Rasa-pancadhyayi I - The Flute's Summons and the Gopis' Arrival

Bhāgavata 10.29.1

Śrī Śuka said:

Bhagavān beheld those autumn nights, when the jasmine flowers had blossomed. Desiring to sport, He formed His resolve under the shelter of Yogamāyā.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Obeisance to Kṛṣṇa, the connoisseur of rāsa. The reading is “the glorious son of Bādarāyaṇa said.” Bhagavān Śrī Vyāsa is called Bādarāyaṇa because he performed severe austerities at Badarikāśrama. Śuka was the son who appeared as the fruit of those austerities. This designation therefore suggests Śuka's omniscience, his being filled with the rasa of love for Śrī Bhagavān, and his other excellences. Since he is the speaker, this account is intended throughout to be both the means and the goal, and to be filled with the rasa of divine love. The implication is that it should therefore be heard with devotion.

Śuka now reveals that the foremost purpose of Kṛṣṇa's descent was the special expansion of love brought about by fulfilling the longings of the gopīs. He also discloses that sporting with them is Kṛṣṇa's own unsurpassed happiness. Only those whose nature corresponds to that of the young women of Vraja can, through such acts as drinking the nectar of His lips, experience the distinctive sweetness of Śrī Bhagavān's form and other qualities. Their exceptionally expansive love perfectly qualifies them for that experience. Śuka therefore narrates Śrī Kṛṣṇa's rāsa play with those qualified gopīs in five chapters, as precious as the five vital breaths. He first presents all that is required for the play. He then describes the attraction of the entire company of gopīs and, as its cause, the manifestation of a special emotion within Śrī Bhagavān. This is expressed by the word “Bhagavān.”

This play should be understood to have occurred at its fitting time, during Kṛṣṇa's adolescence. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa likewise says:

“Madhusūdana, the immeasurable Self who had destroyed His enemies, honored the season of adolescent youth and sported with them during the nights.” (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 5.13.60)

The Hari-vaṁśa also says:

“Knowing that night to be the appointed time, He honored His adolescent age and rejoiced with the youthful daughters of the cowherds.” (Hari-vaṁśa 2.20.18)

At the beginning of the rāsa dance, the recollection of Kṛṣṇa's extraordinary beauty and other qualities made Him supremely enchanting. For that reason, Bādarāyaṇi could not explicitly specify His age here as he had in such passages as, “Thereafter, the two brothers entered the paugaṇḍa age in Vraja” (Bhāgavata 10.15.1). The rāsa play extended throughout the whole of Kṛṣṇa's adolescence; all its particulars will be explained in their proper places below. As an indication of the whole, this passage describes the play of its first night at the beginning of His adolescence.

Bhāgavata 10.29.2

Then the king of the stars arose. With his rays and their most soothing crimson glow, he anointed the face of the eastern quarter. Wiping away the sorrows of humankind, he appeared like a beloved who has returned to his beloved after a long absence.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Śrī Bhagavān desired His own amorous play and regarded the moon as likewise preparing to sport with his beloved, the eastern direction. As though revealing Bhagavān's feeling, Śuka now describes another auspicious sign manifested on this night, the crown of all those autumn nights. Thus he says, “Then.” Calling the moon “king of the stars” suggests that the stars also rose as members of his retinue.

The phrases “with his rays” and “with crimson” both express the instrumental cause, since each is especially effective: the sense is that he anointed the east with passion carried upon his rays. “Anointing thoroughly” points to the full moon and thus indicates that this was the night of the full moon. The moon's fullness on a date other than the ordinary lunar date may also have arisen in response to Śrī Bhagavān's desire, a possibility made attractive by the word “then.” Or the moon's natural rising was fitting because, like Bhagavān's sight of the jasmine-blossoming nights, it served as a stimulus for love. The later words “colored by the rays of the full moon” nevertheless show that the full-moon night itself is intended.

Just as “he” corresponds to the earlier “those,” the phrase “of humankind” shows that the moon removed not only the affliction of the eastern direction but that of all people. Their sorrows may mean the suffering produced by the autumn sun, or they may mean afflictions of the mind. The gopīs are Bhagavān's supreme potency, the shelter of all His energies; therefore, just as on the day of Śrī Kṛṣṇa's birth, the delight or despondency of everyone naturally follows their delight or despondency.

The comparison “like a beloved with his beloved” reveals their distinctive mutual attraction through passion, goodness, exclusive devotion to one another, and other such qualities. Thus the moon, wiping the tears of grief from his beloved attendant, anointed her with his supremely delightful hand. The words “after a long absence” also suggest the highest longing. Every feature of the description should therefore be understood as manifesting Śrī Bhagavān's desire to sport.

Bhāgavata 10.29.3

He saw the moon's unbroken orb, filled with night-blooming lilies, resembling Ramā's face and crimson like fresh kuṅkuma. He saw the forest anointed by the moon's tender rays, and He sang a soft melody that stole the minds of the doe-eyed gopīs.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

After seeing the moon, Kṛṣṇa entered the forest as a special emotion arose within Him. He saw that forest colored by the moon's rays and came to the village square established by Śrī Vajra on the bank of the Yamunā, the place still renowned as Rāsaulī. There He played an ineffable song upon His attracting flute. Thus, with the word “having seen,” Śuka again indicates the special flute artistry Kṛṣṇa manifested on that night.

The moon “resembled Ramā's face.” The word ramā can mean those who give delight, namely Kṛṣṇa's beloveds, who are themselves forms of the supreme Ramā. Among those beloveds, Rādhā is the most beloved of all. Kṛṣṇa had surely remained somewhat restrained even while meeting the others until He could manifest this special flute skill for the sake of attaining Her. The construction may therefore be understood as follows: seeing the moon resemble Her face, He inferred that She was coming; or the sight made Him remember Her, and He sang a soft melody so that She would reveal Herself.

The moon's attributes establish the comparison that gave rise to Kṛṣṇa's inference. Kumud means a night-blooming lily, as the Viśva lexicon says: “Kumut is also used for kumuda.” Thus the moon possessed lilies; or the suggestion is that the lilies opened at that moment to reveal him. The moon itself is supplied by the attributes, as in the expression, “This breaker of the lotuses' seals is rising.” When the words are applied to Rādhā's face, kumud-vant means “She in whom there is delight for the earth.” The grammatical gender follows the substantive intended, because She is the form of the supreme Ramā.

“With an unbroken orb” means that the moon possessed all sixteen digits. Applied to Rādhā's face, it means that the complete circle contained a perfectly proportioned assembly of features and was crimson with the color of fresh kuṅkuma.

Having shown that the time was fit for amorous love, Śuka also shows that the place was fit: “and the forest.” The forest was colored on every side by the moon's rays, which at his first rising carried only a slight light. Alternatively, the grammatical form can indicate that the forest was deeply colored by those rays, that is, it became a place in which Kṛṣṇa's passion was awakened. The absence of a long vowel is a metrical usage. The entire description thus presents stimuli that aroused divine emotion.

“He sang softly” should be understood to mean that He played the flute in a manner both sweet and indistinct. This is confirmed by the gopīs' later words, “O master, what woman would not be drawn by the nectar of the soft syllables of Your flute song?” (Bhāgavata 10.29.40). Its sweetness stole their minds. Its indistinctness allowed each gopī to imagine that it contained her own name, while others could identify it only as flute music without discerning its special message.

One might ask: if it was so sweet, why did it not attract everyone? Śuka therefore says that it stole the minds specifically “of the doe-eyed women,” those who possessed the corresponding emotion. Kṛṣṇa played a particular rāga that stimulated erotic rasa alone, as indicated by the later phrase “increasing the power of Ananga.” It was likely the rāga named Madhyamādi, described as a variety of Mauḍava rāga:

“Madhyamādi arises from the Madhyama scale, begins on madhyama and ends on madhyama. It is to be sung in the evening for amorous rasa, omitting ṛṣabha and dhaivata.”

Here ma denotes madhyama, while ṛ and dha denote the notes ṛṣabha and dhaivata. The graha is the note sounded at the beginning of a song. Earlier, when the Bhāgavata said, “O King, that flute sound enchanted every living being,” its object was universal, so the gopīs were simply enchanted according to their nature. Now, because the melody stimulated a particular rasa, it actively drew them to Kṛṣṇa. The flute itself also possessed special features, as stated:

“Beginning with the high register, its eight finger holes are each half a finger apart. One and a half fingers beyond them lies the mouth hole, itself one finger wide. Its head measures four fingers, its tail three; the flute is thus known by the wise as having nine holes and a total length of seventeen fingers. If ten fingers lie between the high-register hole and the mouth hole, it is called Mahānandā and also Sammohinī, the great enchanter. If the interval measures twelve fingers, it is known as Ākarṣiṇī, the attractor. If it measures fourteen fingers, the flute is Ānandinī, the giver of bliss. This favorite of the cowherds is also renowned as Vaṁśulī. These three are fashioned respectively of gems, gold, and bamboo.” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.1.368-372)

The flute used here should therefore be understood as the golden one, with twelve fingers between its high-register hole and mouth hole. The music had a corresponding distinction. The phrase “of the doe-eyed women” also carries a play of meaning: because they saw only crookedness in Kṛṣṇa, He drew out the root that was their mind, as though thereby drawing their eyes and their entire company of senses along with it.

Another wordplay conceals the mystery that He sounded the seed syllable of desire. The first three syllabic elements are suggested by “soft,” taken together with what pertains to the leftward glance. What kind of sound was it? It was “mind-stealing.” The word mind can indicate the moon, its presiding deity. The crescent is a fragment of the moon and has the shape used in that seed syllable; the sound “steals” or attracts it, and thus contains it. Resonance is naturally supplied by the sound of the flute. Hence it is said: “Kalā means Māyā, the fragment is the embodied form, and the softly ringing resonance of the flute is beautiful.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.4

Hearing that song, which increased the power of Ananga, the women of Vraja, their minds already seized by Kṛṣṇa, came to the place where their beloved stood. Hurrying so swiftly that their earrings swung, they did not notice one another setting out.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

No others heard that song; it drew only the gopīs. To reveal this special potency, Śuka says, “Hearing.” The song was the one just described, issuing from Śrī Kṛṣṇa's flute. It increased the ananga that already existed within them, the desire whose object was Śrī Bhagavān. Although “stealing the minds of the doe-eyed women” already implies that it increased Ananga, this explicit statement communicates an extraordinary intensification. The use of the word Ananga also indicates that what had formerly existed as a seed and sprout now unfolded into leaves, allowing us to imagine the song as a shower of nectar that nourished it.

The context establishes that “the women of Vraja” means those particular women who at once entered this state. Their minds, or indeed their entire selves, had already been seized and drawn by Kṛṣṇa, the supreme attractor. When they now heard the song, they came. The reason they did not notice one another is explained by this absorption. Even those belonging to the same group and bound to one another in friendship failed to notice each other setting out, because their hearts had been drawn to Kṛṣṇa and no deliberation arose within them.

Their speed is shown by their swinging earrings. Śuka says “they came,” perhaps because Bādarāyaṇi continually experiences himself as standing near Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Or, on hearing of the gopīs' departure, a special emotion arose in him and he experienced himself going there with them, so that Kṛṣṇa's presence appeared directly before him. Later, the text uses “they went” simply to indicate movement. “Where He was” means the supremely blissful place where their lover stood. Since the music of His flute embodied the science of supreme attraction, they did not wander anywhere else.

Bhāgavata 10.29.5-7

Some were milking cows. Eagerly abandoning the milk pail, they hurried toward Him. Others left milk heating on the stove and went without taking down the cooked sweet rice.

Some were serving food, while others were feeding milk to children. Abandoning these tasks, they went. Some left while tending their husbands, and others cast aside the meal they were eating.

Some left while applying cosmetics, cleansing themselves, or decorating their eyes. Others reached Kṛṣṇa wearing their garments and ornaments in the wrong places.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Śuka has already said that the gopīs reached Kṛṣṇa. Yet, to give particular understanding of how the supremely enchanting song impelled them to move, he again describes their setting out in these three verses. Disregarding their bodies and bodily relations, they abandoned personal duties, customary work, social convention, religious obligation, and everything else. He first says, “while milking,” to show that some abandoned the occupation proper to their community. The verbal form means that they were causing the cows to yield milk. “They hurried toward Him” means that they went in the direction of the flute song.

The repeated expression “some” indicates that, among the many groups of gopīs, several happened to be engaged in the same activity. This accords with the later description of Kṛṣṇa as “the leader of hundreds of companies of women” (Bhāgavata 10.29.44). Doha can mean the act of milking or the milk itself. They left because they were intensely eager, unable to tolerate any delay. This reason should be carried through every example that follows. The word “others” connects both with what precedes and what follows, and should be understood similarly below.

Alternatively, one group placed milk on the stove but did not remove it even when it had cooked, while another put sweet rice on the stove and did not take it down.

Having shown how some abandoned the three principal evening tasks, Śuka uses the next three quarters of the verse to show how others abandoned social duty. “While serving” means that they were serving food to relatives, servants, and others, but they left that service and went. “While giving children milk” shows that others abandoned those toward whom their affection was especially tender. In keeping with the later context, the children should be understood as brothers, sons, and the like; otherwise an incongruity of rasa would arise.

After social duties, Śuka speaks of religious duty: “while tending their husbands.” They were serving them, perhaps by offering warm water for bathing and similar acts. “While eating” shows that some even abandoned concern for their own bodies. Their departure while in the midst of a meal demonstrates that those absorbed in such love no longer deliberate about bodily purity or impurity.

The Gīta-govinda describes a heroine who, longing every day for her beloved even during separation, repeatedly ornaments her limbs in expectation of Him. Śuka therefore says “while applying cosmetics” to show that, in their supreme longing, some gopīs abandoned even the adornment of their own bodies, although such adornment was itself an expression of love for Śrī Bhagavān. The word “others” connects with both “applying” and “cleansing.” They cast aside their cosmetics and every similar preparation. What use was concern for body or appearance once it had been abandoned for His sake?

The phrase “garments and ornaments in the wrong places” reveals that some no longer recognized the proper places of their own limbs. This bewilderment, called vibhrama, is an outward manifestation of the eagerness that had caused them to abandon everything previously mentioned. It is defined as follows:

“At the moment of meeting one's beloved, agitation born of absorption in love causes necklaces, garlands, and other ornaments to be placed in the wrong positions. This is vibhrama.” (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 11.39)

This does not mean that the gopīs' love and Bhagavān Himself required them to remain improperly dressed. Their absorption caused the initial disorder; afterward, He personally arranged what they wore in the proper way. Since every successive duty in this sequence, from milking onward, was increasingly indispensable, the greatness of each successive abandonment should also be understood as greater. Thus all the gopīs set out toward Kṛṣṇa.

Bhāgavata 10.29.8

Though their husbands, fathers, brothers, and other relatives tried to restrain them, they did not turn back. Govinda had stolen their very selves, and they were utterly enchanted.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Their own relatives forcibly recalled some of the gopīs to external awareness. Śuka now says “they” to show that even then the gopīs abandoned modesty and similar qualities, which a young woman of a respectable family finds supremely difficult to relinquish. Their husbands and other relatives repeatedly insisted, “Where are you going outside at night?” and tried to stop them, yet none turned back; they continued on their way.

Why did they not return? They were enchanted, their ordinary discrimination overcome. Why? Because Govinda had stolen the self within them, their hearts. This also explains why their husbands and relatives eventually relaxed their opposition: devotion to Him, even by itself, possesses the power to remove every obstacle. Some were checked by husbands who stood nearby, others by fathers or other relatives. Among the latter were unmarried girls still residing in their family homes. This corresponds to the rule of traditional law:

“A father should protect a girl, a husband a grown woman, and a son an elderly woman. In their absence, her kinsmen should do so; a woman is never left without protection.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.9

Some gopīs, confined within their homes and unable to find a way out, closed their eyes and meditated upon Kṛṣṇa, wholly absorbed in thoughts of Him.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Had every gopī been stopped by such an obstacle, they would at once have entered the “tenth condition,” death itself. To illustrate the extraordinary emotion shared by them all, Śuka uses three verses beginning with “within the house” to describe a particular condition of some among those who had set out.

Kṛṣṇa's beloveds in Vraja are of two kinds: eternally perfect and perfected through spiritual practice. The eternal perfection of one group is evident because worship of Kṛṣṇa in the eighteen-syllable mantra and similar formulas is prescribed only together with them. Both the revealed texts and their worship are beginningless and endless. The Brahma-saṁhitā therefore says:

“He tends the surabhi cows in abodes built of cintāmaṇi gems, surrounded by millions of wish-fulfilling trees, and is served with great reverence by hundreds of thousands of Lakṣmīs.” (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.29)

“Those gopīs are manifestations of blissful spiritual rasa, His own forms and expansions; with them He eternally dwells in Goloka.” (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.37)

The statement “the goddesses of fortune are the beloveds, and the Supreme Person is their beloved” (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.56) identifies these very gopīs as His Lakṣmīs. Among them, Śrī Rādhikā possesses a unique preeminence, as the Bṛhad-gautamīya says:

“The goddess Rādhikā is declared to be wholly filled with Kṛṣṇa and is the supreme deity. She contains all Lakṣmīs, all splendor, and is the supreme enchantress.”

The supplement to the Ṛg Veda therefore declares their mutual and unfailing union: “Through Rādhā, the divine Mādhava, and through Mādhava alone, Rādhikā, shine forth among all people.” Consequently, when works such as the Matsya Purāṇa say, “Rukmiṇī is in Dvārakā, but Rādhā is in the forest of Vṛndāvana,” the two are counted together in the general category of divine potency, yet Rādhā's special distinction must still be understood.

The remaining gopīs were perfected through practice, as described in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa:

“Long ago, all the great sages who lived in the Daṇḍaka forest saw Hari in the beautiful form of Rāma and desired to enjoy with Him. All of them attained female forms and appeared in Gokula. Attaining Hari through amorous desire, they were then freed from the ocean of becoming.” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.301-302)

The word “in Gokula” also connects with “attaining Hari.” By the principle “As people surrender unto Me, I reciprocate accordingly” (Gītā 4.11), the passage means that the great sages had previously worshiped Śrī Kṛṣṇa in this particular mood. Seeing Rāma, whose form resembled the object of their worship, the impressions of their practice awakened and they desired to enjoy their worshipful Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself. Out of modesty they did not petition Rāma directly. Nevertheless, although Śrī Rāma, like a wish-fulfilling tree, did not verbally state the boon, His grace fulfilled their desire. This is the force of “all of them.”

They assumed female bodies through birth in Gokula, appeared there, and in Gokula attained Hari, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, through the amorous longing that accorded with their aspiration. Kṛṣṇa personally manifested within the locked house and they attained Him there. Immediately afterward, they were freed from the ocean of becoming. One should not object that those born in Gokula could never possess bodies connected with the material world. The Lord's manifest descent is interwoven with the earthly realm; even the six beings known as the Ṣaḍ-garbhas are said to have taken birth from Devakī. The Bṛhad-vāmana Purāṇa similarly relates that certain revealed Vedic texts became gopīs. Thus the Bhāgavata verse is explained:

“We, the personified Vedas, also became like those women whose minds clung to the powerful serpent-like arms of the Lord, and, with equal vision, tasted the nectar of Your lotus feet.” (Bhāgavata 10.87.23)

Gāyatrī also appeared among them. In the Sṛṣṭi-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, when Brahmā married Gāyatrī in the form of a cowherd girl, Śrī Viṣṇu told the cowherds:

“Once this maiden has been recognized and given to Viriñci, I too shall descend within your family to accomplish the work of the gods, and she will become My beloved.”

The Bhāgavata statement “Let the women of the gods take birth for His beloved's sake” (10.1.13) is understood in the same manner. The Padma Purāṇa accordingly describes four classes:

“O King, the gopīs should be known as the personified Vedas, those born from sages, daughters of cowherds, and daughters of the gods. They are never ordinary human women.”

Within this classification, the daughters of the cowherds are the eternal gopīs, for “never ordinary human women” denies that their humanity is material. The gopīs described here as “within the house” can be identified with those mentioned in the Padma Purāṇa, since both groups attain a corresponding liberation. This also explains the earlier words “some were tending their husbands” (Bhāgavata 10.29.6).

No distinct occupations such as milking are stated for these gopīs; their being inside the house refers specifically to service of their husbands. Their status as practitioners can be inferred both from the account of their relinquishing their bodies and from the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa. Thus some who appeared in Gokula had attained completely perfected emotion through practice, but had not yet attained perfected spiritual bodies and were not eternally perfect like the other gopīs. They had gone inside to serve their husbands, and their husbands or other relatives forcefully barred the doors, leaving them no means whatever of escape.

Their existing bodies themselves obstructed a direct meeting with Govinda. For this reason, their devotion did not act as before by causing their husbands to relax their restraint. Precisely because they could not leave, they became wholly absorbed in thoughts of Kṛṣṇa. With hearts intensely longing for Him, they meditated upon Kṛṣṇa, the one who had drawn away their minds, and thereby went to Him. Śuka describes the outward sign: their eyes were sealed by exceptional anguish and profound absorption in meditation. Alternatively, “closed eyes” means that every other form of awareness had disappeared from them.

Bhāgavata 10.29.10-11

The unbearable, blazing pain of separation from their dearest Lord swept away all that was inauspicious. In meditation they attained Acyuta's embrace, and the bliss of that union exhausted all that was auspicious.

Though they approached Him with the conception of a paramour, He alone was the Supreme Self. Their bonds were at once completely destroyed, and they relinquished bodies composed of the material qualities.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

These two verses say that the confined gopīs immediately attained union with Śrī Kṛṣṇa. The first half describes the culmination of their longing; the second, the culmination of meditation. Their unbearable separation from their dearest beloved was the emotion called vipralambha. It produced an intense burning that swept away the inauspicious. Through meditation they attained the bliss of Acyuta's embrace. Acyuta is renowned as one who never abandons His devotees. That bliss exhausted the auspicious.

The words “unbearable” and “intense” show the furthest limit of anguish, while “Acyuta” and “bliss” show the furthest limit of happiness. Here the “inauspicious” is the manifestation of separation from Bhagavān, which produced pain in the condition preceding eternal union with Him. The “auspicious” is the anticipated manifestation of union, which produced happiness in that same condition. The mature spiritual emotion of a practitioner reaches perfection through these two functions. Although each would ordinarily be experienced gradually, the gopīs now experienced both simultaneously and to their fullest measure; hence the expressions “swept away” and “exhausted.”

They therefore met Śrī Kṛṣṇa there within the house itself. The Vāsanā-bhāṣya quotes Mārkaṇḍeya:

“At that very moment, through meditation, the heroines of Gokula attained the glorious Kṛṣṇa, supreme bliss itself and the tender protector of His devotees.”

The terms “inauspicious” and “auspicious” are not synonyms for sin and merit, for each term produces its own specifically appointed result. Sin certainly cannot manifest love in the form of separation from Bhagavān. Moreover, the Kārttika-māhātmya in the Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa says that Vaiṣṇavas have neither karmic bondage nor a birth produced by karma. This is especially true of these gopīs; their birth was not caused by already-fructifying karma. Just as Kṛṣṇa brought His teacher's dead son back to this world (Bhāgavata 10.45.45), the preservation or ending of their embodied condition depended solely upon the will of Śrī Bhagavān, who skillfully used it to increase their love. The verse should not be interpreted otherwise.

Did they meet Him as an illicit lover? No. Their intense passionate longing used such a conception only as a stairway. The one they met was the Supreme Self, the supreme complete reality from whom every other being is a partial manifestation. As the natural maintainer of all, He is everyone's true husband, whatever words such as upapati may be used. For these gopīs, who bore this special emotion, He was also their lover and therefore remained their husband in the fullest sense.

Because they had not yet attained Him as their lover, their bold longing approached Him under the conception of a paramour. Yet illicit loverhood is impossible in the complete source of all beings. The phrase “even with the conception of a paramour” rejects that conception just as the Bhāgavata rejects Pūtanā's murderous intent in the phrase “even though she intended to kill Hari.” It indicates the abandonment of their former husbands and former bodies, not an actual defect in Kṛṣṇa.

Lexicons distinguish the terms. The Viśva-kośa says that ramaṇa means a beloved, while the Amara-kośa lists dhava, priya, pati, and bhartṛ as “husband,” but jāra and upapati as “paramour.” The realities denoted by “beloved” or “husband” and those denoted by “paramour” are not identical. The former implies rightful lordship, the latter theft, and they are opposed. The text deliberately uses the coarse word jāra instead of a more respectable synonym, so its purpose is censure, just as with the word “murderous.” The Tri-kāṇḍa-śeṣa and other lexicons, as well as common usage, define a jāra as a sinful lover.

Yet the expression also reveals the intensity of the attachment by which the gopīs transgressed even the censured social boundary associated with a paramour. It thereby praises that very attachment. Their behavior may resemble mundane desire and may therefore be designated by that word, but because its sole purpose is the happiness of the beloved, it is entirely one with divine love. The gopīs will later say, “May Your tender lotus feet rest upon our breasts” (Bhāgavata 10.31.19). Uddhava likewise praises them: “Ah, the dust of the feet of these gopīs,” and “They abandoned the path of respectable society, so difficult to renounce” (10.47.61). He adds, “These women alone attained what those who fear worldly existence, the sages, and even we ourselves desire” (10.47.58).

Thus, after rejecting the censured aspect of the conception, the verse shows their attainment of Kṛṣṇa, the crown of all supreme goals and the relishable object of great divine love. It then states the accompanying result: they “relinquished bodies composed of the qualities,” because their bonds had at once been destroyed in the manner already explained. This also suggests their attainment of bodies made of being, consciousness, and bliss.

The word “even” declares the paramour conception censurable, just as “even” in “she attained the blessed destination even though she offered her breast to Hari intending to kill Him” (Bhāgavata 10.6.35) condemns Pūtanā's murderous intent. The reason here is expressed by “the Supreme Self”: the Supreme Self cannot properly be denoted by such a censured word. Similarly, the word “Hari” in the Pūtanā verse means that He steals every mind through great qualities such as compassion; such a being cannot properly be an object of murder.

If an unfitting attitude nevertheless arises, the Lord, because He is the Supreme Self and Hari, removes the unfit element and bestows every benefit. In Pūtanā, hostility wore a semblance of devotion. Kṛṣṇa regarded the bare act of giving her breast as devotion and awarded her the destination of a nurse. How, then, could He fail to award these gopīs the destiny proper to His own beloveds, when their inner meeting with Him arose from the extraordinary devotion described by “unbearable separation from their dearest Lord”? This union should be understood as occurring within the special manifestation of Gokula known as Goloka, described above. Śrī Bhagavān therefore later sent this message through Uddhava:

“Those blessed women of Vraja who remained behind and did not join Me when I sported in the forest that night attained Me by contemplating My divine potency.” (Bhāgavata 10.47.37)

This should be understood as the rāsa of that very night, since that is the episode intended here, although in the manifestation where the cowherd pastimes eternally unfold such play can also occur on other nights. To prevent grief and other disturbances among their husbands and relatives, Yogamāyā made the bodies they had left disappear and manifested other women with similar names and forms. This accords with the later statement that the cowherd men felt no jealousy toward Kṛṣṇa (Bhāgavata 10.33.38). Even the beloved gopīs who participated in rāsa did not know this secret until they heard through Uddhava the message beginning “Those who remained behind,” which revealed the true power of the confined gopīs' realization.

The verses can also be read another way. What is astonishing about the other gopīs reaching Kṛṣṇa by following His flute, when some, though confined, attained Him within the house itself? “Their inauspiciousness was swept away” can mean that Śrī Kṛṣṇa's grace destroyed the separation that had been their inauspicious condition. Or it can mean that by their intense burning they swept inauspiciousness from the whole world, just as the Bhāgavata says, “One endowed with devotion to Me purifies the world.”¹ Likewise, the bliss of union did not diminish their auspiciousness but nourished it, for kṣīṇa can here bear the opposite sense: their meeting with Him was strengthened. Or, as before, the world's auspiciousness was nourished through them.

On this reading, “body composed of the qualities” means the embodied absorption made of the emotion of separation, as in the account of Brahmā during the creation in the Third Canto. The remainder of the explanation is the same. Kṛṣṇa appeared within that very house, which is why the text says they were “within the house.” Their bonds, every obstacle opposed to union with Him, were immediately destroyed. They were thus the gopīs who did not outwardly attain rāsa, and the previous reasoning establishes that this occurred on that same night.

Bhāgavata 10.29.12

The king said:

O sage, the gopīs knew Kṛṣṇa only as their supreme beloved, not as Brahman. Their minds were absorbed in His qualities. How, then, could the current of the material qualities cease for them?

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The name Parīkṣit can be understood as “one who sees in every direction,” one who knows the inner disposition of everyone. Although the king himself certainly understood the full majesty of these truths, he articulated a subtle doubt with a special intention in order to remove the uncertainty of inwardly inclined hearers. At the same time, he framed the doubt as though it arose from a doctrine centered on knowledge of Brahman, thereby removing another doubt for outwardly inclined hearers. Some recensions therefore explicitly read, “The king said.” Here too, the word king indicates one expert in discerning every disposition. The lord of sages will answer in the same manner. The external reading of the question is well known; its inward meaning is as follows.

The previous verse said that the gopīs “relinquished a body composed of the guṇas.” If guṇa means the three material qualities beginning with sattva, and the suffix maya means a transformation composed of them, then a body fit to be abandoned is already understood to have that constitution. Why specify it? The preceding element in the compound may instead indicate a succession of qualities in the mind, and the suffix may indicate their abundance. This is the point of the question beginning “They knew Kṛṣṇa.”

Or perhaps “composed of the guṇas” is specified to imply that the other gopīs who attained rāsa possessed bodies beyond the three material qualities, or to indicate the kind of body these confined gopīs were about to attain. Yet if the body is characterized in this way, the same characterization would naturally extend to the current of qualities within their minds. The king therefore asks about that as well.

The meaning is this: they knew Kṛṣṇa exclusively as their supreme beloved, the one dearest to them because His astonishing qualities enchant every mind. They did not know Him as Brahman, as the particular manifestation beyond material qualities. Their awareness and inner faculties dwelt upon His qualities, qualities so celebrated that attachment to them makes even fixation upon undifferentiated Brahman seem worthy of abandonment. Since the gopīs were exclusively devoted to Him, the movements of their love were inseparably connected to those qualities; their qualities were therefore not material.

Even if the ending of their former bodies can be accepted because those bodies had not yet attained perfection, how could the uninterrupted succession of these wholly different, spiritual qualities ever cease? What appears in them is not merely Kṛṣṇa's bare identity, as in the realization of those who worship Brahman, but Kṛṣṇa together with His qualities. The qualities that remain in worshipers of impersonal Brahman are products of material sattva and can therefore cease. The qualities belonging to those in whom Bhagavān and His own attributes have manifested cannot cease. That is the purport of the sentence.

A play of words also allows the question to mean: they knew Kṛṣṇa simply as the supreme beloved. How could the stream of emotion-filled qualities cease in minds that thought only, “How beautiful He is! How artful He is!” O sage, O all-knowing one, explain this.

Bhāgavata 10.29.13

Śrī Śuka said:

I already explained to you how Śiśupāla attained perfection even while hating Hṛṣīkeśa. How much more, then, must this be true of those who were dear to Adhokṣaja?

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The honorific “Śrī” accompanies Śuka's name. Śuka understood that Parīkṣit's words were meant to remove the doubts of sincere seekers while deceiving those whose vision remained outward. Yet, using the question as a pretext, he seems to rebuke such outward persons. A trace of righteous indignation makes his reply somewhat indirect: “I already explained this to you.”

Śiśupāla attained siddhi, the destination he inwardly desired. More precisely, he again attained his position as a divine attendant. Through intense meditation bound to hostility, he became absorbed in Acyuta. The Seventh Canto says, “When they had been brought back, the two attendants of Viṣṇu returned to Hari's side” (Bhāgavata 7.1.46). Although hatred had arisen in him, the qualities that had remained latent emerged again, and he attained Kṛṣṇa together with those very qualities. How much more certain, then, is it that the gopīs, who were the abodes and objects of love for Adhokṣaja, attained Him together with their qualities, which were fully manifest through their ever-increasing love?

When I said “a body composed of qualities,” I intended only to qualify the body: after attaining inner and outer bodies that were transformations of the Lord's own intrinsic potency, they were endowed with beauty and other auspicious qualities entirely free from primordial matter and its products.

If the king's question is read as a double entendre, Śuka's answer carries a second meaning. In the Gītā statement “As they approach Me” (4.11), Kṛṣṇa means that He does not reveal every other quality of His to each devotee, not that those qualities cease to exist in Him. Even when absorption in a particular devotion prevents conscious inquiry into His other qualities, the relevant divine potencies reveal them in their own time. Otherwise, devotees who worship Him from a distance and are fixed solely in His sweetness could never attain the other features required for perfection.

Śuka therefore says, in effect, “Hear an example that proves the conclusion even more strongly: even while hating Him.” In Śiśupāla's case, Kṛṣṇa's majesty, which ultimately grants liberation and other results, necessarily manifested. The names Hṛṣīkeśa and Adhokṣaja explain why the appropriate qualities become manifest: the meanings of both names show that, without requiring prior knowledge of them, a particular divine quality reveals itself to bring each soul to perfection.

Bhāgavata 10.29.14

O king, the imperishable, immeasurable Bhagavān, who stands beyond the material qualities and is the source of all qualities, manifests Himself for the highest good of human beings.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Śuka has explained the power of meditation upon Kṛṣṇa. When Bhagavān manifests in this world, however, His own assistance provides an even stronger reason for the attainment both of Śiśupāla, a divine attendant temporarily covered by the influence of a demonic birth, and of the gopīs, who possessed such love for Śrī Bhagavān. Thus Śuka says, “for the highest good of human beings.”

“Human beings” here includes all living beings. Their highest good is the fruit of every spiritual means: after receiving the fitness appropriate to each, they attain the bliss of the Lord's own pastimes. He manifests precisely to accomplish this. The word “Bhagavān” confirms that this alone is the purpose of His appearance. One who can destroy millions of universes with the slightest movement of His brow would have no need to manifest merely to relieve the earth's burden. “O king” suggests: just as a king like you travels from place to place solely for the welfare of his people, Bhagavān moves among living beings for their supreme good.

The four descriptions beginning with “imperishable” establish His Bhagavānhood. He is imperishable because He never diminishes, although in many manifestations He eternally gives Himself to countless devotees. Why does He not diminish? Because He is immeasurable, without limitation. Why is He unlimited? Because He is beyond the qualities of Māyā. Why is He beyond them? Because He is their inner source and the one who sets them in motion.

Alternatively, His very manifestation or “birth” exists solely for the highest good of living beings. Otherwise birth could not in any way occur to the imperishable one, who is free from transformations such as birth. “Immeasurable” gives another reason, while “the source of qualities” means that He awakens and manifests His innumerable intrinsic qualities, beginning with compassion, as though bringing what lay asleep into activity. The remainder is as explained above.

In these two verses, the explanation beginning “the import is this” in the Bhāvārtha-dīpikā on 10.29.13 removes the doubt of outwardly inclined hearers. Their objection runs as follows: if desire or another emotion directed toward Brahman produces spiritual benefit, then every individual soul shares the general nature of consciousness and thus possesses Brahmanhood. Would desire directed toward husbands or other people therefore produce the same result? Śuka answers by distinguishing ordinary souls.

The individual soul's knowledge is covered because it depends upon the senses. Awareness of oneself is obscured by outward distraction, while awareness of others grasps only their limiting material conditions. Hṛṣīkeśa is not controlled by the senses, and His manifestation does not depend upon them. He consists entirely of self-revelation; His nature as Brahman is therefore never covered. Whatever motive causes one to approach Him, an encounter with the reality itself necessarily occurs.

One might say that Kṛṣṇa appeared to possess a body just as the gopīs' husbands and other embodied beings did. Śuka states the conclusion with the word “Bhagavān”: Kṛṣṇa is categorically distinct through these particular attributes. Since His form is uncovered Brahman, He does not merely resemble an embodied soul, much less actually belong to that category. His form is the one supreme reality, wondrously manifested by His intrinsic potency. This is established by the scriptures as realized and served by the wise, including the verse “There is no form of Yours superior to this supreme form” (Bhāgavata 3.9.3).

Bhāgavata 10.29.15

Those who constantly direct desire, anger, fear, affection, unity, or friendship toward Hari surely attain absorption in Him.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

This principle does not apply only to those present when Bhagavān visibly manifests; it holds at all times. Śuka therefore lists the dispositions. Desire is of two kinds: the love-filled desire of the gopīs and others like them, and the desire for personal enjoyment found in Kubjā and similar devotees. Anger means the hostility of Śiśupāla and others; fear, that of Kaṁsa and others; affection, that of the Vṛṣṇis, Pāṇḍavas, or blessed residents of Vraja; unity, that sought by self-satisfied contemplatives; and friendship, that shown by Kratha, Kaiśika, and others.

Fear and hatred are not being recommended. Who would be so degraded as deliberately to regard the all-auspicious Lord as terrifying, to fear Him while harboring concealed hostility, or boldly to hate Him through envy and imagine that such conduct brings good? Everyone should instead cultivate affection or friendship. This is precisely the purport of Nārada's statement, “Therefore, by some suitable means, one should fix the mind upon Kṛṣṇa” (Bhāgavata 7.1.31). “Some means” means a means appropriate to the person, not any means whatever.

The same discussion says:

“A mortal may become absorbed in Him through an unbroken bond of hostility more intensely than through a yoga of devotion governed by formal injunction. This is my settled conclusion.” (Bhāgavata 7.1.26)

This does not praise hostility. It shows that, on the path of powerful emotion, even a rejected disposition can possess greater force for producing absorption than devotion dominated by reverence for scriptural command. Affection and friendship alone are approved. The earlier words “even while hating Him” have the same force. Unity is likewise not recommended here, since Kṛṣṇa's particular qualities do not manifest in that realization.

The word “alone” indicates that each of these dispositions can independently produce its result. Another reading says, “Those who direct them toward Hari certainly attain absorption in Him,” meaning both a manifestation appropriate to the particular disposition and an exclusive awareness of Him. A variant with vā carries the same sense.

Nevertheless, Śrī Bhagavān says, “I, the Self who am dear to the saintly, am attained through exclusive devotion accompanied by faith” (Bhāgavata 11.14.21). The Uttara-khaṇḍa of the Padma Purāṇa similarly says:

“The yogis behold Janārdana through devotion; He is never seen through nondevotion. He cannot be truly seen through anger or through envy.” (Padma Purāṇa 6.238.83)¹

The Gītā also says, “I am not manifest to everyone, being veiled by Yogamāyā.” Those who hate or fear Kṛṣṇa do not experience Him as He truly is, but in a distorted manner. Yet through His power, a true realization may arise indirectly at a later time; for this reason anger and fear are included in the list. The earlier statement “how much more those who were dear to Adhokṣaja” establishes that the gopīs' desire is supremely exalted because it expresses the highest degree of dearness.

Bhāgavata 10.29.16

You should not be astonished that people become freed through Kṛṣṇa, for He is unborn Bhagavān, the Lord even of the masters of yoga.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The word “not” means: let someone else be astonished, if he must, but you, who have known Kṛṣṇa's greatness from your time in the womb, should never be so. Śuka therefore respectfully says “by you,” not the familiar “by thee.” The special reason there can be no astonishment is that Kṛṣṇa is Bhagavān, endowed with all majesty.

One might ask: if He is unborn, how could He take birth from Devakī's womb? The word “unborn” means that He does not take birth like an ordinary living being. He manifests Himself by His own will through affection for His devotees and similar motives. Because He is Bhagavān, He is the Lord even of the lords of yoga; and as Kṛṣṇa, He is the completely full manifestation in every respect.

Bhāgavata 10.29.17

Bhagavān saw the women of Vraja arrive close beside Him. The foremost of eloquent speakers bewildered them with artful words.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

An interruption is unfitting in this account of the supremely rasa-filled rāsa pastime. Your question was asked only to bring every hearer to a single understanding, and I disclosed this theological conclusion solely in response to you. Having suggested this, Śuka, unasked but impelled by his own eagerness, suddenly returns to the narrative: “He saw them.”

The gopīs had been drawn by the flute song and were utterly overwhelmed. “Women of Vraja” emphasizes this condition: they were women properly meant to remain within Vraja, not to enter the forest outside it. Yet they came directly beside Kṛṣṇa. Modesty did not make them stand at a distance. Seeing them, He spoke through “artful words,” verbal play of two kinds: art of sound and art of meaning.

The first includes graceful arrangements of syllables, effortless and beautiful pronunciation, and particular movements of His smiling face, eyes, and eyebrows. The second consists of rasa, emotion, ornament, and subject matter. These arts of meaning are themselves fourfold: gestures of apparent neglect, gestures of entreaty, meanings that reconcile both simultaneously, and the actual intended meaning.

“Bewildering them” should accordingly be understood as both stealing their hearts and taking away their power of deliberation. The arts of sound, entreaty, and actual intent stand progressively earlier in the sequence, while the other two successively predominate. His verbal beauty was natural to Him. Among the meaningful arts, the apparent neglect was spoken only to increase their longing for Him, not because He truly intended to reject them. The text has already said, “He formed His resolve to sport” (10.29.1) and “He sang a soft melody that stole the minds of the doe-eyed women” (10.29.3). The neglect existed only in the ingenuity of His wording, not in His purpose.

Through avahitthā, concealing one intention in the heart while speaking another, He made their longing turn into despondency and thereby deprived them of ordinary judgment. Even His words of entreaty arose simply from His own eagerness. The meanings that reconciled both sides served the delight of playful joking.

Śuka establishes Kṛṣṇa's unparalleled qualification for such speech by calling Him “the foremost of speakers.” He is supreme among all who know the arts of language, for Bhagavān naturally surpasses everyone in this kind of knowledge and every other excellence.

Alternatively, the force of “even though” may be supplied throughout. Even though they were women of Vraja, renowned for their innate and exclusive love; even though their love had reached such an extraordinary transformation; even though they had now come directly beside Him; and even though omniscient Bhagavān saw them and knew their hearts, He spoke deceptive, artful words that bewildered them and brought them to the greatest distress. Why? Because He is foremost among speakers skilled in playful joking, and wished to create a special delight of intimate banter.

Bhāgavata 10.29.18

Śrī Bhagavān said:

Welcome, O greatly fortunate ones. What pleasing service may I perform for you? Is all well in Vraja? Please tell Me the reason for your coming.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

First Kṛṣṇa adopts concealed indifference, yet speaks respectfully: “Welcome.” The phrase can mean “Your arrival has been excellent.” Or it can be framed as a question: “Have you come safely?” “Greatly fortunate” then addresses women whose great fortune consists in chastity and similar virtues. On this outward reading, “What pleasing thing can I do for you?” implies that He can do nothing for them. Alternatively it means, “Please command Me; what shall I do?” By pleasing such greatly fortunate women, He too would acquire special religious merit.

Kṛṣṇa had spoken similarly to the wives of the sacrificial priests. There, however, after respectfully saying “Please be seated” (10.23.25), His question “What can I do?” expressed indifference alone: He could do nothing more. Here the double meaning of “What is pleasing?” also reveals desire, and that is the special feature.

In reality, seeing that the gopīs had come in this way filled Him with supreme delight, and He truly said, “Welcome.” He called them “greatly fortunate” because they had abandoned everything and come expecting only Him. Comparing their single-minded love with His own regard for many beloved devotees, He considered their love greater even than His. Here bhāga means worshipful devotion.

Overcome by their love, He asks what would please them. Such responsiveness is natural to the crown jewel of artful lovers, who knows how to submit to those He loves. Wherever the commentary below introduces an explanation with “in reality,” that explanation should be understood as the actual intention up to the point marked by “thus.” What follows will explain the playful meanings.

Through “welcome” and the other words, He jokingly assumes the manners appropriate for receiving visitors. Seeing every gopī arrive at once in agitation, He pretends to become frightened and agitated Himself: “Is all well in Vraja?”

One might reply, “Lion among the clever, if Vraja were in danger, the cowherd men would have come too.” “True,” His playful logic answers, “then surely some disaster involving women alone must have occurred.” With a roguish air He therefore insists, “Tell Me.” They must disclose the cause or purpose of their own arrival.

Or, seeing that uncertainty about His intention and their own modesty left them silent, He implies, “Perhaps the force of grief prevents you from speaking, or the calamity is too dreadful to relate.” Feigning urgency, He raises another possibility: “Is all well in Vraja?” Every anxiety expressed in this and the following verses should be understood as playful pretense. Yet when He sees their bright faces and continued silence, He acts relieved and says with apparent shyness, “Tell Me. Let My unfortunate conjecture be dismissed; you yourselves must speak.”

Each sentence thus contains both apparent rejection and entreaty. The rejection has been explained; now the entreaty is shown. The same kind of double meaning should be supplied verse by verse below. “O greatly fortunate ones” can mean: how extraordinary your fortune! There is this moonlight, this forest, your own fresh youth, and here is a responsive lover favorable to you. “Have you had a welcome arrival?” is the first step of His desired question. Then comes the entreaty: “What pleasing thing may I do for you?” Whatever beloved wish lies within your hearts is the very thing I ask you to reveal. Seeing them remain silent, He offers another step: “Is all well in Vraja?” and then entreats, “Tell Me.” The implication is, “Do not be shy.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.19

This night has a terrifying appearance and is frequented by fearsome creatures. O slender-waisted women, return to Vraja. Women should not remain here.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“This night” means the night visible before them. Anticipating that the gopīs might answer Him with clever arguments, Kṛṣṇa strengthens His apparent case: women of respectable families should not enter an outer forest in this way.

They might reply, “There is no fault when so many women come together. And if there is a fault, is this same night not present in Vraja?” He answers, “terrifying.” Only here in the forest does the night manifest its dark and fearsome nature, not in Vraja, because here they are without protectors while there they have companions. Here it is also thoroughly inhabited by terrible creatures. Therefore they must turn back and go to Vraja without delay.

They may ask, “Then why do You remain here?” He answers, “Women should not.” Men are not frail in courage as women are. Moreover, “O slender-waisted ones,” according to the maxim that qualities dwell where their outward form appears, beautiful and virtuous women like them should not remain in such a place.

Or Kṛṣṇa anticipates another pretext: “Crown of connoisseurs, we have come, like You, to enjoy the forest or gather flowers.” He replies, “It is night, not day.” They answer, “O enjoyer of the night, what fault is there in that?” He says, “It is terrifying.” “Lotus-eyed one, this is a moonlit night.” He responds, “It is inhabited by fearsome creatures.”

Another wordplay makes Him say: “You are many, divided into groups. Return to Vraja and attend upon the husbands who remain there, for I am alone and cannot please so many of you. Therefore you should not remain here.” They may tease, “Foremost of the timid, we are not afraid of ferocious animals.” He answers, “O slender-waisted women! Those with such delicate waists and bodies are weak; they must surely fear the strong.”

In reality, the verse reveals His own feeling toward them. Its playful double meanings increase their longing. The first half says, in effect, “Do not let fear of imagined danger turn you away from what you desire. The full moon has risen and delights everyone; the night is such that no one else will come here. Therefore you should remain here, near Me, your heroic protector.”

Alternatively, the night is a-ghora-rūpā, not terrifying because the darkness has departed. By Vṛndāvana's nature, every creature has attained mutual friendship and inspires no fear. The moonlight makes the night nearly equal to day, and it is frequented only by harmless bees, cuckoos, and similar beings.

Or “terrible strength” means Kṛṣṇa's own power, terrifying to the wicked but, when the initial a is separated, terrifying to no one. The night is protected by that strength. In this way He reassures them like young girls.

Hearing His words, the gopīs turn with smiles to glance at the friends standing behind them. Kṛṣṇa then addresses the second half to them with the opposite division of the words: “Therefore, by no means go back toward Vraja. You women should remain precisely here, because a place like this is the proper place for women to stay. And especially, O slender-waisted, supremely beautiful ones, it is entirely fitting that you remain here beside Me.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.20

Your mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands, unable to see you, are surely searching for you. Do not cause fear among your relatives.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs might say, “Lion among men, what could we fear while standing beside one as powerful as You?” Feigning apprehension, Kṛṣṇa answers, “Your mothers...” He says “mothers, fathers, and brothers” on seeing unmarried girls. When He says “husbands and sons” to those who appear married, this will later be established as a joking supposition only. “And” joins all the persons named, while “surely” expresses certainty. If even one came here and saw them beside Him, both Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs would experience shame and fear. Therefore, by remaining there they should not create fear either for their relatives or for Him.

They may answer, “Knower of the great mantra, they will never enter this impenetrable forest; even if they do, they will not see us.” He replies that their relatives will fear some misfortune because the gopīs cannot be found. Since good people are tender toward their family, affection for them should make the gopīs return.

The verse can also continue Kṛṣṇa's performance from the previous one. They might say, “O virtuous one, while beside You we fear nothing.” Closing His eyes theatrically, He says, “Women should not remain here beside Me, for I have avoided the company of women as a lifelong celibate from childhood.” Perhaps there would be no fault in occasionally associating with little girls or elderly women, but these gopīs have entered fresh youth; hence “O slender-waisted ones.”

They reply, “Master of deception, You associate with us often in Vraja.” He stresses “here”: in a solitary forest at twilight. The movement of His face suggests the special impropriety. Their presence here now would surely bring Him either ill fame, or, by another reading, overwhelming fame; therefore they must go.

“O highly respected one, no one will know, so do not fear ill fame.” He answers, “Your mothers...” Surely they will come and see. The gopīs must not make His relatives fear for His reputation.

In reality, Kṛṣṇa speaks this way to make them fear discovery and lead them away from the place where He played the flute to a distant, well-concealed spot. The double meaning is: “Do not fear that your relatives will come here. Your mothers and the others are searching without seeing. In this dense forest they are as though blind; however much they search, they will not find you. Therefore, do not fear your relatives.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.21-22

You have seen the flowering forest, colored by the full moon's rays and beautified by tender leaves that tremble playfully in the Yamunā breeze. Therefore, do not delay. Go to the cowherd settlement, chaste ladies, and serve your husbands. The calves and children are crying; feed the children and milk the cows.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

In affectionate anger, the gopīs turn their eyes away from Kṛṣṇa. He deliberately misinterprets their glances: “You have seen...” This connects with “therefore go” in the next verse. The attributes beginning “flowering” name the things they supposedly came to see. When their slight loving anger makes them look toward the forest, He says, “You have seen the forest.” When they glance upward, He adds “colored by the full moon's rays.” When they look toward the bank of the Yamunā, He continues, “beautified by the Yamunā breeze.”

They might say, “We have ignored Your extraordinarily bewildering words, so what fear remains?” Kṛṣṇa pauses with feigned thought: “Then what purpose could have brought you here at night with such effort? Ah, I understand! By good fortune, you came on the full-moon night to see the beauty of My Vṛndāvana. Very well; that purpose is fulfilled.” Pointing out the sights with His fingers and other gestures, He playfully says, “You have seen.” In reality, by directly showing them such a forest, He only increases their emotion.

The double meaning stimulates that emotion by showing not merely freedom from fear but an abode of supreme happiness. “You have indeed seen a forest endowed with every excellence. Therefore, do not go to the cowherd settlement.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.23

Or perhaps affection for Me has compelled your hearts and brought you here. That is entirely fitting, for every living being feels affection for Me.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Their eyes blaze with passionate indignation. Pretending to pacify them, Kṛṣṇa agitates them still more by placing their love on the same level as that of every living creature: “Or perhaps...” This is an alternative to the rejected explanation that they came to see the forest. “Affection for Me” outwardly means an unusually strong form of ordinary liking, not the particular love between woman and man, since He claims no special distinction. He underscores the indifference with “for,” implying, “Every creature loves Me.” By naming “affection for Me” directly, He seems to diminish it, and therefore addresses them with the formal “ladies.”

Or, imagining them to say, “Alas, we have abandoned everyone. Why mention them again?” He offers another explanation with apparent praise: “Or perhaps...” The external sense remains the same. In reality, such indifference is only a clever gesture meant to increase their emotion.

The double meaning is: “Although you may have come for some other purpose, remain here for a little while at My request.” Then He offers another possibility. The prefix abhi indicates the completeness of their affection and thus the emotion called rati: “If you have come because of deep affection for Me, that is entirely proper.” Why? “All living beings are affectionate toward Me,” meaning that they flourish in relation to Him. How much more must this be true of women who possess such love! He therefore addresses them respectfully and lovingly: “Now sport freely with Me.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.24

O auspicious women, sincere service to one's husband is the highest duty for women, together with service to his relatives and the care of one's children.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs may reason, “If our deep affection for You is certain, then service to You is also proper.” Kṛṣṇa therefore invokes religious law in three verses beginning with “one's husband.” Service is a duty toward husbands and those connected with them, not toward an unrelated person such as Him, and compared with other duties it is supreme.

They may reply, “We will serve them appropriately as well.” He stresses “without deception.” To worship Him as another man would necessarily involve deception and would therefore corrupt even that service. “O auspicious women” means “O chaste women, only such service is fitting for you.” This is deceptive encouragement. In reality it is mockery, because service to a husband is not the supreme duty. Dharmarāja says:

“The highest duty of people in this world is only this: the yoga of devotion to Bhagavān through chanting His names and similar acts.” (Bhāgavata 6.3.22)

The double meaning says that their arrival is fitting not only because of affection for Kṛṣṇa but also because of religious duty. “Without deception” means that auspicious women must act according to the true disposition of their own hearts, not according to a relationship forcibly imposed upon them. Service to the one who truly maintains them is their supreme duty, as is service to those connected with Him. Elsewhere, Śrī Bhīṣma, the supreme knower of dharma, abandoned Ambā because no true marital relation existed by dharma.

Thus the men called their husbands are husbands only through māyā, through a deceptive covering that does not accord with the gopīs' true disposition. Kṛṣṇa alone, corresponding to the affection in their hearts, is their true husband and the one they should serve. Their own hearts from childhood onward are His witness. This very meaning will later be established as the actual truth.

Bhāgavata 10.29.25

Women who desire a good destination in this world and the next must not abandon a husband who is not fallen, even if his conduct is bad, his fortune poor, or he is old, incapable, diseased, or destitute.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs may object, “Expert at instructing others, we have completely abandoned our husbands. What use is advice about serving them now?” Kṛṣṇa replies, “Even if his conduct is bad...” Bad conduct means attachment to theft or similar acts. “Unfortunate” means deprived of prosperity and other advantages, or one whose efforts yield no result. “Old” means overcome by age; “incapable,” lacking ability for work and other tasks; “diseased,” afflicted by a serious illness; and “destitute,” so poor that he cannot even feed himself. The word “even” applies separately to every defect: even with any one of them, he is not to be abandoned.

A resident of Vraja is endowed with all good qualities, so how could he be abandoned? This too is conveyed by “even.” Women who “desire a good destination” seek well-being in both worlds; otherwise only suffering awaits them here and hereafter. A husband may be abandoned only if he is fallen through a grave sin, so the verse says “who is not fallen.” Smṛti likewise says, “A woman should serve a husband who has not fallen” (Bhāgavata 7.11.28). Since all the men of Vraja are entirely free of sin, none may be abandoned. In reality, although the gopīs' resolve is certain and firm, Kṛṣṇa speaks this way only to increase their longing.

The double meaning is: it is established that Kṛṣṇa alone is truly their husband. If even a husband afflicted by every fault beginning with bad conduct must not be abandoned, how could they abandon Kṛṣṇa, their husband endowed with every auspicious quality? The other men possess the stated defects and are not truly their husbands. Why, then, should they not be abandoned?

Bhāgavata 10.29.26

For a woman of respectable family, relation with a paramour obstructs heaven, destroys reputation, is insignificant, painful, fear-producing, and condemned everywhere.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs may answer, “Prince of Vraja, at Your command we shall not abandon our husbands. Let them always retain the title of husband, but let the actual conduct of marriage be with You alone.” Concealing His own intention, Kṛṣṇa seems to respond with jealous irritation by condemning the desire they had cherished for so long. Thus He says, “It obstructs heaven.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.27

Love for Me arises through hearing, seeing, meditating, and repeated glorification, not so much through physical nearness. Therefore, return to your homes.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Kṛṣṇa anticipates that even repeated rejection will not make them leave, so He displays indifference by denying the nature of their love itself. The love produced by hearing and the other acts, He says, does not arise in the same way through bodily contact. In separation, intense longing quickly increases love; in union, longing relaxes. Although their love has reached its highest limit, He denies it through the gesture of implying that it is not yet perfect.

The sequence describes the usual stages of first love: first hearing, then seeing, then constant inner perception when union becomes possible, and finally unceasing speech about the beloved. In reality, Kṛṣṇa is supremely playful. The gopīs' gentle and compliant nature has been made exceedingly tender by the continuous fullness of love, and He speaks only to behold the urgency of that love.

The double meaning answers another objection. Kṛṣṇa established His own status as their husband through their genuine inward affection, and the other men's lack of that status through the opposite disposition. The gopīs might say, “But such affection cannot exist: You are far away, while they are close to us.” He replies, “Through hearing...” The particular rasa and manner in which love for Him arises even through hearing and the other acts never arises through physical nearness to those other men who merely imagine themselves husbands.

Common experience says that bodily nearness creates a bond of affection between two persons fit for mutual love, while hearing alone does not. This contrasting term is therefore supplied by the sense, and it also belongs to the context established from the beginning. The negation consequently applies twice: “Do not go toward your homes.”

Alternatively, prati is sometimes used to oppose the action expressed by a verb, as in prohibition, rejection, and counteraction. “Return” can therefore mean “make yourselves opposed to going.” Their dialogue thus remains twofold, as before. With some gopīs the words carry their direct meaning; with others, the transformations of love continually make the meaning new.

Bhāgavata 10.29.28

Śrī Śuka said:

Hearing these displeasing words spoken by Govinda, the gopīs became despondent. Their resolve shattered, they entered an insurmountable anguish.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

These were Govinda's words. As the lord of Gokula, He gives pleasure even to Gokula as a whole; how much more should He please those who are His very own? Yet His explicit speech was displeasing. Because it touched both possible meanings, His actual intention remained uncertain. The nature of the gopīs' intense longing allowed only His apparent rejection to shine before them, and they became despondent and burned with grief. Their long-cherished resolve to embrace His limbs had been shattered. They therefore entered an insurmountable contemplation born of failing to attain their desired goal.

They thought: “Although His nature is tender and softened by love, our misfortune has made Him supremely hard. What shall we do now? Shall we grasp His feet and entreat Him in plaintive voices? Shall we answer Him? Shall we make a great effort to hold our composure for a moment? Shall we pretend to return toward Vraja and thereby discover the intention hidden in His unfathomable gravity? Or shall we give up our lives immediately, either directly before Him or out of His sight, by entering the Yamunā or some other means?”

Bhāgavata 10.29.29

Their heads bowed, their bimba-red lips drying beneath their sorrowful sighs, the gopīs traced the ground with their feet. Their streams of tears, darkened by collyrium, washed the kuṅkuma from their breasts. Overwhelmed by the weight of immense grief, they stood in silence.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

For this very reason they “stood in silence.” For a moment, their absorption in supreme anxiety prevented the faculty of speech from functioning. “Sorrowful” and “drying” suggest that their breaths were both hot and prolonged. The present participle indicates that the drying continued without interruption. “Bimba lips” conveys both redness and tenderness, so their extreme dryness and fading beauty are already implied.

Scratching the ground with the big toe of the left foot is an outward sign of anxious thought. Their feeling was: “O earth, split open so that we may enter you.” The description also shows that they remained standing upright. “Tears that had taken up collyrium” and “wiping the kuṅkuma from their breasts” indicate unbroken streams of tears; the plural conveys their abundance.

The cause of every sign was the heavy burden of their immense grief: they were pervaded by great despondency. Or, after describing their outward posture, “immense grief” reveals their inner condition, nearly like a swoon. Because that state would be unbearable to hear described directly, Śuka only suggests it. The particle sma can mark something well known: one should not imagine that even playful words could not cause such sorrow in them. Or it expresses wonder: “Even through playful words they suffered this deeply. Ah, the greatness of love!” Since indeclinable particles bear many meanings, it may also express Śuka's own anguish.

Bhāgavata 10.29.30

Kṛṣṇa was their dearest beloved, yet He spoke as though He were otherwise. For His sake they had turned away every other desire. Deeply attached, they wiped their eyes, which were overcome by weeping, and glanced up slightly. Their voices choked by impassioned indignation, they spoke.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Though Kṛṣṇa was their very dearest, He rejected them as if He were something other than beloved. One might ask why their minds did not then turn away from Him. Śuka answers that, for His sake, for the attainment of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, they had turned away every object of desire. They had rejected all aspirations other than Him so completely that not even the faintest relation to those objects remained. They were therefore unable to turn their minds away from Him. He was Kṛṣṇa, the son of Vrajendra, renowned by that name because He is condensed supreme bliss and attracts every heart.

How could women overwhelmed by immense grief even speak? “Impassioned indignation” answers: impatience, itself a consequence of despondency, temporarily covered that despondency. Wiping their eyes arose at the junction of the two emotions. By the nature of loving anger, they first glanced “slightly” at His beautiful face and then spoke. Their extreme distress had loosened their modesty. The word “slightly” also preserves an element of grief within their indignation; the conjunction of the two made their voices falter. Their deep attachment was the cause of this despondency and of every other sign.

Bhāgavata 10.29.31

The gopīs said:

All-pervading Lord, You should not speak such cruel words. We have completely abandoned every object of sense and taken refuge at the root of Your feet. O difficult one, reciprocate with us; do not forsake us. Just as the primeval Lord accepts those who seek liberation, accept us.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The text says, “The blessed gopīs said.” Because they shared one emotion, the same words might have arisen from all of them simultaneously. Yet speech by everyone at once would produce a tumult and diminish rasa, so we should understand that principal gopīs spoke. Four groups stood in the four directions, all facing Kṛṣṇa just as the rows of boys in the Brahmā-vimohana pastime all faced Him (Bhāgavata 10.13.8). Their four statements may have been spoken together, or successively, each group completing its great sentence with its own appeal: “Therefore, O giver of boons, be gracious to us” (10.29.33); “pour it upon us, dear one” (10.29.35); “be gracious, O destroyer of distress” (10.29.38); and “place it upon us” (10.29.41). Each later group could also have spoken after affirming the words of those before it.

“By the grace of those very city heroines whose lord is the sovereign of lovers, the truth of their intimate conversation becomes known. I bow to them. Obeisance to Bhagavān, the beloved of the lives of all the gopīs.”

Whether abandoning husbands and others to serve Kṛṣṇa is righteous or unrighteous can be considered later. The gopīs first say that Kṛṣṇa Himself cannot avoid the fault of unrighteousness if He abandons them: “Do not speak so.” The prohibition comes first because of their extreme anguish and urgency. “So” means that He should not utter even anything resembling these words, much less the very words themselves. They are “cruel,” hard as a thunderbolt and tearing the heart, or directly murderous, for a lexicon defines nṛśaṁsa as murderous and cruel. He should not even speak them, much less act upon them. “You” are renowned for a nature softened by love; “all-pervading Lord” also means “Lord of our lives.” Toward us, therefore, You are utterly unfit to speak this way.

Their voices were already described as choked by impassioned indignation. Throughout their reply, loving anger should be heard in their words and tone even when they express humility. Though His statements beginning “Welcome, O greatly fortunate ones” (10.29.18) were respectful, reasoned, and gentle in form, their purpose was to send the gopīs away. Because that purpose obstructed rasa, the words were cruel in meaning. This answers His opening “Welcome.”

Kṛṣṇa may ask, “Sweet-speaking women, what should I do?” They reply, “Accept us. Follow the wish in our hearts and fulfill it.” Why? “We have devoted ourselves to the base of Your feet,” a statement of humility. They do not compare those feet to lotuses because, after calling Him cruel, their hearts apprehend hardness rather than softness. This answers “What pleasing thing may I do?”

He may say, “Wives of the cowherds, I do accept you, but properly by promoting the welfare of your husbands and relatives, not in this manner.” They answer, “Having completely abandoned.” They have firmly cast away every sense object, including husbands and relatives, with no intention of taking them up again, because all were opposed to service of Kṛṣṇa. This answers everything from “Is all well in Vraja?” through “milk the cows.” Those persons and duties all belong to the category of sense objects. In abandoning them, the gopīs' affection for their own bodies also melted away. Without such bodily attachment, the warning beginning “This night is terrifying” has no relevance.

They then state the contrary: “O obstinate one, do not abandon us, who have no other refuge, for otherwise the fault will lie with You.” Even the Lord, who transcends ordinary righteousness and unrighteousness, necessarily protects this principle. Thus they call Him “divine.” The primeval Lord accepts even those who desire liberation; how much more must He accept those who desire Him alone? Or the word can be split as “those who do not desire liberation,” devotees fixed exclusively in devotion who reject even liberation.

Another reading understands “seekers of liberation” as those who wish to cast away everything other than Him. The primeval Lord accepts all of them simply because they worship Him; Kṛṣṇa should accept the gopīs in the same way. Some recensions read a different grammatical form of “those who worship.” There “seekers of liberation” excludes those with material desires, because the Lord takes such seekers into Himself both during practice and at perfection. The grammar of “accept us” must then be adjusted according to the sense: as He accepts them and never abandons them, so should He accept the gopīs.

Although the gopīs were fixed in Kṛṣṇa solely as the son of the cowherd king, every divine quality attended them. The Bhāgavata says, “All the qualities of the gods dwell in one who has unalloyed devotion to Bhagavān” (5.18.12), and the Nārada-pañcarātra says:

“All perfections, beginning with liberation, and every wondrous enjoyment faithfully attend the great goddess of devotion to Hari like maidservants.”

Thus all knowledge and other excellences served the gopīs even though they did not value them. Their speech is made solely of prema, yet this interpretation, filled with knowledge of Kṛṣṇa's supreme majesty, also shines within it. The power of knowledge impelled it to appear so that their own greatness might be indicated and extraordinary devotees might be astonished.

Or humility made awareness of His greatness arise, and they spoke accordingly: “All-pervading Lord, You pervade within and without, so You know every feeling in us. We have devoted ourselves to the base of Your feet; accept us. Otherwise Your declarations such as ‘As people surrender to Me, I reciprocate with them accordingly’ (Gītā 4.11) would become meaningless.”

He may ask, “Venerable knowers of truth, why do you seek sensory pleasure?” They answer, “Having abandoned every sense object.” They seek only supreme spiritual happiness, for this special play with Him is the flowering sport of mature love and the complete essence of every human goal. Their concealed intention is: to preserve the truth of His own promise, “As people surrender to Me,” He too should abandon everything else and love them just as they abandoned everything else for Him.

“O difficult one, O independent Lord, do not forsake us who have surrendered. As the Supreme Lord, unrighteousness cannot touch You. But to break Your promise would be supremely unfitting, for it would contradict the revelation that Your resolve is always true (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.7.1 and related texts). Even those who abandon every goal, from earthly sovereignty through the stations of Vaikuṇṭha, yet do not wish to release You and cannot bear to be released by You, are accepted by You. Accept us also. The grammar may construe ‘for You’ as ‘to attain You’ and ‘those who desire release’ as a dative. You are divine, worshiped by the world; otherwise Your divinity would not be established. And You are the primeval Person in the fullest and most exact sense.”

The opening words also echo the first quarter of the verse spoken by the wives of the sacrificial priests (10.23.29), because the two groups share anguished surrender.

“Even in anguish, the requests of the women of Vraja, whose nature is encircled by cleverness, can also be heard as prohibitions.”

On that deliberately contrary reading, they say: “You should not cruelly speak such words as ‘What pleasing thing may I do?’ or ‘Tell Me something.’ Since we abandoned every object and devoted ourselves to the base of Your feet, behave toward us however Your obstinate independence desires. Forsake us completely.” They then cite the primeval Lord as an example: powerful lords serve devotees, not nondevotees. On this reading, the suggestion is that in reality all of Kṛṣṇa's speech was only playful banter.

Bhāgavata 10.29.32

Dear one, You know dharma and have said that a woman's own duty is faithful service to her husband, children, and friends. Let that teaching stand, but let it be directed toward You, the Lord. You are surely the dearest beloved, relative, and very Self of all embodied beings.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Kṛṣṇa may ask, “How can you transgress the personal duty I explained in the verses beginning ‘service to one's husband’ (10.29.24)?” Anticipating this doctrine of ritual interpretation, the gopīs rely upon the higher inquiry into Brahman that defeats it. By recognizing Kṛṣṇa as the Self in the role of their beloved, they refute His doctrine and establish that serving anyone else would itself be unrighteous. Thus they say, “Faithful service to husband, children, and friends...”

Bhāgavata 10.29.33

Those who truly know what is good place their love in You, their own Self and eternal beloved. What use have we for husbands, sons, and others who only bring distress? Therefore, O Lord who bestows every boon, be gracious to us. Lotus-eyed one, do not cut down the hope we have held in You for so long.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs have rejected service to husbands through scriptural authority. They now reject it through the authority of saintly conduct and remove the fetter of family affection elaborated in “mothers, fathers, sons...” (10.29.20). “Those who truly know what is good” are skilled in distinguishing essence from nonessence, in keeping with Garga's statement, “Fortunate are the people who love this child” (10.8.18). They place rati, deep affection, in Kṛṣṇa, their eternal beloved and the natural object of love.

This indicates a blissful manifestation both in Him and within themselves. Husbands and the others produce the opposite: they bring grief by attempting to turn the gopīs away from Bhagavān. What use are they? “One's own Self” can be grammatically understood in both the possessive and locative senses. In this way the group standing in the first direction concludes the meaning with which it began in “accept us, Your devotees” (10.29.31). “Therefore” means, “in relation to us, toward us.”

They express through a negative form that His grace is the one thing He must give: “Do not cut down.” They have held this hope firmly “for a long time,” from the first awakening of awareness, which negates any genuine relationship with the supposed husbands. He must not sever it but make it fruitful. If He cuts down their only support, their lives, which rest upon Him alone, will be cut down at once.

They specify the hope through their forms of address. “Giver of boons” recalls the special boon He granted when He said, “I know your resolve, O girls” (10.22.25). “Lord” means that He can accomplish for the others as well even the otherwise impossible joining of hearts and every similar wonder. “Held for a long time” is explained by “lotus-eyed one,” anticipating their later words beginning “The autumn lake...” (10.31.2). A play on ara, the rim or spoke of a wheel, suggests that the pointed tips of His lotus petals pierce their hearts, revealing the loving anger that remains to the end.

Another wordplay makes “lotus-eyed” mean that His eyes, like lotuses, do not open at night. His neglect of even supremely beautiful women like them is therefore playfully fitting. Yet comparing His eyes to lotuses also suggests that their glance removes everyone's burning pain. It is unfitting that His glance should produce the opposite result in them.

On the majestic reading, “those who know what is good” means Śrī Nārada and other authorities celebrated in scripture. They direct rati, not mere faith, toward Kṛṣṇa. That is fitting because He is “the eternal beloved.” Why eternal and beloved? Because He is their own Self, the Supreme Self, as stated: “Know this Kṛṣṇa to be the Self of all selves” (Bhāgavata 10.14.55). This also indicates that His nature is bliss; otherwise He could not be the unconditional object of love. What use, then, have the gopīs for husbands and others? None.

Could those husbands be eternal beloveds like Kṛṣṇa? No, for they “bring distress” by opposing the gopīs' worship of Bhagavān, which is desired by the company of those wise authorities. “Lord of boon-givers” indicates that the giver of a boon never fails to keep it. The same mode of interpretation should be understood below.

The words can again be deliberately inverted as a prohibition. Kṛṣṇa may say, “If I am dearest to all embodied beings, then as each person loves Me in the manner proper to that person, you too should direct toward Me only the affection appropriate to you.” They answer: “Auspicious, virtuous women, having their own homes and selves as eternal beloveds, do not direct love toward You because of husbands and others who shatter distress; otherwise their own homes and identities would be destroyed. Therefore, giver of desires and lord of Gokula, be gracious to us: may we not remain here any longer. Permit us to go home quickly, and cut down the hope fixed in You, our desire to embrace Your limbs.” The unusual verbal form is an archaic aorist used like an imperfect. A variant reads “Supreme Lord,” and another “may he cut,” in which case “You” must be supplied as the subject.

Bhāgavata 10.29.34

Our minds, which once entered happily into household life, have easily been stolen by You. Our hands no longer engage in household duties, and our feet cannot move even one step from the base of Your feet. How can we go back to Vraja? What could we possibly do there?

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Kṛṣṇa may argue that, if only to preserve the happiness of household life, they should not abandon husbands and others. The gopīs point out that this very happiness has become a fault: “Our minds...” “Easily” can mean that Kṛṣṇa, by revealing Himself as happiness itself, stole their minds without effort; at that moment houses and all within them appeared to be forms of sorrow. Or He took their minds together with their happiness.

Their feet, which once entered into household duties or carried them toward such work, have also been stolen. They cannot move even a single step from the base of His feet. The theft of hands and feet means the theft of the power of those faculties. Even their arrival occurred only because His song drew them. “Therefore,” for this reason, how could they go to Vraja?

He may say, “Weak women, if this is so, come farther along with Me now.” They reply, “And after going there, what could we do?” Here vā joins rather than separates the questions. Stealing the mind already implies stealing every faculty; the hands and feet are mentioned specifically to rule out both household service such as attending husbands and their own movement elsewhere.

Alternatively, the mind that formerly rested in happiness or in sense objects has been stolen by Him and therefore no longer enters them at all. How could it employ the hands and other faculties in tasks belonging to what it no longer enters? He may say, “Mistresses of your homes, force them to enter through deliberate thought.” They answer that their hands too have been stolen and no longer enter household tasks. “Even so, you cannot remain here; go.” Their feet too have been stolen by Him and drawn toward Himself, so they cannot move one step. Thus their minds enter only Him, their hands only work for Him, and their feet only His abode, nowhere else.

The verse also contains a joke. They did not come to inspect the forest, since they had no business there. They came because He stole the treasure of their minds. Yet after finding Him, the thief, they cannot seize or carry Him away, nor can they go anywhere to cry out for help, because He has stolen their hands and feet as well. Their wealth taken, how can they return to Vraja, and what can they do? No remedy works against the master thief who knows the great mantras of paralysis and other powers.

On the contrary, prohibitive reading, Kṛṣṇa says, “Drawn from home and thoroughly bewildered by My flute song, how can you go?” They answer, “The happiness that arose at home stole our minds, and therefore the mind enters household tasks. Or our minds are happiness itself and have not been stolen by You, since they continue to enter our homes. Our hands too engage in household duties. Why should our feet not take a step? They can walk a great distance. Therefore, why should we not go? We certainly shall. What else is there for us to do here?”

Bhāgavata 10.29.35

Dear one, extinguish the fire of desire in our hearts, born from Your smiling glances and soft song, by flooding us with the nectar of Your lips. If You do not, friend, our bodies will be consumed by the fire born of separation, and through meditation we shall reach the path of Your feet.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The group standing in the second direction likewise concludes its intended meaning. They state their longing openly as hope and, with mature confidence, declare that its fulfillment is inevitable. If Kṛṣṇa appears to refuse it, only fault in Him will result. Thus they say, “Extinguish,” meaning “put out the fire.” The verb comes first because of the urgency of their extreme anguish.

The pronoun “our” connects specifically with “the fire of desire in the heart.” In the compound “born from smiling glances and soft song,” the final member governs the earlier ones, and the context supplies “Your” for the smile as well. Although the meaning would be understood without explicitly repeating “Your,” the text names it to show that the one who kindled the fire should Himself extinguish it. “A flood” also suggests the greatness of the fire; its suffix simply reinforces the word's own meaning.

Bhāgavata 10.29.36

Lotus-eyed one, at some rare moment Your foot, which grants an audience even to Ramā and is dear to the forest people, touched us. From that moment, delighted by You, we have been unable to stand easily before any other person.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Kṛṣṇa may object, “How can you charge Me with fault when I am innocent? My natural beauty and other qualities agitate the hearts of passionate women; what can I do? And even if you are incapable of household tasks, respectable married women should remain at home.” They answer, “When...”

“O lotus-eyed one,” at the moment when their indescribable good fortune arose, in some exceedingly rare place, He delighted them by revealing His own feeling, and His foot touched them through a suggestive statement. This follows the earlier explanation of the verse:

“The Pulinda women become fulfilled by the kuṅkuma from the lotus feet of the greatly praised Lord, the same kuṅkuma that first adorned His beloved's breasts.” (Bhāgavata 10.21.17)

Someone among them had somehow obtained the touch of His foot, and the event became famous among their circles. Those who had performed the Kātyāyanī vow had only received His promise of such touch. Nevertheless, those who had attained contact identified the others with themselves, and all spoke together. What kind of foot was it? “It grants an audience to Ramā,” surely offering even her a great festival.

He may say, “This is merely your dream. Otherwise the same touch would have continued constantly until today.” They answer that He continually pleases only the forest people, the Pulinda women, deer, and others, by allowing them to see Him and by other favors, not the people of Vraja. For the gopīs such touch is therefore especially rare. They gently reproach Him for abandoning Ramā and themselves, who are qualified, while accepting such forest beings.

From the moment they touched His foot, they have been unable to remain steadily in the presence of anyone else. The sight of another person no longer pleases them. His touch therefore possesses some power like the magical art of driving one away from every other place.

He may accuse them, “Liars! You live constantly among the people of the cowherd settlement.” They answer with “easily”: they do not remain there willingly but are forced to do so.

On the majestic reading, His foot grants Ramā an audience in certain manifestations, while He Himself is exclusively faithful through love to the forest people, the cowherds and other residents of Vṛndāvana. Alas, the gopīs' misfortune is so great that even then they touched it only once. The remainder is the same. Calling Him “dear to forest people” also expresses humility: they approach only through relation to those residents.

This answers His suggestion that they came with the ordinary love shared by all creatures: they came through their own extraordinary, natural love, not the general affection of others.

The verse also admits a contrary reading. Kṛṣṇa might say, “Friend, you have reminded Me well. In our childhood games you did experience My touch.” They answer, “When in Your childhood You remained fond only of monkeys and other creatures, Your foot gave an opportunity to Ramā, a beautiful girl, by turning toward a rendezvous with her. From that time we did not touch even that foot, much less another limb, although You delighted us by making us play with You in childhood. Therefore we can stand before others, including our mothers-in-law. Otherwise, they too would hate us.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.37

Śrī herself, though she obtained a place upon Nārāyaṇa's chest, desired the dust of His lotus feet together with Tulasī, dust already served by His attendants. Other gods strive merely to receive her glance. In the same way, we too have surrendered to the dust of Your feet.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Kṛṣṇa may say, “You belong to families equal to Mine. Why then say that you once touched My foot?” Veiling the intensity of their desire with extreme humility, they answer through the example of Śrī. Although she obtained a place on Nārāyaṇa's chest, she desired the dust of His lotus feet. Abandoning the kind of service desired by a beloved, she sought service proper to a maidservant and even accepted the crowd of many servants there.

What kind of goddess is she? The next half of the verse explains. Having given the example, the gopīs apply it to themselves. Garga said, “This son of Nanda is equal to Nārāyaṇa in qualities” (Bhāgavata 10.8.13). As Śrī approached Nārāyaṇa, the gopīs, although their noble birth and other endowments qualify them for the station of beloveds, surrender to the dust of Kṛṣṇa's feet. The greatness of His qualities makes both Śrī and the gopīs feel lowly even after attaining such exalted stations.

Śrī calls His foot a lotus and desires its dust through that qualifying comparison. The gopīs require no such comparison: they surrender directly to the dust of His foot. By using a lotus metaphor in one case and omitting it in the other, they suggest both their own distinction and the greater distinction of Kṛṣṇa's foot.

The bracketed reading gives another answer. Kṛṣṇa may suspect: “For the reason just stated, you seek only to satisfy your own senses, not to please Me.” They reply that Śrī, though entitled to conjugal rasa with her own Lord, desires servitude made entirely of service to Him. The gopīs desire the same relation with Kṛṣṇa. As Śrī rejected every other refuge during the churning of the Milk Ocean and worshiped Him alone, they too worship Kṛṣṇa alone.

Or He may say, “I do not remember touching you even in a dream. Even if it happened, one accidental lapse should not be repeated. It would violate the honorable conduct of your chaste families and would make Me destroy that conduct.” The gopīs answer by citing Śrī, crown jewel of chaste women. Though she attained a place on her husband's heart, the incomparable abundance of Kṛṣṇa's sweetness enchanted her. Considering herself unqualified for contact with His limbs, she desired merely the dust of His feet in Vṛndāvana. The verse therefore means: “We too surrender to the dust of Your feet.” This is celebrated in “Śrī performed austerity desiring it” (10.16.36), and the gopīs themselves will say, “Vraja triumphs through Your birth, for Indirā eternally resides here” (10.31.1). Their repetition of “dust of the feet” expresses extreme longing.

Both readings omit or employ metaphor just as explained above. Śrī did not desire the dust alone but together with Tulasī, Vṛndā in her manifest pastime form. Tulasī too is His beloved, as the account of Jālandhara in the Kārttika-māhātmya of the Padma Purāṇa relates. The Mathurā-māhātmya of the Skanda Purāṇa says:

“The twelfth forest is Vṛndāvana, the abode of goddess Vṛndā. Hari presides there, and Brahmā, Rudra, and the other gods serve it.”

The Varāha Purāṇa likewise says:

“The twelfth forest is Vṛndāvana, protected by Vṛndā. O Earth, it is dear to Me and destroys every sin.”

The dust is “served by His attendants,” even what remains after the company of servants has worshiped it. To further qualify that dust, the gopīs mention another distinction of Śrī: Viṣvaksena, Garuḍa, and other gods strive merely for her glance, which grants every prosperity up to love for her Lord. If Śrī and Vṛndā themselves desire the dust, what fault can lie in the gopīs doing so?

On the majestic reading, the meaning is nearly the same. In the first, love produces the exalted vision; in the second, knowledge does. This replies to “service to one's husband is a woman's duty” (10.29.24).

The verse also supports a contrary reading. Kṛṣṇa might say, “Śrī and Vṛndā abandoned their own husbands, remain in My forest hoping for Me, and desire My foot-dust. Who are you in comparison?” The gopīs respond with an ironic tone: “Śrī has indeed lived here constantly with Tulasī or Vṛndā desiring Your foot-dust. Likewise, we too have surrendered to it - surely not! Lakṣmī is famed as fickle, and Vṛndā, though the wife of Jālandhara, became unfaithful. Such behavior may suit them, but not women like us.” This too answers the instruction about husbands.

Bhāgavata 10.29.38

Therefore be gracious to us, O destroyer of distress. We have abandoned our homes and come to the foot of Your feet, hoping to worship You. O ornament of men, grant servitude to us, whose hearts burn with the fierce longing born from Your beautiful smiling glance.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs standing in the third direction now conclude what they intend to say: “Therefore, be gracious to us.” “Therefore” means that precisely for the reason already stated He should show them favor, and they identify that favor: “Grant us servitude alone.”

He may object, “Young women maddened by new youth, such servitude itself is exceedingly rare. How could it be given?” They answer humbly with “we have come.” Because they have abandoned everything and surrendered to Him, He must fulfill their hope. Otherwise they would suffer terribly, which would be improper for Him, the destroyer of distress. Their minds overflow with their own love, and by mentioning His beautiful smiling glance they imply: “O crown of connoisseurs, grant us that distinctive service which is itself made of rasa.”

Alternatively, “Even though our hearts are scorched by such a glance, grant us only servitude.” They have relinquished even the hope that He will remove that burning. Servitude is indeed fitting, for He is the ornament of men. A wordplay may describe their homes as places in which worship of Him perishes.

Or “O You whose smiling glance is beautiful” may be a form of address. With verbal dexterity they reveal the feeling hidden beneath their feigned reserve: “Our hearts are scorched by the fierce desire that comes from You.” This answers His accusation that they are immoral: how could those seized by the great serpent of longing for Him still deliberate about renunciation or fault?

The verse may also carry a prohibitive meaning: “Therefore, do not insist upon showing us favor. O afflicter who does not remove distress, we did not abandon our dwellings in hope of worshiping You, nor did we come to the foot of Your feet. Give servitude to women whose hearts possess the characteristics beginning with longing born from Your beautiful glance. We have no need of it.” The genitive case suggests that even those women do not accept it completely. “Ornament of men” is then twisted to mean that He adorns His cowherd companions as women according to their particular longings, making His proposal equally implausible.

Another angry division of the address makes Him the “afflicter of the existence called manhood,” one who disgraces the entire class of men. The verbal root ūṣ means “to injure.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.39

Having beheld Your face encircled by curling locks, the beauty of Your earrings upon Your broad cheeks, the nectar of Your lips, and Your smiling glance, and having seen Your two staff-like arms that grant fearlessness and Your chest, the sole pleasure-ground of Śrī, we have become Your maidservants.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

He may object: “You were neither purchased for a price nor hired for wages. How can you be My servants?” Such transactions belong elsewhere. Here the sight He grants of His face and limbs is itself both price and wage. Therefore they say “having beheld,” then describe the extraordinary qualities they saw.

The locks gleaming over His forehead encircle the upper part of His face. The splendor of His earrings adorns its two sides, while His smiling glance occupies its lower and middle regions. “Broad cheeks” suggests their expansiveness, and the earrings' radiance suggests their spotless surface. The lips are inferred to hold nectar because merely seeing them awakens extraordinary greed, while their fragrance is directly experienced.

His arms grant fearlessness by destroying demons for His devotees, displaying strength and other virtues. More cleverly, they have dispelled fear of husbands and relatives, while in truth the gopīs intend that a tight embrace from those arms removes the fear born of desire itself. Comparing the arms to staffs evokes their smooth, broad, long, and shapely form. His chest is the unique and supreme pleasure-ground of Śrī, represented by the golden line of Lakṣmī on His left side, and is thus the treasury of consummate beauty and fortune. The repeated “and” and the second verb “having seen” mark the arms and chest as special places in which they desire to dwell. The face invites kisses and the drinking of lip-nectar, while the arms and chest invite embrace.

The order of locks, face, arms, and chest reveals their conduct. At first, although they see every beauty of His face, modesty does not let them gaze steadily. Overwhelming longing then draws their eyes to His arms, and one seized by those arms would find rest only upon His chest. Thus His power of supreme enchantment is the cause of their becoming maidservants.

In worldly dealings, wages and price consist in giving objects of enjoyment. In Him those are already attained: the beauty of His form, the sweetness of His lips, the coveted touch of His arms, and His chest as the abode of complete splendor. Yet “having beheld” also hints that their wagtail-like eyes have been caught. His locks form the snare; His earrings its final loops; His cheeks the place where it is set; His lip-nectar the tempting food; and His smiling glance the reassuring play of a pair of wagtails He already keeps. His fear-dispelling arms are like branches upon which they may perch, and His chest is a delightful pasture.

Alternatively, His face bestows beauty upon His earrings. Some read a long vowel in śrī. On that reading, the broad cheeks cause the earrings' splendor, the lips hold nectar, and the smile and glance are distinct attractions. Repeating “having seen” gives each feature prominence. On the contrary reading, however, “having seen” is said with a tone that implies they have not truly seen at all.

He may then ask, “If so, why do you remain here gazing repeatedly at My limbs?” With proud irony they answer, “Having beheld...” Here too their intonation conveys denial.

Bhāgavata 10.29.40

Beloved, what woman anywhere in the three worlds would not forsake honorable conduct when bewildered by the swelling music of Your flute, whose notes are tender and prolonged? And what woman would remain unmoved after beholding this form, which contains all the beauty and good fortune of the three worlds, seeing that cows, birds, trees, and deer themselves bristle with ecstasy before it?

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

He may say, “Chaste women will mock you for this.” The gopīs answer openly, with anger joined to humility: “What woman in the three worlds would not be moved? Every woman would.” This is indicated by the Bhāgavata's description of the goddesses traveling in celestial vehicles (10.21.12). “Tender” was explained earlier at 10.29.3. “Notes” suggests that every phrase possesses that quality, while “prolonged” reveals Kṛṣṇa's insistence and prevents the gopīs from wasting that moment by trying to remain composed. Variant readings bring out the flute-song's otherworldly savor.

If merely hearing Him without seeing Him has this effect, beholding Him does the same. They therefore speak as if frightened that destruction assails them from every side. His form contains the beauty or good fortune of every realm above, below, and in the middle. “This” insists that the form stands visibly before them and cannot be dismissed as something else. Alternatively, it means “this extraordinary form of precisely such a nature.”

Bhāgavata 10.29.41

It is manifest that You have appeared to remove Vraja's fear and anguish, just as the primeval Lord appears to protect the celestial realm. Therefore, O friend of the distressed, place Your lotus hand upon the burning breasts and heads of Your maidservants.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The gopīs standing in the fourth direction likewise remove from themselves every alleged fault concerning dharma. As at the beginning of their reply, they conclude instead that refusing them would bring the fault of violating dharma upon Him. He may object, “Let all that be so, but because I possess qualities equal to Nārāyaṇa and am fully satisfied, I cannot incline toward anyone else, much less toward such an act.” They answer with “It is manifest.” He removes Vraja's fear of Pūtanā, forest fires, and other dangers, its alarm on His account, its pain from rain and wind, its fear of separation from Him, and the anguish caused by actual separation. Yet now He intends to contradict His own nature as remover of both fear and pain.

The Bhāgavata records His vow:

“Therefore I shall protect by My own mystic power the cowherd settlement that has taken shelter of Me, whose Lord I am, and which belongs to Me. This is the vow I have embraced.” (10.25.18)

He showed this personally by lifting the mountain's weight. A variant refers broadly to the distress of Vraja's people, every external and internal affliction. “Well-born” further means born in a noble family. If they perish solely because of Him, He will both break His vow and incur a fault more irreligious than any He attributes to them. Even the fully satisfied Lord is seen to cherish such a desire and protect such a vow. Thus they call Him deva, one who shines in every way. The primeval Person, highest among all persons, freely appears through Aditi and elsewhere to protect the celestial realm and all its inhabitants.

Therefore His hand is metaphorically called a lotus only insofar as it dispels heat. In truth, their burning arises solely from not attaining that hand, so the moment He places it upon them the burning must cease. Although their breasts are supremely soft, they ask Him to place it there. They add humbly, “and upon the heads of Your maidservants,” asking Him both to accept them fully and raise them up. Calling Him “friend of the distressed” indicates that it is improper for His servants to burn while He stands directly before them. They also imply: “Do not place Your hand upon us out of passion. Place it only because You are the friend of the distressed.”

A concealed meaning turns the statement into a prohibition. Though they hide their love beneath reserve, touching their limbs would itself awaken the god of love. Suspecting that He may touch them almost by force, they say, “It is manifest.” For the reasons already given, He ought to protect them from the fear of violating dharma, not destroy that dharma. “Do not place it upon us, O friend of the distressed!” expresses their anguish over that danger. “O You whose heart is scorched by the fire of desire, do not place Your hand even upon the heads of maidservants in Your own home, much less upon women like us, and still less upon our breasts.”

The entire exchange beginning with “Welcome” is thus the expressive action called saṃlāpa, reciprocal conversation. Rasa theory defines it as speech composed of statement and counterstatement.

Bhāgavata 10.29.42

Śrī Śuka said: Hearing their distressed appeal, the Lord of the masters of yoga laughed, and, though self-delighting, compassionately delighted the gopīs.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Like Kṛṣṇa's own words, their distressed speech touches two meanings at once. He heard their angry and humble utterance, which arose from overwhelming agitation, and by hearing it fulfilled His own desire. He then laughed. Though His teasing had intensified their distress, He had now heard what He wished to hear. Their counterstatement equaled His own speech in elegance, their concealment fell away, and the emotion called love arose openly. His laughter was therefore the expressive brightening of the face celebrated in rasa theory, an especial state that causes the heart to blossom.

Hearing those humble words filled with love, He became compassionate, His heart melting, and “delighted the gopīs.” The causative form means that He personally induced them to sport and ardently urged them to do so. This reveals the special force of His own desire, like the child who initiates play among a group of otherwise equal children. The grammatical rule governing a causative formed from an intransitive verb with a conscious agent accordingly uses the active voice.

One may ask what is surprising about such behavior among urbane lovers. Śuka therefore says “although self-delighting.” Such is the overwhelming power of their love that they brought even Him under their control, just as the Lord's qualities captivate the self-satisfied sages described at Bhāgavata 1.7.11. Only then does “although” have force; otherwise it would suggest the opposite. Elsewhere He says, “I do not desire even Myself apart from My saintly devotees” (9.4.64), a statement applying to devotees generally. Here the expression indicates the gopīs' special excellence and is therefore neither repetitive nor pointless.

How could one person delight innumerable women? He is “the Lord of the masters of yoga.” Masters of yoga can expand their bodies and perform many acts simultaneously. As their Lord, He possesses inconceivable, inherent power and can do so without even arranging such expansions. Nārada will later marvel:

“How astonishing! With one body, the one Lord simultaneously and separately married sixteen thousand women in their individual homes.” (10.69.2)

Bhāgavata 10.29.43

Surrounded by the assembled gopīs, whose faces blossomed beneath their beloved's glance, infallible Kṛṣṇa shone with magnanimous gestures. His generous smile gleamed with jasmine-white teeth, and He appeared like the moon encircled by stars.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Four verses beginning here describe the manner of their loving sport and show Kṛṣṇa as its initiating agent. The first portrays, through a comparison, the special beauty that arose in Him when He united with them in love. “Assembled” means that Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself brought them together, for the preceding verse says that He caused them to sport. Surrounded on every side by gopīs of such a kind, He shone with extraordinary brilliance.

He is “infallible” because, even while meeting all of them, He remained perfectly present with each one individually. For that same reason His gestures were expansive and took many forms. The beloved's glance may mean that He looked upon them or that they looked upon Him. “Blossomed” suggests that their faces were lotuses: when that glance dispelled the darkness within their hearts, their day arrived.

The verse has thus described their distinctive rasa and now describes His. His broad smile was made still more beautiful by the radiance of His splendid teeth, white as jasmine buds. Though His eternal beauty is intrinsically at its utmost limit, the gopīs gave it a special splendor. He resembled the full moon, identified by its deer-shaped mark, surrounded on every side by brilliantly shining stars. The image suggests their mutual enhancement of beauty, their dearness to one another, their eternal companionship, and the gopīs' slenderness beside Him.

Bhāgavata 10.29.44

Praised in song while singing aloud Himself, the leader of hundreds of groups of women wandered through the forest and adorned it, wearing a Vaijayantī garland.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The rise of this exceptional splendor beautified Śrī Vṛndāvana itself. Kṛṣṇa wandered onward so that song and the sight of flowers and other objects might intensify their emotion and so that they might reach the bank of the Yamunā, a place suited for loving sport. Thus the verse says that He was “praised in song.”

“Singing aloud,” He joyfully sang of the moon and other stimulants of love. The gopīs in turn praised Him by echoing those very songs in responsive singing. The phrase also carries a second, interwoven meaning. Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī writes in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu:

“All glory to the moonlike beloved of Rādhā, the embodiment of the nectar of every rasa, whose spreading radiance eclipses the host of stars, and who is accompanied by Śyāmā and Lalitā.” (1.1.1)

Changing only one or two syllables can similarly yield:

“Behold how this reservoir of night-blooming lilies shines, lending beauty to the night, pure in luster, its tresses revealed by a line of moonlight, and accompanied by tender songs formed by rows of six-footed bees.”

Alternatively, He sang their names to melodies and rhythms characteristic of them, while they sang His. Because their minds were wholly absorbed in Him, only He appeared in their speech. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa says:

“Kṛṣṇa sang of the autumn moon, the moonlight, and the lily pond, while the gopīs repeatedly sang only the single name Kṛṣṇa.” (5.13.51)

Both meanings are relishable. The compound Kṛṣṇa-nāma may also be analyzed as “Kṛṣṇa and the name,” meaning that the gopīs sang of Kṛṣṇa alone.

According to the lexicon, vanitā is a woman in whom extraordinarily intense attachment has arisen. He protects hundreds of their groups and is therefore their leader. Through wordplay, the phrase also suggests that He drinks them with His eyes, serves them with attachment, or literally drinks the nectar of their lips. Their many groups correspond to the affinities of their distinct loving moods.

The Vaijayantī garland is woven from flowers of five colors. Although the later mention of bracelets and anklets (10.33.5) shows that He wore other ornaments, this garland is singled out because it suits forest wandering. The gopīs may have quickly woven and offered it, or Vṛndā, goddess of the forest, may have placed it in various bowers for Him. “He wandered” means that He roamed throughout the forest.

Bhāgavata 10.29.45

Entering the riverbank whose sand was cool, He sported with the gopīs in a breeze delighted by the river's rippling waves and fragrant with night-blooming lilies.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The next two verses say that Kṛṣṇa brought them to the bank of Śrī Yamunā and delighted them there with exceptional artistry. Sand “cool as snow” may also suggest sand resembling camphor. The forest mentioned in the preceding verse is therefore Vṛndāvana itself.

The breeze along that river moved joyfully with its rippling waves and carried the fragrance of lotuses. Although it was night, the lotuses blossomed just as jasmine blossoms in autumn, animated by the rasa-filled influence of that extraordinary divine play. Another reading, “honored by the breeze,” evokes its gentleness; its fragrance and coolness are already evident. Some witnesses read “lilies” and “delighting,” while others read “honored” where the present text has “He sported.” This variation explains why some editions number the sentence separately.

Bhāgavata 10.29.46

By extending His arms, embracing them, touching their hands, locks, thighs, girdles, and breasts, by playful taps of His fingernails, by jesting, glances, and laughter, He aroused the lord of love in the beautiful women of Vraja and caused them to delight.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

Their natural modesty and other qualities covered the lord of rati, their lover-suited affection, yet Kṛṣṇa raised it up through the extension of His arms and the other gestures. “The lord of rati” may also mean the supreme love called mahābhāva, which alone is adequate for that affection. The description thus reveals both His attachment to their love and His consummate artistry.

Extending His arms initiates an embrace. Alternatively, the phrase means that He embraced them tightly with outstretched arms. His jesting includes playful provocation and similar acts. Calling them “the beautiful women of Vraja” indicates beauty worthy of this exchange. By the maxim that qualities dwell wherever such a form appears, the phrase also suggests their corresponding refinement. Through the special power of His own enchantment, their sport remained hidden from everyone outside their mutual circle.

Bhāgavata 10.29.47

Having thus received honor from magnanimous Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, the proud gopīs each considered herself greater than every other woman on earth.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

The narration now begins to describe the special rasa of separation, born from a particular surge of love and intended to nourish the special play that follows. Bharata's principle says:

“Without separation, union does not attain full nourishment. A cloth first treated with an astringent takes on a still deeper dye.” (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.3)

“Magnanimous” describes Him as higher than every divine and supremely divine hero. The reason is that He is Bhagavān Himself, the very Kṛṣṇa celebrated everywhere. By the manner of His submission to their love just described, they gained honor, esteem, and good fortune from Him. Possessing the loving indignation called māna, each thought herself superior to all women both in Vraja and elsewhere. They became indignant toward Him and proud in relation to other women.

Rasa theory defines māna:

“When an affectionate couple are together, the emotion that obstructs their desired embrace, glance, and other exchanges is called māna.” (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.74)

“Love's movement is naturally crooked, like a serpent's path. Therefore māna arises between young lovers with a cause or without one.” (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.102)

Their pride arose because women elsewhere had not obtained such a hero, while the women present did not appear to possess good fortune equal to their own. Thus it is said:

“Disdain for others born from one's supreme good fortune, beauty, youth, virtues, exalted shelter, attainment of the beloved, or similar cause is called pride.” (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 2.4.41)

Rasa scripture also says:

“Those emotions that set the permanent emotion in motion are called transitory. They rise and sink within that enduring emotion like waves in the ocean.”

Pride is therefore a transitory emotion within their distinctive permanent love and is wholly composed of that love. Such is the nature and excellence of this rasa.

Bhāgavata 10.29.48

Seeing their intoxication with good fortune and their loving indignation, Keśava disappeared at that very place in order to pacify the former and graciously appease the latter.

Jīva Gosvāmī's Laghu-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī

“That intoxication with good fortune” means the pride born from the remarkable fortune attained by women of such a kind. The lexicon gives mada the senses semen, musk, pride, joy, and an elephant's ichor. Kṛṣṇa observed both that pride and their māna with particular attention. He understood that the pride could not be remedied by another argument and saw that even conciliatory gestures could not resolve their loving indignation. To quiet the pride and graciously appease the māna, He disappeared then and there. The verb denotes becoming unseen, not visibly traveling elsewhere.

In light of the account that follows, He must have disappeared together with Śrī Rādhā. When He desired this, Yogamāyā accomplished it. A hero's neglect is sometimes required to calm jealous indignation that has a definite cause:

“Even cause-born indignation subsides through appropriately applied conciliation, strategic distinction, action, gifts, submission, neglect, or a change of rasa.” (Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi 15.112)

Loving indignation born from intimate affection and having no external cause may subside without any remedy or through even a slight one. Yet neglect was appropriate here because its association with their mutual pride had made it intense. His disappearance served to calm both emotions. Though pride and māna are mature transformations of love, His desire to quiet them arose from His freely willed longing for divine play and from His wish to bestow the great rasa of the rāsa dance upon all the gopīs simultaneously. This separation will therefore serve the growth of supreme love, as He will later explain beginning with “My friends, I do not...” (10.32.20). The deepest cause of the disappearance, however, was His longing to sport alone with that one gopī, Śrī Rādhā.

The name Keśava means “supremely radiant,” following the Mahābhārata:

“The rays that shine from Me are called keśa. Therefore, O best of sages, the omniscient call Me Keśava.” (12.328.43)

His disappearance thus suddenly deprived that place of all brilliance, although every other beautiful feature remained.