This verse describes the beauty of Pradyumna. On seeing him Rukmini thought of (bhava) her own master Krsna, because his beauty was equal to that of his father, Krsna. As verse 33 says she was thinking "How is it that he looks exactly like Krsna?" This verse refers to Rukmini, though mother (tan matarah) is in the plural to show her respect. She showed parental affection (rudha bhavah) in the privacy of her chambers (raha), because other wives did not enter those chambers. She exhibited this affection even before knowing who he was, as indicated in verse 34. Concluding that he must be her lost son, but still doubtful, she then received him (abhajan) by inspecting his limbs, smelling his head, and stroking his body with her hands. It is not astonishing for her to act in this way with Pradyumna. Why? Because he was the abode of all splendor (ramaspadam), the very likeness of Krsna, incomparable to anyone in the three worlds. And she had it confirmed by words that he was Krsna’s son, and she had realized that herself as well. But only his mother Rukmini manifested such love of Pradumya, and not other women. This is expressed in the last line. Kama deva is called smara because from him one gets remembrance of ones beloved. Even without his presence there is arousal of lust because of remembering. What to speak then of his being present there? Can any other women behave like her towards Pradyumna, who is kamadeva, who aroused lust just by remembrance of him, what to speak of his very presence? No, they could not, for they would become disturbed by lust.

Śrīdhara Svāmī explains this verse. “Secretly serving him” means only that by mistake they approached him. They did not actually have conjugal relationships with him. Balarāma would accept other gopīs when going to Vṛndāvana in the future (and not have relationships with the queens). Pradyumna gave up the mistaken idea that Māyāvatī was his mother (and had relation with her only as his wife). Those women, his co-mothers had increasing prema (rūḍha-bhāva) for Kṛṣṇa because of separation (raha) from him, constantly went to see (abhajan) Pradyumna. Since they were mothers, that was the extent of their relationship with him. That was not astonishing because those women had a manifestation of love for Kṛṣṇa alone (nijeśa) and because Pradyumna had a similar form to his father. They went to see Pradyumna because of desire for a similar type of meeting. The word īśa is used instead of kānta (lover). They experienced him as the Lord not as their lover, since Pradyumna was not a suitable uddīpana for invoking their conjugal love. He was like their son. Other women (anyā nāryaḥ) served him very nicely (kim uta), with the mood of a lover. According to Amara-koṣa, kim uta can mean strong or very fine. This was because he was a replica of Kṛṣṇa, the shelter of Lakṣmī and was a reflection of Cupid when visible to their eyes. Or thinking that Pradyumna was Kṛṣṇa, the women in shyness hide themselves (raha abhajan). Or, they divided him up (abhajan) or obtained him, the youngest, as their share. Another version has ūḍhabhāvā (having sentiments of married women towards him). The word īśa is used according to the explanation given above. Why did they not develop love from him as their lover? They had unflinching lover for Kṛṣṇa (rūdha-bhāvāḥ). It was not surprising that they hid themselves from him. They developed various affections for him, but even (uta) other women who had not developed such bhāvas for him, perhaps worshipping in a solitary place (kim), served him with amorous gestures. Another version has akśī instead of akṣa.

Yam is in reference to pradyumnam in the previous verse or can be connected with tat in this verse. Other women felt love for he whom the mothers felt love. Vai means well known. The mothers felt love for him constantly, though repeatedly they extinguished such feelings with doubts, because of his similarity to their husband. Raha (hidden) instead of rahas is poetic license. Previously in verse 29 it was mentioned that they were ashamed and hid (hrītā). This indicates that they were ashamed of this feeling. Or it is hinted when it is described that they approached him in joy (verse 38). Or this verse itself is the main evidence. They became absorbed in seeing the reflection of Kṛṣṇa, Pradyumna. But their chastity was not broken, for they still considered him the son of Kṛṣṇa (pitṛ) and that Kṛṣṇa was the shelter of Lakṣmī. This shows their greatness. By his similarity, their bhāva for the Lord arose. Or the women took Pradyumna as Cupid (smare), but without desire (akāme). Or through glorifying Pradyumna, the queens’ steadiness is glorified. They saw him similar to Kṛṣṇa’s form (bimbe bimbe), having desire (kāme) without considering good or bad (asmare), they had love for their Lord, his father. Or though he was the object of desire for others’ eyes, because of having a bhāva for Kṛṣṇa, they did not develop conjugal love for him. That is not surprising at all for they were his mothers. And other women also did not develop such love. That is not surprising also, since they were friends of the mothers. Thus end the purports of the humble servants of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda to the Tenth Canto, Fifty-fifth Chapter, of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, entitled "The History of Pradyumna." 10.56: The Syamantaka Jewel verses: Summary, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29-30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-42, 43, 44, 45 Chapter Summary This chapter describes how Lord Kṛṣṇa recovered the Syamantaka jewel to allay false accusations against Him and married the daughters of Jāmbavān and Satrājit. By enacting the pastime involving the Syamantaka jewel, the Lord demonstrated the futility of material wealth. When Śukadeva Gosvāmī mentioned that King Satrājit offended Lord Kṛṣṇa on account of the Syamantaka jewel, King Parīkṣit became curious to hear the details of this incident. Thus Śukadeva Gosvāmī narrated the story. King Satrājit received the Syamantaka gem by the grace of his best well-wisher, the sun-god, Sūrya. After fastening the gem to a chain, which he then hung around his neck, Satrājit traveled to Dvārakā. The residents, thinking he was the sun-god himself, went to Kṛṣṇa and told Him that Lord Sūrya had come to take His audience. But Kṛṣṇa replied that the man who had come was not Sūrya but King Satrājit, who looked extremely effulgent because he was wearing the Syamantaka jewel. In Dvārakā Satrājit installed the precious stone on a special altar in his home. Every day the gem produced a large quantity of gold, and it had the additional power of assuring that wherever it was properly worshiped no calamity could occur. On one occasion Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa requested Satrājit to give the gem to the King of the Yadus, Ugrasena. But Satrājit refused, obsessed as he was with greed. Shortly thereafter Satrājit's brother Prasena left the city to hunt on horseback, wearing the Syamantaka jewel on his neck. On the road a lion killed Prasena and took the jewel away to a mountain cave, where the king of the bears, Jāmbavān, happened to be living. Jāmbavān killed the lion and gave the jewel to his son to play with. When King Satrājit's brother did not return, the King presumed that Śrī Kṛṣṇa had killed him for the Syamantaka gem. Lord Kṛṣṇa heard about this rumor circulating among the general populace, and to clear His name He went with some of the citizens to find Prasena. Following his path, they eventually found his body and that of his horse lying on the road. Further on they saw the body of the lion Jāmbavān had killed. Lord Kṛṣṇa told the citizens to remain outside the cave while He went in to investigate. The Lord entered Jāmbavān's cave and saw the Syamantaka jewel lying next to a child. But when Kṛṣṇa tried to take the jewel, the child's nurse cried out in alarm, bringing Jāmbavān quickly to the scene. Jāmbavān considered Kṛṣṇa an ordinary man and began fighting with Him. For twenty-eight days continuously the two fought, until finally Jāmbavān grew weak from the Lord's blows. Now understanding that Kṛṣṇa was the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Jāmbavān began to praise Him. The Lord touched Jāmbavān with His lotus hand, dispelling his fear, and then explained everything about the jewel. With great devotion Jāmbavān gladly presented the Syamantaka jewel to the Lord, together with his unmarried daughter, Jāmbavatī. Meanwhile Lord Kṛṣṇa's companions, having waited twelve days for Kṛṣṇa to come out of the cave, returned to Dvārakā despondent. All of Kṛṣṇa's friends and family members became extremely sorrowful and began regularly worshiping Goddess Durgā to assure the Lord's safe return. Even as they performed this worship, Lord Kṛṣṇa entered the city in the company of His new wife. He summoned Satrājit to the royal assembly and, after recounting to him the entire story of the Syamantaka jewel's recovery, gave the jewel back to him. Satrājit accepted the jewel, but with great shame and remorse. He went back to his home, and there he decided to offer Lord Kṛṣṇa not only the jewel but also his daughter so as to atone for the offense he had committed against the Lord's lotus feet. Śrī Kṛṣṇa accepted the hand of Satrājit's daughter, Satyabhāmā, who was endowed with all divine qualities. But the jewel He refused, returning it to King Satrājit.