The motherly affection of the mothers and cows for Krsna remained as before. But the love for him had been greater than their love for their own children and calves. But now, when Krsna became their sons and calves, their love for their sons and calves became equal to that for Krsna. Krsna’s affection as a child toward the mothers was the same as before, but from the commencement of the Brahma mohana pastime, Krsna became their sons in actuality (mayaya vina). It may be objected that Krsna in the form the cowherd boys should have had the same affection for their mothers as the actual boys, since the verse says the Krsna took up exactly the character, dress, form and age as each cowherd boy. But, though Krsna is supreme, and all from Brahma to even his personal expansions are dependent on him, he is dependent on prema. Prema is not dependent on him. He cannot control or restrict prema. Sridhara Swami says, "This irregularity is difficult to prevent in Krsna." Such uncontrollable prema was in the hearts of the mothers towards Krsna in the form of their sons. Thus Krsna in the form of their sons forgot his powers as God, as he took up the role of their sons, and remained dependent on them, like a commander next to the king. One should not say that such dependence is a fault--rather it is Krsna’s ornament. As dependence of the jiva on maya is the cause of his sorrow, so Krsna’s dependence on prema is the cause of ever- increasing bliss. This is the realization of the great devotees.

After showing the first part of the verse the superiority of the mother ‘s love for boys who were Kṛṣṇa’s expansions over that for the original boys, Śukadeva then shows the superior nature of Yaśodā’s love for Kṛṣṇa in his original form over the other mothers’ love for his expansions, though certainly those mothers’ love was also praiseworthy. The word purovad, though used once, should be used in both statements. The cows and mothers had motherly affection for Kṛṣṇa who expanded as their sons and calves just as they had for their original sons and calves (purovad) but the affection for their real sons was actually less. It was very intense towards Kṛṣṇa in the form of their sons. Though Kṛṣṇa’s form was covered in assuming the forms of the cowherd boys and calves, the attraction manifested since his nature, like fire, could not be covered. Kṛṣṇa had affection as a child (tokatā) towards those mothers even previously (āsu api), something like his affection for Yaśodā. But he identified himself as Kṛṣṇa to Yaśodā, without disguise (māyayā vinā) whereas he disguised himself as the cowherd boys (I am Śrīdāmā or I am Sudāmā) and covered his form to the other mothers. It will be said vatsa-pāla-miṣeṇa saḥ: he played the part of the cowherd boys. (SB 10.13.27) Though he played the role of the other cowherd boys for the mothers, those forms were not equivalent to his position as son of Yaśodā, because those forms could not possess the special nature caused by his most extraordinary original form. (Another meaning) The word vinā (without), ruling the whole sentence like the Lord, is used in both sentences regarding the mothers’ affection for Kṛṣṇa and Kṛṣṇa’s affection for them. The meaning of the phrases should therefore be similar. Thus, the word māyā should be taken in its original sense. According to Viśva-kośa the word māyā means pretense or mercy. “Illusion” is a secondary meaning. Then the meaning is “The mothers’ previous affection for their real sons was without such great intensity (snehārdhika-vinā) and Kṛṣṇa’s affection for them previously was without the special mercy (māyayā vinā) that he now showed by becoming their sons.” Āsu api (even they) indicates that they attained great similarity to Yaśodā’s attainment. Otherwise the word should be grouped with hareḥ and the sentence would use harer api.

For these reasons the mothers had special affection for their sons. And for this reason the Lord had special affection for them. There was an increase of affection (ṛddhikam). Kṛṣṇa’s affection as a son for the mothers (tokatā), similar to the previoius boys’ affection for them, asking the mothers for various foods, ornaments or toys, did not have special attachment to them without having the attitude of being their previous sons (māyayā vinā). Now, because of acting as their sons, this attraction arose. And their increased affection for him, their special attraction to him as their son, could not be prevented even by the Lord. This shows the special greatness of the Lord. Or previously there was some deception in his affection for them, but now, without deception (māyayā vinā) that attraction for the mothers was like that for Yaśodā, because he manifested his unlimited intimacy. Or now his special affection for the mothers manifested even without mercy (māyayā vinā), since he was their sons. Or without deception (amāyayā vinā) he previously had affection for the mothers. Now with deception he had affection for them since his nature was to fool in various weays.