Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.23.12
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
om
—
'so be it'
Praṇava — the most sacred syllable, the seed of all Veda. The brāhmaṇas would not even grant the boys this single syllable. The pettiness is exact: the keepers of om refused to give one om.
-
parantapa
—
O chastiser of the enemies
Compound: param (enemies) + tapa (heat-giver, scorcher). Śukadeva addresses Parīkṣit by this epithet at precisely this moment — calling on the king to recognize that real enemies are not always armed.
-
gopāḥ
—
the cowherd boys
The verse names them gopāḥ again, not 'devotees' or 'messengers' — their identity in the chapter is sakhya-bhaktas. They return to Kṛṣṇa as friends report to a friend.
-
nirāśāḥ
—
discouraged
Nir (without) + āśā (hope). The boys' hope dies; the wives' hope (dīrgha-śruta-dhṛta-āśayāḥ, verse 21) is alive. The chapter swaps hope from those who 'know' to those who 'love.'
The brahmanas did not say "yes". "How can we give to the cowherds before the brahmanas have eaten?" The brahmanas did not say "No." They did not refuse the proposal that after the brahamans had eaten they would give the remanants to the cowherd boys. Seeing that Pariksit Maharaj was becoming angry on hearing this, sukadeva said, "O subduer of enemies (parantapa), if you had been there, even though they were the best of brahamans, you would have punished them like enemies."
They did not say “Yes, we will give rice.” And they did not say, “We will not give.” This was because they were very disrespectful, caused by their false identity. O conqueror of enemies, you can subdue enemies like pride but others cannot! The boys explained what they had said and what the brāhmaṇas had done.
They did not say “Yes, we will give rice.” And they did not say, “We will not give.” This was because they were very disrespectful, caused by their false identity. O conqueror of enemies, you can subdue enemies like pride but others cannot! Or please drive such non-devotees from the kingdom and punish them! Or seeing Parīkṣit’s inner anger directed to the brāhmaṇas, he addresses him to pacify him. O conqueror of enemies, please control your anger. The boys returned and explained what they had said and what the brāhmaṇas had done. Kṛṣṇa is mentioned first because he sent the boys. Or fearing that Balarāma would be angry at the affront to Kṛṣṇa, they put Balarāma in a secondary position by addressing him second. Or Kṛṣṇa is named first because he is supreme.
- What rejected request am I privatizing as failure when reporting back honestly is the correct next step?
- Where am I taking another's silence as my verdict?
A child sent back from a closed door with empty hands — the boys come home to Kṛṣṇa with nothing, and bring even their disappointment to Him. Bhakti has nowhere else to put even its failures.
My note
Source: vedabase.io