Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.57.15
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
līlayā
—
as play
Instrumental of līlā. The Gauḍīya master-key for understanding all Bhagavān's actions: creation, maintenance, destruction are not labor for Him but play. Akrūra's invocation of līlā is technically perfect — he is citing the right framework even in panic.
-
viśva - sṛjaḥ
—
the universal creators
Compound: viśva (universe) + sṛj (creator). The plural — secondary creators headed by Brahmā. Gauḍīyas note: even Brahmā does not fathom Kṛṣṇa's purpose (SB 10.14 — Brahmā's prayers). Akrūra is citing Bhāgavata against itself.
-
ajayā
—
by His eternal māyā
Instrumental of ajā — 'the unborn (one),' a name of māyā as Bhagavān's deluding potency. Gauḍīyas read ajā not as illusion in the Advaitin sense but as Kṛṣṇa's actual śakti that conceals Him from those who would not surrender.
-
mohitāḥ
—
bewildered
Past participle of √muh. The standard Bhāgavata diagnosis for ignorance of Bhagavān: not lack of intelligence but moha that conceals. Akrūra's point: even cosmic creators are mohitāḥ — what hope has Śatadhanvā of outwitting Kṛṣṇa?
The use of the singular yaḥ, “He who,” indicates that the frequent references to “the two Lords, Kṛṣṇa and Rāma,” do not compromise the firm principle of monotheism expressed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. As explained in many Vedic literatures, the one Supreme Lord expands Himself into innumerable forms, yet He remains the one and almighty God. For example, we have this statement in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.33) : advaitam acyutam anādir ananta-rūpam. “The one Supreme Lord is infallible and beginningless, and He expands Himself into innumerable manifest forms.” Out of regard for the spirit of the Lord’s pastimes, in which He expands Himself and appears as His own older brother, Balarāma, the Bhāgavatam here refers to “the two Lords.” But the “bottom line” is that there is one Supreme Godhead, one Absolute Truth, who appears in His original form as Kṛṣṇa.
He speaks in the singular to indicate that Krsna and Balarama are one principle. The irregular sandhi of mohita ajaya to mohitajaya is poetic license.
The singular is used instead of the dual since Balarāma is included in Kṛṣṇa. Akrūra speaks three verses. The Lord creates without effort (līlayā) this astonishing universe of unlimited variety. What is the purpose? No one can know his (yasya) activities, desires and intention (ceṣṭām) being bewildered by his (yasya) māyā.
The singular is used instead of the dual since Balarāma is included in Kṛṣṇa. Akrūra speaks three verses. The Lord creates without effort (līlayā) this astonishing universe of unlimited variety. What is the purpose? No one can know his (yasya) activities (ceṣṭām) being bewildered by his (yasya) māyā. Even Brahmā and others do not know, what to speak of his goal or intentions? This is because of their continuous (ajayā) illusion (mohitā). Why did you have Śatrājit killed? Why did you desire to have the jewel kept with me? No one can understand your pastimes.
- Where could framing a refusal in theological size help receive it?
- How does cosmological perspective convert personal no into educational no?
Akrūra in extremis becomes a theologian — under pressure he speaks the Bhāgavata-tattva he had absorbed on the chariot to Vṛndāvana. Crisis often makes a devotee preach better than he lives; the chapter is honest about the gap.
My note
Source: vedabase.io