Thread by @DefiledGod

Here is an interesting little shloka from the Mausala Parva.

While describing how the pANDavAs felt when they heard news that bhagavAn had departed for his abode, vyAsa uses the following wording:

nidhanaM vAsudevasya samudrasyeva shoShaNam vIrA na shraddadhus tasya vinAshaM shAr~NgadhanvanaH

[The loss of vAsudeva was like the drying up of the very ocean. Those valorous ones could not believe that (news), which was the loss of the bearer of the shAr~Nga.]+

Superficially, it seems to imply that the pANDavAs could not believe the death of bhagavAn, who is immortal, had occurred.

But this is a mistranslation. For the pANDavAs were j~nAnIs and well knew about bhagavAn’s true nature.+

Note that vyAsa has used both “nidhanam” and “vinAshaM”, as well as “vAsudeva” and “shAr~NgadhanvanaH. If he meant to convey the same meaning of “death”, why use different words? Why also call bhagavAn by different names?

Explained as follows+

nidhanaM vAsudevasya samudrasyeva shoShaNam

[The end or conclusion of the form as son of vasudeva, was like the drying up of the ocean which sustains life (for the pANDavAs).]+

“nidhanam” means an end. The pANDavAs were those who enjoyed the company of bhagavAn as shrI kR^iShNa. They couldn’t believe that the avatAra had come to an end. Why? Because they knew bhagavAn to be "vAsudeva", ie, the son of vasudeva+

vasudeva is known for being steadfast and truthful. So, his son, vAsudeva, is also expected to be steadfast and true to his devotees. The name signifies his reputation of integrity he has inherited from his father - the kalyANa guNa of "Arjavam"+

The pANDavAs were thinking, “how can such a person, the son of the truthful vasudeva, who vowed to protect us, leave us, his bhaktAs? The protection we seek is his darshaNa only at all times, and nothing else!”+

The same is said by Kulasekhara Perumal. He in gopIka bhAva, awaits bhagavAn’s arrival. When bhagavAn does not arrive, he says, “vAsudeva! Un varavu pArthen!” – “As you are the son of vasudeva, I expected you to keep your promise and come. But you didn’t come!”+

The loss of the vision of vAsudeva is like drying up of the ocean. Just as the ocean waters sustain life, seeing bhagavAn’s divine form as vAsudeva gave life to the pANDavAs.

The next line states that they also lost the experience of his auspicious qualities+

vIrA na shraddadhus tasya vinAshaM shAr~NgadhanvanaH
 
[Those ones with j~nAna and vairAgya, could not believe the loss of that (experience of ) bhagavAn, the bearer of the shAr~Nga.]+

The shvetAsvatAra upanishad uses the term “vIrAn” to denote j~nAna and vairAgya. So, it means the pANDavAs have those qualities as bhagavad bhaktAs.

“vinAshaM” means loss of the experience of bhagavad guNAs. As his form cannot be seen, experience of his qualities is not there.+

The first line said they lost his company, ie, the vision of his divine form. The second line now indicates they have lost the experience of his auspicious qualities associated with that form. They could not believe it. Why?+

Because bhagavAn is the bearer of the shAr~Nga. Under the nAma “dhanur-dharaH” in sahasranAma, Bhattar says that he is called by this name because his bow shAr~Nga is specifically used to upoot the obstacles in the path of his devotees who are performing Yoga+

The pANDavAs were yogIs and therefore, bhagavAn protected their Yoga directed towards him, by removing their obstacles with his sturdy bow. The shruti says the bow is one form of sudarshaNa, so equating shAr~Nga to sudarshaNa chakra is quite acceptable+

They had lost the vision of bhagavAn, who had vowed to protect by bestowing the vision of his form (divyaM dadAmi te chakShuH ~ gIta). Even if vision is lost, one can have guNAnubhava; they could not believe that was also lost when he vowed to protect their Yoga with his bow+

Therefore, shrI vyAsa was bringing out the grief of the pANDavAs in loss of vision and loss of experience of bhagavAn. Very similar to Kulasekhara Azhwar’s accusations of bhagavAn.//