Originally posted by: lola610
Going back to a convo between Janu and Shivang a few pages back, around 24-25ish, regarding Nand Baba and Yashoda Maiya's separation from Krishna after his move to Mathura - just wanted to give my take: In the Bhagavat and so much other Vaishnav literature derived from it, virah is a pivotal theme - and it is so for a reason. For devotees, it's said to evoke its own 'ras', it's a type of sadhna wherein they can feel their love for God (in whichever bhav they choose - in this case vaatsalya) most intensely. Just like the old cliche that applies to worldly ties, "loneliness makes the heart grow fonder" (or for whoever remembers Koyla, "tanhaai tanhaai tanhaaiii... dono ko paas le aayiii" 😆), the same holds true for devotees' relationship with God once it reaches a certain point and acquires that 'mystic' quality. It's evident throughout devotional poetry be it medieval Hindu, Sufi, etc. So in that case, for Nand-Yashoda who were at that level in their love for God, the separation for Krishna after having such sweet memories with him were as valuable as the union, but in a different way. The union gave them the experiences with him, and the separation gave them the time and circumstance to dwell on those experiences and lose awareness of all else, like we saw with VD in my oft-quoted pre-Soja Lalla scene. Just imagine Nand-Yashoda spending their post-Kans Vadh days envisioning little Kanha in his "haath mein makhan" form everywhere they looked, rather than lamenting their fate like ordinary humans would - and then there's less grounds to worry about whether or not they accompanied Krishna to Dwarika or visited him. There's every chance that they did, and the authors just don't mention it because then the valuable image of them being totally absorbed in Krishna even in the absence of his physical presence/proximity would be lost.
Totally agreeing Lola. That Virah concept of Bhagwat is without doubt the total spiritual justification of what happened in the story of Nand Yashoda afterwards. I knew about it but what we were discussing was not totally from the point of view of a devotee or mythology but mostly from the practical point of view of society. Social common sense says that they should have or could have maintained the contact (with Vasudev Devaki to be more precise as the main interesting theme of the issue being discussed). And your last sentence exactly summarizes that. "There's every chance that they did, and the authors just don't mention it because then the valuable image of them being totally absorbed in Krishna even in the absence of his physical presence/proximity would be lost."
And now... onto the most recently completed entry which covered the remaining Prem Leelas:
Just superb analysis Lola. Garvadaman Radha theory, Haste creates waste and the connection of Ramanujacharya and Surdas. I am ready to join the discussions if you raise 10-15 topics from that Garg Akrur scene here or in Gargacharya thread. Bas koi specific topic chhedo aur spark generate karo utni hi der. And that 'God will save me' story you had mentioned in early CC somewhere and afterwards we also had discussion on its contradiction with Shursen scene when Akrur (God's form) comes to save him and tries to explain him to escape and he replies something like "Mera rakshan karnewala to mere sath hai". Same way he also tries through his man to send Vasudev the equipment to escape from the jail. In the former case, it is the issue of pride of king and in the latter, it is the issue of promise keeping.
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain
964