a qn. krishna raped tulasi devi who is d wife of jalandara..hw cn he b d god?? shiva hold bhiksha patre and hw can u consider him as a devata?? 

???? End of Question A ????

 ==== Brief answer  A ==== 

It is never a valid statement that the Lord rapes anyone. The answer is very obvious if one knows the definition of rape and the Lord. It may be possible that fire be cold or hare's horn is found or king George delivers a baby, but the Lord raping anyone just cannot happen. It is like asking who created God? If one sees Sri Krishna as God and thinks logically, the question of "How can He be?" does not arise. For the details of the story, wait till the end. No true Vedantin says that Shiva is All Supreme God. Every devata or god has bhikShapatra - either obviously like Siva or not abviously like others. They all need to get Moksha or liberation. Even Lakshmi who is nityamukta(ever liberated) claims that She is like a beggar in front of the Lord. Shiva is parama vairagya murthy and he is giving the true message to all by holding bhikSha pAtre. That is why there is a saying "vaishnavAnaM yath shambho". 

==== End of Brief answer A ====
 
???? Question-1  ???? 

Some questions arise when we try to substantiate Vrunda episode
1. In Skanda Purana, the boon for the Jalandhara was given by Brahma. Boons by lower devata are always broken. This is very evident in MBTN. Then why would a nirdosha Vishnu need to work within the framework of the boon to spoil the chastity of Vrunda ?
 
???? End of Question-1  ????

==== Brief answer-1 ==== 

Is it possible that the chastity of Vrunda was spoilt? The problem is in the assumption itself. Right questions are being asked, but the right answers are not coming out. 

==== End of Brief answer-1 ==== 

???? Question-2  ????
 
2. Ahalya episode is explained by Indra playing his role in EdhamAna dwiT ashvatthama hatah kunjaraH can be explained because it is a yuddha in which adharma has to be defeated. And Drona had role in killing of Abhimanyu. 
In Krishnavatar, when Krishna did anga sanga, they were all devata and had done katyayani vruta to get Lakshmi avesha and fully aware of Krishna's personality But the incident of Vishnu spoiling the chastity of a woman without her knowledge doesnt sound right. Vishnu may be nirlepa, but if the act has happened, then how to substantiate the nirdoshatva.
 
Doing harm to an inherently tamas daitya is not a dosha. But here the person involved is saatvika as per the story.
More in next point.

???? End of Question-2 ????
 
==== Brief answer-2  ====
 
The crux of the problem lies in putting Vishnu on the same scale as others. This becomes very clear after reading the final explanation. ==== End of Brief answer-2  ====
 
???? Question-3 ????
 
3. We say - when someone elder to us oppose the ekadashi vruta etc. we should still go ahead with it because it is biggest dharma. 
If Vrunda was satvika enough to get Lakshmi Avesha and hence deserve Vishnu's anga sanga, then she should have opposed the wrong doings of her husband. He is asura and is not svottama for her anyway and she will know it. In which case, like Prahlada, being bold and standing up for real dharma is bigger than pati dharma for her. But she never did that.
 
???? End of Question-3  ????
 
==== Brief answer-3 ====
 
I see lot of self-contradictions. You are claiming She is Satvika and then you are also claiming that she did not follow the real dharma. 
The fruits are given based on the karma and not based on whether Jiva is Satvika. Of course the expectation is that sAtvik Jiva normally does sAtvika karma.
==== End of Brief answer-3  ====

???? Question-4 ????
 
4.     Furthermore anga sanga of asura for a muktiyogya stri of high in taratamya like vrunda (who perhaps has niyata pati) is a dosha for vrunda itself. But she accepted all that. Didnt do Katyayani Vruta etc. (If she had done she would know it is Vishnu). So Lakshmi avesha comes without any vrutanustana just like that for Vrunda?
 
???? End of Question-4  ????
 
==== Brief answer-4  ====
 
I see lot of self-contradictions. You are claiming She is Satvika and then you are also claiming that she did not follow the real dharma. 
The fruits are given based on the karma and not based on whether Jiva is Satvika. Of course the expectation is that sAtvik Jiva normally does sAtvika karma.
==== End of Brief answer-4  ====
 
???? Question-5 ????
 
Lots of hard questions like this. And there are no satisfactory answers. Which is why I am inclined to consider it as agrAhya incident altogether of the same type as searching of Linga moola by Vishnu and never occurred.

???? End of Question-5  ????
 
==== Brief answer-5  ====
 
I see lot of self-contradictions. You are claiming She is Satvika and then you are also claiming that she did not follow the real dharma. 
The fruits are given based on the karma and not based on whether Jiva is Satvika. Of course the expectation is that sAtvik Jiva normally does sAtvika karma.

==== End of Brief answer-5  ====
 
Now let us look at the episode and detailed analysis.
 
Firstly, the niyata pati-patnitva is for higher kaksha devatas only. Vrunda is lower than 26th kaksha. On the other hand Tulasi is Jambavati, who is 6th kaksha. So, it is possible that due to prArabdha, Vrunda can marry an asura, who can be inherently rAjasik or Tamasik.
 
If we take Ravana and Mandodari story, we can see two things – Ravana had two souls (one tAmasik and one sAtvik). Mandodari constantly advised Ravana by dissuading his wrong deeds. Mandodari’s chastity was not a shield for Ravana. On the other hand, Vrunda did not dissuade Jalandhara. Further her chastity was used as a shield for Jalandhara. As Lord Krishna said “Narayanadvit, tadunubandhi nigrahameva paramo dharmaH”. If Jalandhara had hatred for Vishnu, he need to be punished only. Lord Vishnu is aprAkruta rUpa, who does not have prAkruta sharIra even in avatAras. So, how can he even have any physical contact. Even Gopikas had the awareness in their hearts. In their Gopi Gita they say “shrayata indirA sAdhu tatra hi”. Because there is Lakshmi sannidhAna, the Lord went to them. When the boon of anga sanga is given to others, the only way the Lord does is to have Lakshmi sannidhana and He only joins Lakshmi, who is also aprAkRuta and the others have the experience that they had angasanga with the Lord, but that is only “achityadbhuta shakti” of the Lord. In case of Vrunda, there are several layers that we have to see.
 
First of all, the Muslim did not have the concept of Rape. If the Lord came in the form of Jalandhara, and Vrunda willingly contacted the Lord, the question of Rape did not even arise. The Muslim should have accused of deceiving, but not raping. Even did any deception happen? If the Lord can override the boon, why did He not take that simpler path than deceiving her and making her impure?
 
Suppose an argument is brought – The Lord is pavitrANAm pavitram yo mangalAnAM cha mangaLam. The river Ganga which emanated from His feet can purify people of their sins. Then how can the giver of purity make anything or anyone impure? The Lord’s touch will make Vrunda or any one pure only. If she did not become impure at all, then two problems pop up. The means of satisfying the boon does not happen and the Lord’s attempt to make her impure becomes meaningless. In other words no matter what the problem seems to be there.
 
For instance, let us take HiraNyakashipu case. The Lord can simply overturn the boon. “satyam vidhAtum nijabhrutya bhAshitam” – not only make the words of Prahlada(the Lord’s servant) true, but also make the words of Brahma(the Lord’s servant) true. The Lord can also make them true even if He came as well-known Narayana form as Narayana is neither man nor animal. The Lord’s goal is not just that. He wants to strike terror in the minds of the evil ones and also teach a lesson – no matter how smart they are, they cannot outsmart the Lord. Giving this message is important and this makes the gods also very excited – pramadada sudhiyAM, mohaka dveShabhAjAM.
 
Similarly, in case of Sri Rama and Sita, the daityas thought that they were really separated and the gods knew that they were not.
 
In case of Vrunda thought that her pAtivratya saves her husband, even if he goes on wrong path. They have to be taught a lesson. Lord’s touch does not defile anyone. But the Lord pretends as if that happens. If that is the case, how come it was thought that the boon was satisfied? The tatvAbhimAni daityas, who are resident in Vrunda, Jalandhara and other daityas did think that Vrunda lost her purity. Vrunda also thought that she lost her purity. Thus what is important is what she thought and not what really happened.
 
Imagine Lord is all-doer (nAham kartA hariH kartA), but still how do we get the fruits? Because the Jivas think that they are the doers and thus they get attached to Karma. Thus the lEpa comes from what the Jivas think and not what really it is. Thus the Lord is never guilty of any wrong-doing. In fact He is All-doer and still has no lEpa at all. That is for many reasons. Firstly He is all-svatantra. 
Secondly, He is without any taint. 
Thirdly It is his inherent nature to be perfect. 
Fourth He is aprAkruta and so no physical contact can be there with Him.
Fifth, any thing He touches can become purer only and never impure. In fact The Lord event grants the boon to make Ahalya pure and deprive her of the fault of the taint with Indra’s touch by the touch of his foot. Such is His grace.

Other link:

 


Comments

Post a Comment