shallow thinker ? -

Radhe Radhe!

dear friends,

surfing around in the net, i came upon an interesting statement from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur.
he mentiones the following:

"Vrindavan is for shallow thinkers. the real place to do bhajan is Kurukshetra, since there, Srimati Radhika is in total need of
assistance and help because she meets Sri Krischna again after a very long time."

actually, thats a nice sentiment, to help Svamini when she´s very very sad, but is this point to backed up by the scriptures?

is Sri Rupa Gosvamipad a shallow thinker, because he advises in "Sri Upadesamrita" that the highest place to do bhajan is
Sri Radhakunda? not only in the last verse does he mention that.

Taunji

Dear Tarun,

I think that different Vaishnavas have different sentiments or moods. Nobody can say that this is inferior and that is superior. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati was a devotee far beyond our scope, at least this is how I see him. We cannot fully comprehend his statement unless we know about the situation during that time. It is without doubt that there were many cheaters in the guise of renounced Vaishnavas. Of course, at the same time there were wonderful devotees living at Radha-kund, nobody would deny that. Perhaps his strong statements were inspired by the wish to make a clear distinction between real raganuga bhaktas and bogus imitators. Just like nowadays many people in the West are very negative towards Krsna-consciousness because of the horrible deeds committed by some Iskcon gurus. According to Srila Prabhupad, in India many people at that time identified bhakti with those bogus persons often criticized by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. Maybe when trying to examine a certain statement we should also try to see behind the words, to see the motives, to examine the given circumstances, etc. I know several Vaishnav organizations that take every opportunity to let people know they are not Iskcon. This is not some kind of inimical attitude, they just want to distance clearly from a certain type of mentality or behavior. Perhaps that could have been the motive behind those strong critical statements by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada that some followers of raganuga bhakti may consider as offensive. I do not think that SB or SP ever said that there is not even one sincere mahabhagavat doing his bhajan at Radhakund. To say that would be just as unrealistic as saying there are no sincere devotees in Iskcon or Gaudiya Math. Unless one knows each and every babaji personally, one cannot make a statement like that.

At least this is how I see, I might be mistaken as well.

Radhe Radhe!

good points, openmind.

my post is no challenge, but i still would like to know if this philosophical
point of view holds true.
it may have been his mood, but the "shallow thinker"-issue hurted quite a bit.

i certainly appreciate his high sentiment of doing bhajan and seva to Srimati Radhika during that crucial
time, but why make an absolute statement like so often done by him and other great souls in the GM?

something with the inner motivation of these statements draw me away from their lineage.

i´m really tired of reading nice things from them, but then get the full picture after reading or hearing
statements like the "shallow-thinker"-thing.

and still i have that doubt why nitya-siddha-souls might come down from up there to
condemn others.

so maybe my stool-fly-mind should rest now on my re-found way of (spiritual)life.


forgive me

Tarunji

I fully understand you and your feelings. After leaving Iskcon I felt the same. I had many disappointing experiences and I identified the whole thing with Prabhupad. So I avoided to read his books, I criticized him etc. But after a few years my anger had somehow dissipated and I could see things in a bit more realistic way. Now I am again grateful to Prabhupad because without him I would not be on this forum now. I would perhaps think that raganuga is some kind of Indian music. This is something like our parents: they may have faults but without them we would not have gotten this rare human birth, the only opportunity for self-realization. So we are eternally indebted to them, and their faults do not change this fact. I feel the same towards Prabhupad. He was sometimes too strict for my taste, some points I see in a different way than him, but all this does not change the fact that without him coming to the West I would not know a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g about all these wonderfully sublime topics we are discussing here. Of course I have great respect for those saints meditating in jungles or in caves, doing nirjan-bhajan. But - no matter how incredible realizations they might have - they did not come to save me, and everybody else in the West. This does not make them inferior in any sense, still, you naturally feel affection for someone who sacrificed his life for giving something to others that he could just as well keep for himself. Just imagine how many of us would be here now if Prabhupad had chosen the way of solitary bhajan, as many others did. I repeat that I do not want to minimize others in any way by this. Another example: there have been several expert doctors, but it was Ignaz Semmelweis who did not accept the fact that 13% of mothers died of puerperal fever, so working day and night he had found the remedy while his colleagues considered him crazy and laughed at him. So this makes him a bit special, since without him perhaps we would not be alive now. This does not mean he is the one and only doctor in world's history, but nobody can deny he was not an ordinary doctor.

This is how I see Prabhupad and his mission. Without him I would not be listening to Siksastaka-prayers now...

sunyayitam jagat sarvam govinda virahena me

In no way did I intend to hurt anyone's feelings, if I still did, please forgive me.

In the material world, an attempt to praise one thing often involves putting down another. Shallow thinkers often tend to unnecessarily put down others, failing to appreciate different moods of devotion while praising their own.

Philosophically speaking, we aim for aprakata-lila, and the pastimes at Kuruksetra are not present in the nitya-astakaliya-lila. Why, therefore, should we make those pastimes the main focus of our attention? Moreover, according to Sanat-kumara Samhita, Sri Radha in Her original form as the daughter of Kirtida, the hladini-sakti-svarupa, never leaves Vraja. She expands as kAmA (samyogini) and vAmA (viyogini). In Her aspect of viyogini, She drowns Herself in the Yamuna after Sri Krishna leaves for Mathura, and enters the Gokula-prakasa.

In Her aspect of samyogini, afflicted by separation, She travels to Kuruksetra to meet Her priyatama. However, the original Kirtida-suta never leaves Vraja. Samyogini-Radha and Viyogini-Radha do not know that Vrajendra-nandana never leaves Vraja, but Kirtida-suta knows.

Radhe Radhe!

dear friends,
thank you.

dear Madhava,
great explanation.

so , the aspect of Sri Radhika who never leaves Vrindavan is actually not an aspect but the original Srimati Radhika (kirtida-suta).
right?

the one who travels to Kurukshetra is her samyogini- form.
good.

then let my mind become the honeybee at the lotus feet of the form of Srimati Radhika who never leaves Vrindavana.
and maybe i´m a shallow thinker then.

Tarunji


does this mean that there is a difference in rasa-tattva between the original form and the separation form?
which is higher?

Radhe Radhe!

in another forum ( ista-gosthi) i got this reply:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur once revealed the importance of Kurukshetra in a unique way. The words of our guru maharaja were mostly revolutionary. When I was a beginner with only two years or so in the Gaudiya math, I was in charge of the Kurukshetra temple. Once, I came to the Calcutta headquarters at the hired house in Ulta Danga for the yearly preaching festival. After the festival I was to return to Kuruksetra. Srila Prabhupada was thinking of opening a "Theistic Exhibition" in Kuruksetra, showing with diorama how Krsna and his friends came there from Dwaraka, and the gopis came there from Vrindavan.
It is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam that during the solar eclipse, they came to bathe in Brahma-kunda, a sacred lake in Kuruksetra. Srila Prabhupada wanted to show the pastime with a diorama, and so the exhibition was arranged. He ordered handbills to be printed, and twenty thousand circulated in the area, inviting people to come for the exhibition.

In his connection, he told us, "You all know that only the bogus, hollow people and men of shallow thinking like Vrindavan". I was very much perplexed to hear this. I had been told that Vrindavan is the highest place of spiritual perfection. Only the liberatted souls can enter Vrindavan and the opportunity of discussing krsna-lila. Vrindavan is for the liberated souls. Those who are not liberated from the demands of their senses may live in Navadvip, but the liberated souls may live in Vrindavan. Now Prabhupada was saying that the shallow thinkers appreciate Vrindavan, but a man of real bhajan, real divine aspiration, will aspire to live in Kurukshetra.

Hearing this, I felt as if I had fallen from the top of a tree. "What is this?" I thought. I am a very acute listener, so I was very keen to catch the meaning of his words. The next thought he gave us was that Bhaktivinode Thakur, after visiting many different places of pilgrimage, re-marked, "I would like spend the last of the days of my life in Kuruketra. I shall construct a cottage near Brahma-kunda and pass the rest of my life there. Kurukshetra is the real place of bhajan".

Why? Service is more valuable according to the intensity of it's necessity. Shrewd merchants seek a market in wartime because in that dangerous position, money is spend like water, without any care for it's value. They can earn more money if a war comes. In the same way, when Srimati Radharani's necessity reaches it's zenith, service to her becomes extremely valuable. According to it's necessity, service is valued. And in Kurukshetra, Srimati Radharani is in the highest necessity because Krsna is so close but their Vrindavan lila is impossible. In a footbal game game, if the ball is just inches away from the goal, but again comes back, it is considered a great loss. In the same way, after hankering for union felt by His devotees must come to it's greatest point, but because He is in the role of a king, they cannot meet intimately. The circumstances do not allow the Vrindavan lila to take place. so, at that time, Srimati Radharani needs the highest service from her group, the sakhis.

Bhaktivinode Thakur says that in that situation, a drop of service will draw the greatest amount of prema, divine love. In the pastimes of Radha-Govinda, there are two aspects: sambhoga, divine union, and vipralambha, divine seperation. When Radha and Krsna are very near to each other, but can't meet intimately, service at that time can draw the greatest gain for the servitors. Therefore, Bhaktivinode Thakur says "I shall construct a hut on the banks on the Brahma-kunda in Kurukshetra and contemplate rendering service to the Divine Couple. If I can acheive that standard where the prospect of service is so high, then there is no possibility of returning to the mundane plane at any time".


any thoughts, comments?

Tarunji

Radhe!

The speaker of the above post by Tarunji is Srila Sridhar Maharaj. I do not see the difficulty or a philosophical contradiction in what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is saying. For me it is very simple; time, places and circunstances. As we all know, for Srila Bhaktisiddhanta preaching is the essence. He wanted that Srila Sridhara Maharaj continued his preaching at Kuruksetra and as a rasika devotee, he gave an example with such a beautiful realization of the highest moment of need for service to the divine couple. Cutting out the tendency of his disciple to waste himself out at Radha Kunda, Vrindaban. For him everything is related to preaching, spreading the love toward Radha and Krishna.

The merit of that realization is the difference to have seen the truth and just possessing amplitude of knowledge. Do not be a shallow thinker. Is Kuruksetra higher than Vrindaban, certainly not. Through out Srila Bhaktisiddhanta writings I would find, please allow me this proportion, Vrindaban 1000 times to 1 Kuruksetra. His mood is just one that is reinforced by those whose decide to stay put in Vrindaban. No contradiccion. However, no stay in vrindaban go to kurusetra. A relationship between guru and disciple.

Radhe!

Yes, Bhaktisiddhanta may certainly encourage his disciple by praising the necessity of serving at Kuruksetra. The problem arises when shallow and hollow-headed people start constructing a universal philosophy out of such statements -- a philosophy contradicting with the clear teachings of Srila Rupa Gosvamipad -- which they try to impose upon others. kUryad vAsaM vraje sada, that's good enough for me. I have no compelling urge to become more rasika than that. This is prescribed for the time of sAdhana, not exclusively for those who are siddha.

Radhe Radhe!

good points, Nandai.

but exactly this "time-place-circumstance-thing" has proven as a little failure.
my tiny soul cannot see the point in preaching something different from our Acaryas just to "straighten-out" a disciple.

Madhava hit exactly the point. cool.

they also made this "time-place-circumstance"-wonderstuff applicable to AC Bhaktivedanta Swami.
to one he preached "no jiva falls down", to the other "we have never been there".

so, although i also found that sentiment of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta about the urgent need of seva there very nice, i also felt that strange
"put -our-views-on-others-stamp" hanging over my head.

actually exactly through this art of making the absolute truth relative to time, place and circumstance, too much confusion
and frustration has been put forward.

dont take offense,
just my honest subjective viewpoint.

like Madhava, i stick to Srila Rupa Goswamis nectar-instructions!

Jay Sri Radhe!

Tarunji

Could you explain all of this in more detail for us unenlightened ones, please?

I believe that the importance given to Kurukshetra arises out of the special affection that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu showed for the Rathayatra.

You'll have to ask something a bit more specific. Samyogini and viyogini are two aspects expanded from the original Kirtida-kumari Sri Radha, just as Sri Krishna expands Himself to Vasudeva-Krishna when leaving Vraja, and so forth.

Yes, the Ratha-yatra was certainly an important incident in Mahaprabhu's path to realizing Radha-bhava. Let us therefore be absorbed in Radharani's seva at Kuruksetra during the time of the Ratha-yatra.

Actually I was thinking about it, and I realized it is probably the same as how Krishna never leaves Vraja, yet He "does" leave in His Vasudeva form, and the same is true of Radha etc., and you've just confirmed it!

I guess then that my next question is, in which sastra is it stated about samyogini and viyogini? Lalita-madhava? Also, you say: "Samyogini-Radha and Viyogini-Radha do not know that Vrajendra-nandana never leaves Vraja,." Why is it that they do not know?

If you read this thread carefully, the answer is already there.


Because of yogamaya, to facilitate varieties of pastimes. If they knew this, why would they act as they do?

Sorry, what I meant to ask was if this pastime is contained in Lalita-madhava with more or less the same explanation? I have heard that it is told in LM, but I am not sure of the expanation of viyogini/samyogini is there. Is it? If not, how do you know the Sanat-kumara Samhita is true? Do you have a copy to work from?

That's actually quite sad.

The drowning in the Yamuna is narrated in the second act of Lalita Madhava. The visit to Kuruksetra is not discussed in Lalita Madhava. However, the explanation of samyogini and viyogini is not there, since the work is a drama, not a theological thesis.

How do I know that the Sanat-kumara Samhita is true? Now, whatever that means. Dhyanacandra discusses the issue in his paddhati, and yes, I've confirmed that the passage is also present in SKS.


Now, what's sad about that?

On the issues of samyogini and viyogini Radha, and her transformation upon leaving Vraja, we could also say that Vraja is as much a level of consciousness as a place of proximity. When Radha and the Vrajabasis left Vrindavan to see Krishna at Kurukshetra, they did not leave their "Vraja" consciousness behind. Radha did not become a divided self through vitiation and transformation. The matters of samyogini and viyogini are different states of bhava that Radha underwent. She did not become someone or something else. There is no difference between the Radha at Vraja and the Radha at Kuruksetra. Samyogini Radha and Viyogini Radha are one and the same Radha experiencing different stages of vipralambha.

Indeed, it has even been shown by Vishvanatha Cakravarti and other great Gaudiya acharyas that even Krishna had not really left his "Vraja" consciousness in Vrindavan, but was preaching to Arjuna about the highest kind of relationship of his Vraja devotees.

At Kurukshetra, Sri Radha was experiencing the highest level of maha-bhava in vipralambha. Her associates, by her association, were getting a "contact high" in that condition and they all shared in these highest feelings of ecstacy.

Since Gokula is superior to Goloka in sweetness, the Vrindavan pastimes, that included going to Kurukshetra, are considered as the prototype for the pastimes of Goloka and are superior in sweetness.

So, is this to say that the Radha who was with the gopis and Vrajavasis at Kurukshetra was not really Radha experiencing the highest emotions of vipralambha? Does this meen that we are supposed to think that this was some meeting between Laxmi and Narayana or something? Vasudeva is Krishna alone. Was this Vasudeva who was meeting with some false Radha? Was the Kurukshetra meeting of Krishna with the Vrajavasis just some superficial illusion and not an actual meeting of Radha and Krishna under the most painful and torturous conditions leading to the most intense feelings of seperation?

Please explain your views on this point.

That Radha was an expansion of the original Radha.



No, not a meeting between Laksmi and Narayana. It was a meeting between Prabhava-prakasa Dvarakadisa and Samyogini-Radha, not the original Svayam-rupa Vrajendra-nandana and Kirtida-kumari Radha who never leave Vraja.



No, the meeting was not false or illusory, nor were any of the participants. They just weren't the original Vrajendranandana and Kirtidakumari of Vraja, but their expansions for enacting lila outside of the 84 krosh Vrajamandala. Let me cite the original verses of Sanat-kumara Samhita for reference.

zrI-nArada uvAca--
gate madhu-purIM kRSNe vipralambha-rasaH katham |
vAsudeve rAdhikAyAH saMzayaM chindhi me prabho ||129||
zrI-sadAziva uvAca--
zaktiH saMyoginI kAmA vAmA zaktir viyoginI |
hlAdinI kIrtidA-putrI caivaM rAdhA-trayaM vraje ||130||

Sri Narada said, “O Prabhu! When Sri Krishna goes to Madhupuri (Mathura), how can Sri Radha feel the vipralambha-rasa (separation) toward Him in His Vasudeva form? In other words, Sri Radha has nistha in Sri Krishna, but not in the Vasudeva form which exists within Krishna. When Krishna goes to Mathura, He assumes the form of Vasudeva, so how is it possible that the vipralambha-rasa can arise in Radha at this time? Please explain this mystery to me.”
Sri Sadasiva answers, “In Vraja, Sri Radha exists in three forms: as Kama
(samyogini-sakti), Vama (viyogini-sakti) and Kirtida-putri (hladini-sakti).

mama prANezvaraH kRSNas tyaktvA vRndAvanaM kvacit |
kadAcin naiva yAtIti jAnIte kIrtidA-sutA ||131||
kAmA-vAme na jAnIta iti ca brahma-nandana |
rAsArambha ivAntardhiM gatavAn nanda-nandanaH ||132||
mathurAM mathurA-nAtho vAsudevo jagAma ha |
antar-hite nanda-sute zrImad-vRndAvane mune ||133||
pravAsAkhyaM rasaM lebhe rAdhA vai kIrtidA-sutA |
tato vadanti munayaH pravAsaM saGga-vicyutim ||134||

“Kirtida-suta knows that, ‘My Pranesvara Sri Krishna never leaves Vrndavana at any
time or for any reason.’ But Kama and Vama don’t know this. O Brahma-nandana! Sri
Nandanandana disappears from Vrndavana in the same way He disappears at the beginning
of the rasa-lila. Mathuranatha Sri Vasudeva goes to Mathura. O Muni! When Nandanandana disappears in Vrndavana, Kirtida-suta Sri Radha experiences a type of vipralambha-rasa known as pravasa (a feeling that the lover has gone to a distant land). For this reason, the munis call this type of separation pravasa.

mama jIvana-netA ca tyaktvA mAM mathurAM gataH |
iti vihvalitA vAmA rAdhA yA virahAd abhUt ||135||
yamunAyAM nimagnA sA prakAzaM gokulasya ca |
golakaM prApya tatrAbhUt saMyoga-rasa-pezalA ||136||
kAmA rAdhA ca mathurA-viraheNa nipIDitA |
kurukSetraM gatA tIrtha-yAtrA-parama-lAlasA ||137||

“‘The hero of My life has abandoned Me and gone to Mathura.’ Thinking in this
way, Vama Radha becomes overwhelmed by feelings of separation from Krishna and
drowns in the Yamuna. Then She enters the celestial sphere of Gokula and obtains
samyoga-rasa (union) with Krishna. But Kama Radha, being terribly afflicted by Krishna’s
leaving, and longing to see Him again, goes to Kuruksetra under the pretense of making a tirtha-yatra.

nanda-nandana-bhAva-jJa uddhavo vrajam AgataH |
sAntvayiSyan kIrtidAyAH sutAM mAsa-dvaye gate ||138||
rAdhAm AsvAdayAmAsa zrImad-bhAgavatArthakaM |
kathAyAM bhAgavatyAntu jAtAyAM muni-puGgava ||139||
vrajendra-nandanaH zrImAMs tadA pratyakSatAM gataH ||140||

“Knowing Sri Nandanandana’s mind, Sri Uddhava arrives in Vraja to give solace
to Kirtida-suta Sri Radha. For two months he remains there causing Radha to taste the
true meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam. O Best of Munis! When She hears that bhagavatikatha,
Sri Vrajendra-nandana appears directly before Her.

It is obvious from these verses that Vama and Kama (viyogini and samyogini) are two expansions of the original Kirtida-kumari Sri Radha. All three continue to exist in their respective realms, but only Kirtida-kumari remains in Vraja, which She never leaves, just like Sri Vrajendranandana never does.

This is related in the discussion between Mahaprabhu and Sri Rupa in Caitanya Caritamritam, where Prabhu explains to him:

kRSNere bAhir nAhi koriho vraja hoite |
vraja chadi kRSNa kabhu nA yAna kAhAGte || 3.1.66 ||

"Do not take Krishna outside of Vrindavan, He never goes outside of Vraja at any time!"

Kaviraja Goswami then cites a verse from Laghu-bhagavatamritam (1.5.461) to prove the point that that Krishna who spent time with the Yadus is different from Vrajendra-nandana:

kRSNo ’nyo yadu-sambhUto yaH pUrNaH so ’sty ataH paraH |
vRndAvanaM parityajya sa kvacin naiva gacchati ||

"That Krishna born in the dynasty of the Yadus is another one than the purna (complete) Krishna, for never leaves Vraja at any time.

In technical terms, Dvarakadish Krishna is a prAbhava-prakAza of the svayaM-rUpa. Svayam-rupa is only Vrajendra-nandana in Vraja, and He never leaves Vraja.



Yes, you could say that if you wanted; however, Mahaprabhu was very particular in this regard when it came to Rupa's two dramas, Lalita-madhava and Vidagdha-madhava. He insisted that they must be two separate dramas. There was no conceccion due to the fact that Vasudeva Krishna might experience Vraja-moods in Dvaraka.



As you can see from the passage of Sanatkumara Samhita, Sri Radha continued to exist in all three forms: She stayed in Vraja as the original Kirtida-kumari, She traveled to Kuruksetra as the Samyogini, and She drowned Herself in Yamuna and took birth in Dvaraka as the Viyogini. All three aspects continued to co-exist simultaneously, just as it was with Vrajendranandana, Mathuranatha and Dvarakadisa.



Can you present evidence for the idea that She was experiencing mohanakhya-mahabhava at Kuruksetra?

By the way, whenever you cite from other sources, please always accredit the source. More than half of your first post was from Kapoor's essay "Vrindavana, the Highest Paradise".

Please clarify something for this inept one.

When Krishna left Vraja for Mathura, he actually did not leave but remained there conducting his pastimes? Or, did he disappear from Vraja and go to Mathura in his partial feature of Vasudeva? Should we think that Krishna never really left Vraja for Mathura, but only appeared to do so? If so, then how do we explain the need for Radha to drown herself in Yamuna from pangs of seperation? Would not the idea that Krishna was still at Vraja, while appearing to be leave for Mathura, preclude the whole episode of gopis seperation from Krishna and dieing, committing suicide and becoming diseased?
Should we understand that when Krishna leaves Vraja for Mathura, he actually leaves but as he leaves he is transfigured into Vasudeva? If Krishna never really appears as disappeared from Vraja, then how gopis can experience the seperation trauma?

We understand that Vrajendra-nandana never leaves out of Vraja. However, is there not an episode of Vraja-lila where he appears to be gone? If Krishna nevers really leaves Vraja, then the whole nara-lila of Gokula would be undifferentiated from the deva-lila of Goloka. Is not the nara-lila of Gokula a "human-like" pastime where Krishna appears as more humanlike than Godlike?

It seems that the proposal that Krishna never disappears from Vraja, but is always there peforming his lila, would contradict the mood of the Gokula nara-lila. Does not the proposition that Krishna never leaves Vraja make the whole Gokula-lila a facade?

Yes, this is the correct conclusion.

It is related, by Visvanatha I believe, that while bathing at Akrura-ghata, the original Krishna merged into the waters of Yamuna and stayed in Vrindavan forever, while His expansion Vasudeva emerged from the water and proceeded with Akrura away from Vrindavan.

A similar incident surrounds His birth. Vrajendra-nandana was born from the womb of Mother Yashoda, while Vaasudeva appeared in the prison cell of Kamsa's palace. When Vasudeva crossed the Yamuna and arrived to Vrindavan, Vaasudeva became one with Vrajendra-nandana.

If anyone has the relevant passages of Sarartha-darsini at hand, I'd love to see them posted here. Jagat, Advaitadas?

The incident surrounding His birth is also related in Laghu-bhagavatamritam (1.5.454-455):

kecid bhAgavatAH prAhur evam atra purAtanAH |
vyUhaH prAdurbhaved Adyo gRheSv AnakadundubheH |
goSThe tu mAyayA sArdhaM zrI-lIlA-puruSottamaH ||454||

gatvA yaduvaro goSThaM tatra sUtI-gRhaM vizan |
kanyAm eva paraM vIkSya tAm AdAyAvrajat puram |
prAvizad vAsudevas tu zrI-lIlA-puruSottamam ||455||

"Some devotees in the ancient days have stated that He first appeared as Vyuha (one of the quadruple forms, in this case Vaasudeva) in the house of Anakadundubhi (Vasudeva) at the same time as He appeared at Gostha (Vraja) as Lila-purusottama, along with maya (yogamAyA).

As the greatest of the Yadus (Vasudeva) went to Vraja-gostha, he entered the maternity room, took the most astonishing daughter and left Vraja. At this time, Vaasudeva joined with Lila-purusottama."

There's more content of interest after this passage. I'll translate it sometime tonight and post it in.