Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.34.31
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
avidūre iva
—
as if from nearby
A-vidūra (not far) + iva (as if). Kṛṣṇa was at a great distance, yet closes it 'as if' He were close. Gauḍīyas read: Bhagavān is never functionally far from His devotees' enemies — geography does not bind the protector of the prapanna.
-
durātmanaḥ
—
of the wicked-souled one
Dur (bad) + ātman (soul, self). The demon is durātman — not because his ātman is intrinsically corrupt (every ātman is part of Bhagavān) but because its embodiment and conduct are. Gauḍīya tattva: jīva is eternally Kṛṣṇa-dāsa; corruption is in the upādhi.
-
muṣṭinā
—
with the fist
Muṣṭi = clenched fist. Kṛṣṇa kills Śaṅkhacūḍa without weapon — His hand alone. Gauḍīyas mark the rasa: the same hand that pulled at Yaśodā's saree, lifted the butter, played the flute, here ends a demon. Bhagavān's body is multifunctional grace.
-
vibhuḥ
—
the almighty, all-pervading Lord
From vi-√bhū = pervade, become great. Vibhu in its highest sense applies only to Bhagavān (Śiva in v. 2 was vibhu within his jurisdiction). The verse closes the demon's chapter with Bhagavān's true title, leaving no ambiguity about who acted.
Balarama stayed with the gopis, tired from running, comforting and protecting them.
Though Kṛṣṇa was far away he caught up with the demon as if he were close. It was not proper to kill him from the back as he was quickly running away. But he could kill the thief (durāttmanaḥ) while he was fleeing, if it was not from the back. He killed him with his fist, not with a śāla tree or any other means, and with only one fist. This means he did it without effort since he was the Lord (vibhuḥ). Cūḍa-maṇim with saha should be in the instrumental case but for meter it is in the accusative. Or he took off his head and the jewel at once (saha).
Though far away, Kṛṣṇa appeared near and faced him. It was improper to kill a fleeing person from behind. Or he appeared on all sides, since it was improper to kill him from behind. He was wicked because he had taken the women. He removed the head along with the jewel with one fist only. It did not take effort since he was the Lord (vibhuḥ). Aṅga is an address expressing joy. Or he removed his head at the same time as the jewel. This shows that killing him took no effort. He killed him for the jewel.
- What threat feels too 'far away' from the Lord's reach in your imagination?
- Where have you mistaken distance for absence?
From a great distance — but as if from arm's reach — Kṛṣṇa overtakes Śaṅkhacūḍa and removes his head with a single fist, jewel and all. Bhagavān's reach is non-Euclidean; the bhakta-protector is everywhere His own are threatened. One fist for one demon: no over-engineered weaponry, just the hand that once held butter.
My note
Source: vedabase.io