Dear Guru Mahārāja,

All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda!

Please accept my humble obeisances.

I would like to share an understanding and also a confusion that has been coming to me while reading some purports in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and I would be grateful for your guidance.

In one purport (SB 1.15.10), Śrīla Prabhupāda writes that after Draupadī fell at the lotus feet of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Lord decided that all the wives of Duḥśāsana and his associates would have their hair loosened as a result of the Battle of Kurukṣetra, and that, in other words, all the wives of the Kuru family became widows because of Duḥśāsana’s insulting a great devotee of the Lord.

In another purport (SB 1.15.15), Śrīla Prabhupāda states:

“…the Lord conducted the Battle of Kurukṣetra according to His own plan. He wanted that battle to establish Yudhiṣṭhira as the Emperor of this planet, and to facilitate this transcendental business He killed all who were on the opposite party by His omnipotent will.”

I do not have a problem with what is said in the purports themselves. My difficulty is understanding the relationship between such explanations. At times, it appears that one specific cause is presented as the reason for the Lord’s actions, while elsewhere another distinct purpose is emphasized.

From my limited understanding, it seems natural that Kṛṣṇa’s actions would have multiple motives simultaneously—protecting devotees, fulfilling vows and prayers, establishing dharma, and arranging His own līlā. Yet when a purport presents one reason in a very exclusive way, and another purport elsewhere presents a different reason, I find it difficult to reconcile them without feeling some tension.

This sometimes gives me the impression—though I may be mistaken—that the descriptions are very sharp and singular, rather than balanced, even though the reality of Kṛṣṇa’s will must be multifaceted.

I am not questioning the authority of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purports. Rather, I am trying to understand how to read them properly. Should such statements be understood as emphasizing one dominant aspect within a particular narrative or devotional context, rather than as an exhaustive explanation of all causes? Or is there another way I should be approaching these passages so that this apparent exclusivity does not disturb my clarity?

Moreover, I am sharing this as it is something I have encountered not only here but also occasionally in other contexts/purports, although I do not have further references at hand.

Thank you very much for your patience and guidance.

Your servant,

Namacarya Das

HpS ASA - AgtSP! Paoho...

Second seems like a general action that includes the specific action in first?

Battery of chaste women just one reason for two.

Okay?🙂