Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.23.10-11
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
brahma-paramam
—
the Supreme Absolute Truth
Compound: brahma (Absolute) + paramam (supreme). Kṛṣṇa is named here in the precise Upaniṣadic register — and missed in that register by professional Vedists. Gauḍīyas read this as the chapter's tattva-statement.
-
sākṣāt
—
directly manifest
Indeclinable — 'before the very eyes.' Not symbolic, not allegorical: Bhagavān in person. Śukadeva's word-choice forecloses every impersonalist exit.
-
bhagavantam
—
the Personality of Godhead
Accusative of bhagavān. Brahma and Bhagavān are equated and then specified as personal — the Gauḍīya tattva of Bhāgavatam 1.2.11: brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate.
-
adhokṣajam
—
transcendental to material senses
Compound: adhaḥ (below) + akṣaja (sense-born knowledge). Bhagavān is below — out of reach of — sense-cognition. He must come to one's heart; one cannot reach Him via the senses' staircase.
-
manuṣya-dṛṣṭyā
—
seeing Him as an ordinary man
Compound: manuṣya (human) + dṛṣṭyā (with vision). The exact aparādha Gītā 9.11 names: avajānanti māṁ mūḍhāḥ. Treating Bhagavān as ordinary is the root error this entire chapter dramatizes.
-
martya-ātmānaḥ
—
falsely identifying themselves with the material body
Compound: martya (mortal) + ātmānaḥ (selves). The deha-ātma-buddhi diagnosed by Kapila in SB 3.31. Pride in body produces blindness to Bhagavān — body-identification is the deeper sickness behind the immediate refusal.
The ritualistic brāhmaṇas could not understand why the sacrificial food should be offered to Lord Kṛṣṇa, whom they considered an ordinary human being. Just as a person with rose-colored glasses sees the entire world as rose-colored, a conditioned soul with mundane vision sees even God Himself as mundane and thus loses the opportunity to go back home, back to Godhead.
Why should one person give his acquired goods to another person, overlooking the rules outlined in scriptures for suitability of place, time and person? This verse answers. Because the brahmanas had material vision (martyatmanah) they thought of Krsna, the para Brahman, as an ordinary human, because he is beyond material senses (adhoksaja), but is visible by mercy. Time, place, the ingredients such as offerings cooked rice etc (prthak dravyam), the usage (tantra) of mantra, the priests , fires, devatas, sponsors, the sacrifice and religious principles were just manifestation of power of a part of part of himself.
These verses show their ignorance by showing the truth. Pṛthag dravyam means various materials. All ingredients are parts of the Lord because he is the supreme Brahman, he is Bhagavān endowed with all powers, and he is beyond the senses. Though he had appeared directly to them by him mercy, they did not respect him, because they had no discrimination, because they considered themselves their bodies (martyātmānaḥ).
These verses show their ignorance by showing the truth. Pṛthag dravyam means various materials. All ingredients are parts of the Lord because he is the supreme Brahman, he is Bhagavān endowed with all powers, and he is beyond the senses. By his mercy he directly manifests. Or they do not respect him because he is supreme Brahman. He is a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss (param): Nārāyaṇa. He is directly the Lord, not just an avatāra (sākṣāt). And he manifests his powers as the Lord as the master of Mathurā (bhagavantam). He appeared to take birth again when he was under the cart (adhokṣajam). This analysis of the word adhokṣajam is found in SB 10;14.12. He is the joy of Gokula. By material eyes he is not respected. Why? They have no intelligence (duṣprajñāḥ). Why is this said? They identify with their bodies (martyātmanaḥ) or take birth repeatedly in the world. If they were intelligent they would fear this world. The later statement of the brāhmaṇas aptly fits this description and thus confirms as true what is said here.
- Which 'opulences' in my practice have I been treating as if their Owner were absent?
- Where am I performing rites whose Master I would not recognize if He sent a boy to the door?
A man holds a brick in his hand and does not see that the temple itself is built of that brick — the very paraphernalia of yajña is Kṛṣṇa's body, yet the priests treat Him as the labourer who delivered the brick. Recognition fails not for lack of evidence but for surplus of pride.
Earlier in this same canto (SB 10.13), Brahmā tried to test Kṛṣṇa by hiding the calves and cowherd boys; for a year Brahmā watched what he thought were the originals continuing in Vraja. When he returned and saw Kṛṣṇa as every calf and every boy, his elaborate intelligence collapsed.
The yajñika brāhmaṇas here suffer the same disease in miniature: every element of their sacrifice is Kṛṣṇa, but they only see the labourer outside the gate. The chapter is Brahmā-vimohana rerun in a quieter key.
My note
Source: vedabase.io