Rasa-pancadhyayi IV - Krsna Reappears

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.1

Śrī Śuka said: “Thus the gopīs, yearning to see Kṛṣṇa, sang intensely, spoke many kinds of delirious words, and then, O King, wept in beautiful tones.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

After their song came delirious speech, and after that came weeping. They sang with great intensity, their voices filled with musical modes and emotion. Then, like people driven mad, they uttered many kinds of words into empty space and wept melodiously. The beauty of their voices was entirely natural, not something consciously composed. (1)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.2

“Then Śauri appeared before them, His lotus face smiling. Clad in yellow garments and wearing a garland, He was Cupid's own enchanter embodied.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

When He heard them weeping in that way, He could endure it no longer and appeared at once. Here “Śauri” is understood not merely as a fixed proper name but through its derivation from “hero.” Even the son of a hero could no longer sustain the pastime of concealment, and therefore appeared directly before them.

For this reason His lotus face was smiling, as though He were saying, “My composure can hold no longer.” “Bearer of the yellow garment” may mean that, overcome by a special emotion, He held His slipping yellow cloth in His left hand. Or He held one edge of His yellow upper cloth over His face to conceal His smile. Or the upper cloth had slipped so that one portion of the yellow garment lay upon the ground. Otherwise the simple word “yellow garment” would already convey that He wore it, and “bearer” would add nothing.

He wore a forest-flower garland that had not faded. He is “the Cupid of Cupid”: as Cupid churns the mind, He churns even Cupid's mind. Alternatively, Madana is so called from roots meaning to intoxicate or churn. Rudra is Manmatha because he crushed Madana, yet Kṛṣṇa in His Mohinī form crushed even Rudra's pride. Although He is so enchanting, He Himself was drawn by the gopīs' beauty. Or He is Cupid manifest in person, and yet the enchanter even of embodied Cupid. (2)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.3-4

“Seeing their dearest one return, the weakened gopīs' eyes blossomed with joy, and all of them rose at once, like bodies when life returns. One joyfully clasped Śauri's lotus hand within her folded palms; another placed His sandal-anointed arm upon her shoulder.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“Returned” accords with the gopīs' own perception. Or He manifested in their midst. Or He first appeared at a distance and then approached until He stood near them. Viṣṇu Purāṇa similarly says, “Then they saw Him approaching, His lotus face blossoming” (5.13.43).

They beheld Him with special care. Their helpless weeping had made a slight glimpse seem no sight at all; or, although they saw Him, their extreme anguish left them unable to believe it until they had inspected Him fully. Then their eyes opened wide and blossomed with delight. Though weakened by separation and unable to rise, all stood at the same instant because He was their most beloved.

How could women who seemed to have reached life's final state rise so suddenly? The verse answers with its comparison. Because He alone is their dearest, He alone causes both their dying and their living. Alternatively, first their eyes blossomed with love and then they rose, just as a body first begins to stir when life returns and only afterward resumes its activities. Repeating that He had “returned” teaches that His coming alone caused them to stand. (3)

The next six verses describe how His coming removed every gopī's fever of separation and produced a supreme festival. The first five separately describe the loving actions of eight famous principal gopīs.

One took one of His lotus hands because the other held His garment, and because this gesture was especially beautiful. Comparing His hand to a lotus suggests its natural redness and other beauties, as well as its power to remove burning pain. She received it in folded palms out of exceptional devotion and with joy because the suffering of separation had ended. These qualifications should carry through the descriptions that follow.

Another placed upon her shoulder His indescribably beautiful arm. “Śauri's” continues to govern this phrase and the verses that follow. The arm was streaked or anointed with sandal paste, expressing both its beauty and its power to dispel fever. Footnote 117 records Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa's reading “adorned” instead of “streaked.” (4)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.5

“One slender gopī received His chewed betel within her folded palms. Another, burning with longing, placed one of His lotus feet upon her breasts.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“Within folded palms” has the same devotional force as before. Alternatively, she offered both palms in the hope of receiving a large amount of the betel He was continually chewing, or because its supreme richness of rasa made her fear that even a fragment might fall. She was exceedingly slender, having become emaciated in separation.

Because this chewed betel was supremely relishable, Bhagavān Himself, the crown jewel of elegant lovers, may have brought the betel beforehand; or it may be understood as an offering from Śrī Vṛndā Devī and her companions.

The gopī who placed one lotus foot upon her breasts must have seated herself for that purpose. Bhagavān's own sitting will be described later: “He sat there” (10.32.14). Her burning anguish explains why she placed His foot there; otherwise the heat of separation and the fever of desire could not depart. The variant reading “upon her heart” gives the same sense. Footnotes 118 and 119 record these textual readings. (5)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.6

“One knit her brows and, overwhelmed by the agitation of love, bit her lip and stared at Him as though striking Him with arrows from her sidelong glances.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

One gopī first drew her brows tightly together under the agitation of love and afterward became overwhelmed by that same loving agitation. The verb “looked” should be connected with the phrase that follows.

Viṣṇu Purāṇa likewise says: “One bent the surface of her brow, then gazed upon Hari and drank the lotus of His face with the bees of her eyes” (5.13.44).

Another gopī looked at Him as if striking Him with volleys of arrow-like sidelong glances. Here too the cause should be understood as love's agitation, as shown by her bitten lip, or by carrying the word “love” forward from the first half. (6)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.7

“Another served the lotus of His face with unblinking eyes. Though she drank it fully, she found no satisfaction, just as saints are never satisfied with His feet.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“Serving” means gazing upon Him with love. “Though she drank it” makes her two eyes into drinking cups and means that she had looked fully and with supreme love, yet remained unsatisfied.

The saints are exclusively devoted to loving bhakti. The comparison concerns only the shared absence of satisfaction in either sweet prema or loving devotion. Yet passages such as “bees at the lotus feet” show that those saints' devotion centers upon His sacred feet. These beloved gopīs, impelled by longing for the nectar of His lips and other intimate delights, direct their love chiefly toward His sacred face. The verse therefore reveals the distinctive nature of their prema. Because the saints do not directly experience the tenderness and other qualities of His feet in the same intimate way, scripture employs metaphors such as the lotus. (7)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.8

“One gopī drew Him through the openings of her eyes into her heart, closed those eyes, and embraced Him within. Her limbs thrilled as she remained flooded with bliss, like a yogī absorbed in meditation.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

One gopī, bowed by supreme modesty and similar virtues, could not repeatedly look at Him directly for a long time. She therefore drew Him through the doorway of her two eyes into her heart, as though wishing to experience within the mind His whole form and every one of its beauties. She closed her eyes because, if both eyes remained fixed upon a single limb, she could not see His other limbs even within the mind. Or she feared that He might escape again through those same eye-doorways. In truth, these actions arose spontaneously from being flooded with her particular prema.

She therefore embraced Him within the heart. The word “and” may further imply that she chanted “Kṛṣṇa! Kṛṣṇa!” Viṣṇu Purāṇa says: “One gopī, seeing Govinda approach, became overwhelmed with joy. She said only ‘Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa’ and uttered nothing else” (5.13.44).

If the previous verse beginning “one knit her brows” is taken to describe only one gopī, then this eighth principal gopī should be identified with the woman described here by Parāśara. She remained for a moment utterly submerged in the rasa of bliss. The yogī in the comparison has concentrated the mind upon Bhagavān through meditative yoga. Viṣṇu Purāṇa says: “One gopī, seeing Govinda, closed her eyes. Meditating upon His form alone, she shone like one established in yoga” (5.13.46).

The analogy extends only to the absence of outward awareness. “Through the opening of her eyes” shows that this gopī is superior even to the yogī, for direct sight gives her a bliss far exceeding sight in meditation. This is explained in the latter part of Śrī Bṛhad-bhāgavatāmṛta. The feminine “one gopī” also points to a distinctive emotional condition. Because she embraces Him, her bliss is greater even than that of attendants and cowherd companions who see Him directly.

The eight beloveds are praised in order: Candrāvalī, Bhadrā, Padmā, Śaibyā, Śyāmā, Viśākhā, Lalitā, and Rādhā. The reason their individual names are not stated in the Bhāgavata has already been explained.

There cannot be a broad hierarchy in their prema, because each has attained its own supreme limit in Him. Their actions, such as receiving His lotus hand, arise according to their individual natures or their desires at that moment. Still, just as one may discern distinctions among the liberated and worshipable associates of Vaikuṇṭha, a certain gradation may be conceived among these gopīs. Of them, eight are renowned as principal, and among those eight Śrī Rādhā Devī is celebrated as superior through Her distinction in every respect. The corresponding depth of their emotions and acts should be inferred. This is why the eight are described separately in these particular ways. (8)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.9

“All the gopīs found fulfillment in the supreme festival of seeing Keśava and cast off the burning pain born of separation, just as people become free from suffering upon attaining a wise person.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Not only the eight just described became joyful and free from fever; every other gopī did as well. Keśava may be derived as “He who possesses beautiful hair,” and thus the mere sight of even one of His hairs can be understood. Āloka means even a slight glimpse. That glimpse itself became the supreme festival, the gathering of every desired good or the full blossoming of the heart, and through it they attained fulfillment.

The verse gives a fitting comparison. Prajña, “the wise one,” may be derived as one who knows perfectly and completely, indicating Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Or it means a foremost mahā-bhāgavata who knows the truth of the greatness of devotion to Him. When devotees regain such a person who had gone elsewhere, obtain him fully, and meet him again and again with love, they abandon the fever born of his absence. By joining the privative prefix differently, “people” may mean the Vaiṣṇavas, the people of this Viṣṇu, who abandon their pain in this way.

This comparison is appropriate because the principle is well known, just as one may simply say “the war of Rāma and Rāvaṇa,” and because only this example is adequate to the gopīs' experience. (9)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.10

“Dear one, surrounded by those gopīs whose sorrow had been swept away, the all-powerful, infallible Bhagavān shone more splendidly, as the conscious person shines through his manifest powers.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Bhagavān Himself attained supreme fulfillment, and the very essence of His divinity became manifest as still greater beauty. The gopīs had cast away the inner fever born of separation. Parāśara describes how Mādhava appeased one with loving words, another with glances beneath bending brows, and others by touching their hands (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 5.13.30).

Though Bhagavān is complete in every majesty, and though Acyuta never falls from any aspect of beauty under any circumstance, He shone especially and still more brilliantly when surrounded by them. “Bhagavān” may itself state the cause: in that radiance He revealed the complete treasure of His own divinity.

Although He had already reached beauty's highest limit, the gopīs made Him more resplendent. The verse proves this by analogy. Though the living being in its conscious nature possesses every power, it shines fully only when powers such as the senses become manifest; otherwise it resembles one who has fainted. In the same way, Kṛṣṇa's sweetness, compassion, and other qualities become manifest when He is surrounded by His beloveds, and only then does His beauty increase. Otherwise even being served by hosts of devotees would not complete the all-beautiful essence of His Bhagavānhood.

Śuka therefore addresses Parīkṣit as “dear one,” either in wonder or because he is fit to comprehend this mystery. Or the memory of it again overwhelms Śuka with prema. (10)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.11-12

“The all-pervading Lord gathered the gopīs and entered the bank of the Kālindī. Blossoming jasmine and heavenly mandāra made its breeze fragrant and filled it with bees. The amassed rays of the autumn moon had destroyed the night's darkness. The place was auspicious, and the river Kṛṣṇā had smoothed its soft sand with her rippling hands.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

These two verses show another circumstance that enhanced the special radiance just described. He took every gopī properly, holding each one's hand, and led them from the former bank to another sandy shore suited for the rāsa. He entered it and occupied its center. He is called Vibhu, the all-pervading one, because although He is one He could receive and bring all of them simultaneously.

The description of the riverbank shows that it possessed every stimulus of love and was perfectly suited for rāsa. Contact with the shore made the wind cool and gentle, while the flowers that housed the six-footed bees made it fragrant. “Autumn” indicates the exceptional clarity of the moonbeams, and their “mass” indicates the full moon. The removal of the night's darkness suggests daylight-like brilliance.

The river is called Kṛṣṇā because, sharing Kṛṣṇa's name and dark color, she had attained friendship with Him. This explains the image of her waves as hands. Or her extraordinary beauty attracted even His mind. The phrase also suggests that she had gathered away every uneven or hard portion of the ground as though with hands, leaving only soft sand. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

Alternatively, He entered that same bank with all the gopīs and proceeded to its center. Vibhu then means “He became manifest in a special way”: He displayed His divine opulence. The next two verses, beginning with their joy at seeing Him, will describe that manifestation. The remainder is the same. (11-12)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.13

“The joy of seeing Him swept every pain from their hearts, and they reached the ultimate end of desire, as the revealed scriptures attain Him. With their own upper garments, marked by the kumkuma of their breasts, they prepared a seat for the friend of their very selves.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The verse now describes the loving service of the supremely delighted gopīs. Seeing Vibhu, who was eager for a special pastime, brought them joy and completely swept away every pain of the heart. By coming to this place with Him they knew that rāsa had been determined. Verse 10 said only that their grief of separation had been destroyed; now every pain in the heart disappears. They therefore reached desire's final fulfillment.

Alternatively, the comparison is implicit: because rāsa was near, they reached something like the end of their desire. The revealed scriptures, by describing His qualities, appear to attain Him but do not receive Him fully because they lack direct attainment. Brahmā's prayer similarly says, “Even today the dust of His feet is merely sought by the Vedas” (10.14.34).

Or the joy of seeing the all-pervading Lord removed the pain of separation, while the desired goal would arrive gradually. The Vedas too proceed in stages: seeing the Lord, they abandon the network of ordinary desire.

Another reading takes “the end of desires” as their highest resting point, beyond which no further desire exists. Having reached Him, the gopīs desired a special pastime. The Vedas likewise see the Lord and desire a special form of devotion to Him. Thus the gopīs prepared a wonderfully beautiful seat.

They made it from their own upper garments, the cloth each had been wearing over her breast covering. Those garments were decorated with breast kumkuma because the covering beneath was extremely fine and because torrents of tears during separation had soaked and shifted the cloth.

How could women possessing every virtue set modesty aside and give their Lord a seat marked by their breast kumkuma? He is the friend dearer than their very selves, dearer than millions of selves. If He sat upon the bare ground, it would cause them unbearable suffering. Their special intimate prema, and His forceful insistence that inspired them, left them no independence. They prepared the seat partly from fear that He might disappear again and a desire to surround and keep Him there, or because they wished to question Him about the happiness they sought. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

Alternatively, “friend of the self” simply means more beloved even than oneself. Overwhelmed by abundant prema, all the gopīs may have joined their exceedingly fine upper cloths into one broad, raised seat; or each group may have prepared a separate seat. (13)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.14

“Bhagavān, the supreme ruler whose seat is imagined within the hearts of masters of yoga, sat there. Honored in the assembly of the gopīs, He shone while bearing the form that is the single abode of all the beauty of the three worlds.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Although He is Īśvara, supremely independent, and Bhagavān, complete in every divine majesty, Śrī Kṛṣṇacandra is also the crown jewel of rasa-connoisseurs and the one who expands the ocean of prema's nectar. He sat upon their seat and shone. Alternatively, “Bhagavān” implies that by this very act He manifested the essence of Bhagavānhood and all His powers.

If the gopīs had prepared multiple separate seats, the one Lord sat separately upon each of them, unnoticed by the others, to give each gopī and Himself special satisfaction. Masters of yoga such as Śrī Sanaka, perfected in samādhi, concentrate the mind and laboriously construct a seat of varied jewels within the heart for His mental worship. Or their Lord merely possesses the seat they offer with the thought “I prepare this for You,” implying that He does not directly accept it at all.

Though so exalted, He shone for another reason: He had entered the gopīs' assembly and sat at the center of their many circular rows. This again implies the opulence already described. They worshiped Him by preparing the seat, or by offering betel and other articles, by joking words, or by sidelong glances.

His form is always the sole abode of the beauty of all three worlds, but at this moment it possessed a distinction surpassing every other time. The verb “shone” indicates this special manner of radiance. Footnote 134 records Viśvanātha's reading “Acyuta” in place of “worshiped.” (14)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.15

“They honored Him, who kindles bodiless Cupid, with smiling, playful glances and the movements of their brows. They placed His feet and hands upon their laps, gently caressed them, praised Him, and then spoke with a trace of anger.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The verse repeats that they honored Him in order to express fully the hospitality preceding their question, or it means that they honored Him again in a special way. He kindles even bodiless Cupid, granting him limbs and making him blaze more brilliantly than before. Thus He greatly intensifies amorous longing.

They or He Himself placed one of His feet and one of His hands upon their laps; alternatively, they placed His foot and both hands there. They touched them thoroughly, massaging them pleasantly, gently, and in various skillful ways. This too reveals His divine opulence: all the gopīs simultaneously touched two, or even all four, of His limbs.

After praising Him properly, they wished to ask a particular question and obtain His answer. They were only slightly angry because the abundance of their prema made anger naturally slight. Or their anger remained internal and did not become outwardly manifest.

Alternatively, because they were supremely eloquent, “slightly” means that they spoke briefly. They were angry because of the suffering He had caused, because He prompted an excess of words, or because without showing some anger they could not reveal their intention and obtain a satisfying answer. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

Another reading connects His kindling Cupid with the playful movements of their smiling brows. Or they honored Him precisely through those movements; since He kindles Cupid, that form of honor alone was fitting. His kindling of Cupid should also be understood as the cause of their angry speech. (15)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.16

The gopīs said: “Some reciprocate only with those who honor them. Others honor even those who do not. Still others honor neither. Please explain these three kinds clearly and properly to us.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Their three questions concern those who reciprocate with worshipers, those who honor non-worshipers, and those who honor neither. They ask Him to answer properly so that He will reject ingratitude and similar faults and firmly promise never to abandon them again.

“Tell us who each of these people are, or carefully distinguish all their respective results and explain them so that we can easily understand.” With the implied address “O sir,” they demand His attention, because His mind was reluctant to engage with a question whose answer might end by exposing His own fault. (16)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.17

Śrī Bhagavān said: “Friends, those who reciprocally honor one another strive exclusively for their own benefit. There is neither friendship nor dharma in such exchange, for it is performed for self-interest and not otherwise.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Their object is only a personally visible result, or their effort terminates exclusively in that one private interest. This description does not include service to Śrī Guru or mutual prema among Vaiṣṇavas, because genuine dharma and other virtues exist there.

The words “for oneself alone” reject even the appearance of benevolence that the world might call dharma: these people serve only in expectation of repayment. Even if reciprocity avoids an obvious fault, it contains no dharma. Such exchanges must also be equal; otherwise unequal benefit and repayment would not constitute true reciprocal service. Thus the answer to “they reciprocate with those who serve them” is that, like a shadow, their service follows only in exact proportion to what they receive. The verse implies that dharma begins where even the expectation of repayment is absent.

The particle hi expresses certainty: mutual service cannot occur in any way other than the self-interested manner stated. Alternatively, it affirms that the exchange itself is not false, because Kṛṣṇa speaks to the gopīs as friends.

Or Kṛṣṇa compassionately fears that His own behavior toward them might resemble such selfish reciprocity. By addressing them naturally as “friends,” He excludes that possibility. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

One textual analysis takes su as “one's own self” and the following phrase as “there is no happiness.” Even where mutual benefit produces apparent pleasure, repayment arises from one's own prior benefit and remains compulsory. Since it lacks dharma and substantial reality, careful analysis ends in the conclusion that there is no true happiness.

Alternatively, that wording may be a copyist's error like other familiar corrupt readings, since the following explanation does not require it. Many authorities, including Citsukha, accept the reading “for the sake of self-interest.” Then service that appears directed toward another is actually performed only for one's own purpose.

Or those whose whole effort centers on self-interest are mutual servants like royal employees and paid retainers. Hi marks this as commonly known. Because nearly everyone in the world pursues visible gain, Kṛṣṇa does not identify them individually. Footnote 137 records Vijayadhvaja's variant reading, “they know it as self-interest.” (17)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.18

“Those who serve even people who do not serve them are compassionate, like parents. In such conduct, beautiful-waisted ones, dharma and friendship are complete and without defect.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

People may fail to reciprocate because they are helpless, like those in poverty, or immature, like children. Vai marks the principle as well known. The parental comparison intends innate compassion free of any condition.

Such compassionate benefactors are truly Bhagavān's own. The earlier commentators explained this in connection with His words, “especially those who have offered their very selves to Me” (10.10.41). Nevertheless, one may distinguish two kinds: independently compassionate people and parents.

Alternatively, “like” offers parents merely as an example of both categories, with “and parents” understood. “Without defect” means complete. Compassionate people benefit others without expecting repayment, solely from extraordinary mercy. Parents possess complete friendship because of their natural tenderness; the verse mentions only friendship in their case, since parents do not generate religious merit merely by rearing their own child.

Or one may in some respect see dharma in parental care as well. Then both dharma and friendship belong to both the compassionate and the parents.

Kṛṣṇa addresses the gopīs as “beautiful-waisted ones,” meaning simply “O beautiful women.” Or He implies that this faultless dharma and friendship already shine in them. The address is also His clever means of drawing them again into serving Him.

Footnote 140 records the dual reading “the two parents.” Footnote 141 quotes and explains Bhāgavata 10.10.41: “Association causes no bondage for those who follow saintly conduct, for self-knowing souls who see equally, and especially for those whose minds are offered to Me, just as the sight of the sun does not bind the eyes.” “Saintly” means established in one's dharma; “equal-minded” means knowers of the self; and “those whose selves are made Mine” have offered their minds to Kṛṣṇa. “Especially” indicates their exceptional abundance of mercy. (18)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.19

“Some do not reciprocate even with those who serve them, what then of those who do not? They are self-satisfied, have every desire fulfilled, are ungrateful, or are hostile to their benefactors.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Vai emphasizes that such people truly do not reciprocate, while hi gives both the cause and certainty. The ungrateful fail to recognize or remember service rendered to them. Though they depend upon society and are capable of repayment, ignorance makes them fail to reciprocate; they are simply foolish. Thus their failure arises from ignorance.

Those who possess ability and knowingly refuse to reciprocate are exceedingly shameless, so Kṛṣṇa calls them enemies of their guru or benefactor. In this way He answers the gopīs' three-part question with three verses. Their own speech possesses such special virtues as concision that, by contrast, He seeks to make them forget His greater stature.

In the gopīs' view Bhagavān cannot be self-satisfied or desireless, because He performs such varied pastimes. Nor can He be called hostile to His elders merely from the word guru. Yet because He gave them the pain of separation, He failed to serve them, so neither of the first two favorable categories can fit. Only ingratitude remains. The gopīs will later say, “His heart is ungrateful” (10.47.16), and Viṣṇu Purāṇa says during Balarāma's journey, “He indeed bears the banner of ingratitude” (5.24.16).

The earlier commentators therefore explain that His own words place ingratitude at the furthest extreme. Or they gloss “enemy of a benefactor” as “exceedingly hard-hearted,” which likewise places this fault at the ultimate extreme in the present context. (19)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.20

“But friends, I do not immediately reciprocate even with living beings who worship Me, so that their tendency to follow Me may grow. They become like a poor man who gains wealth and then loses it: absorbed in thought of that treasure, he knows nothing else.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The word “but” begins a distinct case. Although Kṛṣṇa belongs to none of the four kinds just named, He too sometimes does not reciprocate. The negative comes at the very beginning because His own statement causes Him pain and extreme agitation.

By addressing them as “friends,” He proves that He is neither self-satisfied nor otherwise indifferent; without shared feeling, friendship would be impossible. The general word “living beings” implies that He makes no special calculation among them. If He did discriminate, their continued attachment would arise naturally and would not require His concealment.

The gopīs may object, “But our tendency to follow You already continues constantly.” He answers, “True, but I acted so that it might become especially complete.” He illustrates this with the poor man. The wealth is “utterly lost,” removing hope that it might simply be recovered. The poor man's whole being is therefore completely pervaded by thought of it. (20)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.21

“In this way, powerless beloveds, I concealed Myself so that you, who for My sake abandoned social custom, Vedic duty, and your own people, would follow Me still more completely. Though unseen, I continued to worship you. Beloveds, do not find fault with your beloved for this.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“In this way” connects with “so that you would follow Me.” By calling them “powerless women,” Kṛṣṇa indicates their lack of any independent strength. “Beloved” and “beloveds” declare their mutual dearness: because they are dear to one another, they should not count His act of separation as an offense. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

Alternatively, “in this way” connects with “by Me.” He too was completely absorbed in thought of them, like the poor man in the preceding verse. The reason is that for His sake they had abandoned everything. Though out of sight, He continued to worship them: He listened to their loving conversations, sang their praises and accounts of their virtues, and remembered every special state of their hearts. He merely made Himself invisible while remaining right there.

Another interpretation returns to verse 20: He said He concealed Himself to increase the tendency to follow Him. What kind of following is meant? The preceding poor-man analogy defines it. But the address “friends” already suggests through their natural friendship that He was not speaking about the gopīs in the ordinary category of devotees. “In this way” makes that suggestion explicit. The source then repeats the full verse. (21)

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.32.22

“Even with the lifespan of the gods I could not repay My debt to your faultless union with Me. You worshiped Me after cutting through the nearly unbreakable chains of home. Let your own goodness be the return for that act.”

Sanātana Gosvāmī's Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The genitive “your” expresses relationship: “I cannot perform My own good act of repayment toward you.” Or it means, “I cannot equal or reach the extraordinary good act that belongs to you.”

Their union is faultless because it is free from every dependence, devoid of deceit, and filled with a distinctive, stainless prema. It may mean their perfect concentration of mind upon Him or their direct meeting with Him. This removes the claim, made by those intent on liberation and others, that the gopīs possess the fault of material desire. On the contrary, their desire for Him is a great virtue because it causes faultless union.

The chains of home are difficult, indeed seemingly impossible, to cut. “Homes” includes husbands, sons, and other domestic relations, together with all duties performed for them. These become chains that even accomplished people find hard to sever, because they cause bondage to worldly existence. The gopīs cut them through and worshiped Him. The respectful plural “you ladies” conveys the majesty of their prema. Kṛṣṇa lacks a love equal to theirs and therefore cannot repay them. The earlier commentators explain the rest.

Alternatively, He cannot adequately repay even the apparent wrong they did for His sake, such as their harshness toward family, what then of their virtuous acts. He says this from the desire to sport freely with them forever. They are faultlessly united because they offer their stainless limbs or their very selves to Him.

The construction may also mean: “You ladies cut the difficult chain of home, the fixed obligations such as daily cow protection and every bond of obedience to relatives, yet I failed to serve you.” The variant singular “chain” gives the same meaning. Calling it nearly impossible to cross and comparing it to a chain show that even their own power could not sever it; the intensive prefix further suggests that, though they abandoned inner attachment, external departure remained impossible. Or it implies inability even when the desire to cut existed.

Kṛṣṇa cannot reciprocate because He cannot offer Himself and worship with complete independence from everything else as they did. He therefore remains in their debt, since otherwise His own promise, “As people surrender to Me, I reciprocate with them accordingly” (Gītā 4.11), would be broken.

Another interpretation reads the final blessing: “May some good person, some devotee of Mine, follow after you and repay you.” Or, “May your own virtuous deed return to you, follow you, and imitate itself; I certainly cannot repay it.” This declares His incapacity in every possible way.

Later, at the end of the chapter on the lovers' quarrel, He will tell Śrī Rukmiṇī, “We can only rejoice in return” (10.60.57). Here He cannot even offer such congratulation and simply places Himself in debt. The gopīs' superiority even to Rukmiṇī is therefore firmly established. (22)