Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.57.4
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
sampratiśrutya
—
having promised
Gerund of sam-prati-√śru. The technical word for a binding word given. The conspirators frame Satrājit's breaking of his promise as the entire moral case — Gauḍīyas note that they conveniently forget Kṛṣṇa Himself returned the jewel and accepted Satyabhāmā by Satrājit's free choice.
-
vigarhya
—
contemptuously rejecting
Gerund of vi-√garh. They claim Satrājit despised them; the Bhāgavata's syntax lets the reader hear it the other way too — that they despised Satrājit for choosing Kṛṣṇa over them. Gauḍīya diagnostic: those who feel slighted by a devotee's preference for Kṛṣṇa often project the slight outward.
-
kanyā - ratnam
—
jewel-like daughter
Compound: kanyā (daughter) + ratnam (jewel). Satyabhāmā is herself a ratna; the conspirators reduce her, like the gem, to a piece of property withheld. Reading women and bhaktas as possessions is the underlying anartha the chapter exposes.
-
bhrātaram anviyāt
—
should follow his brother (in death)
The chilling euphemism. Anu-√i (to follow after). Gauḍīyas hear in this phrase the structure of all asuric counsel: a violent end framed as natural sequence, killing dressed up as kinship.
Since Satrājit’s brother, Prasena, had been violently killed, the implication of “following his brother’s path” is obvious. What we have here is an assassination plot. It is well known that both Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā are exalted, pure devotees of the Supreme Lord, so their unusual behavior requires some explanation. The ācāryas provide it as follows: Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that Akrūra, although a first-class, pure devotee of the Lord, was a victim of the anger directed against him by the residents of Gokula because he took Lord Kṛṣṇa away from Vṛndāvana. The gosvāmī further states that Kṛtavarmā had associated with Kaṁsa — both of them being members of the Bhoja dynasty — and thus Kṛtavarmā was now suffering from this undesirable association. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī offers an alternative explanation: Both Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā were furious with Satrājit because he had insulted Lord Kṛṣṇa and spread false rumors about Him in Dvārakā. Under normal circumstances Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā would have been most pleased that Lord Kṛṣṇa married the beautiful Satyabhāmā. Being pure devotees, they could not actually be unhappy about this match, nor could they become jealous rivals of the Lord. Therefore they had an ulterior motive in behaving like His rivals.
In this verse they speak of Satrajit’s faults. According to previous statements in the bhagavatam, many suitors requested her as their bride. Each one had requested and Satrajit had promised her to each one. Should he not follow his brother Prasena to death because of this? Old commentators say that Akrura and Krtavarma, great devotees of the Lord, became extremely angry at Satrajit because of his spreading rumors against Krsna, and therefore instigated Satadhanva to kill him.
Previously it was said that Satyabhāmā had been desired by many. That is explained in this verse. Previously they had requested her as a bride but she was not given. If she cannot be given now and we cannot accept her, we should take the jewel out of spite. The plural asmabhyam is used to indicate that she was even promised to Śatadhanvā. She was promised in marriage many times (sam) because she was the best of young women. We all desired her. But he criticized us, finding fault in us. He gave her to Kṛṣṇa. Saying Kṛṣṇa’s name directly here is to show disrespect. He was devious because he promised each one of us. Not obtaining that great jewel we have suffered greatly. Why should he not following his brother? This suggests a curse. This man’s brother has died. Being without help, Satrājit will die. If he dies, he had no heir since he had no son (kasmāt). The jewel will then be yours. Therefore you should kill him. Akrūra, a great devotee of the Lord, spoke in this way because of the anger of the people of Gokula upon him. As a member of the Bhoja dynasty Kṛtavarmā shared his fault by association. Others say that because Satrājit spread false rumors about Kṛṣṇa, two great devotees Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā became extremely angry with Satrājit. To provoke Śatadhanvā, they spoke in this way.
Previously it was said that Satyabhāmā had been desired by many. That is explained in this verse. Previously they had requested her as a bride but she was not given. If she cannot be given now and we cannot accept her, we should take the jewel out of spite. The plural asmabhyam is used to indicate that she was even promised to Śatadhanvā. She was promised in marriage many times (sam) because she was the best of young women. We all desired her. But Satrajit criticized us, finding fault in us. He gave her to Kṛṣṇa. Saying Kṛṣṇa’s name directly here is to show disrespect. He was devious because he promised each one of us. Not obtaining that great jewel, we have suffered greatly. Why should Satrajit not follow his brother? This suggests a curse. This man’s brother has died. Being without help, Satrājit will die. If he dies, he had no heir since he had no son (kasmāt). The jewel will then be yours. Therefore you should kill him. Akrūra, a great devotee of the Lord, spoke in this way because of the anger of the people of Gokula upon him. As a member of the Bhoja dynasty Kṛtavarmā shared his fault by association. Or Akrura actually made no offense to the gopīs, since he was a secondary cause of the Lord’s leaving Vraja. Kṛṣṇa went by his own will in order to benefit his devotees, the Yadus, by killing Kaṁsa. Akrūra had special bhāva for the gopīs as expressed in the following: yad arcitaṁ brahma-bhavādibhiḥ suraiḥ śriyā ca devyā munibhiḥ sa-sātvataiḥ go-cāraṇāyānucaraiś carad vane yad gopikānāṁ kuca-kuṅkumāṅkitam Those lotus feet are worshiped by Brahmā, Śiva and all the other devatās, by Lakṣmī and her associates and by devotees in this world, as well as the followers of Pañcarātra. Upon those lotus feet the Lord walks about the forest while herding the cows 8with his companions, and those feet are smeared with the kuṁkuma from the gopīs’ breasts. SB 10.38.8 samarhaṇaṁ yatra nidhāya kauśikas tathā baliś cāpa jagat-trayendratām yad vā vihāre vraja-yoṣitāṁ śramaṁ sparśena saugandhika-gandhy apānudat By offering water to that lotus hand, Purandara and Bali earned the status of Indra, and during the pastimes of the rāsa dance, the Lord relieved the gopīs’ fatigue instantly by the touch of his fragrant hand. SB 10.38.17 The following should be understood. When Satrājit spread false rumors about the Lord, the great devotees Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā became very angry. They thus provoked Śatandhanva to kill him, in order to gain his daughter, making Śatadhanvā believed the rumors though Satrājit was a friend, and even wanting Śatadhanvā dead. Akrūra had no desire to possess the jewel. That is clear later.
- Where does an old slight get dressed up as 'logic' justifying current harm?
- How do you catch the slide from grievance to violence in yourself?
Old grievance dressed up as principle is one of envy's favorite costumes — Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā recast their wounded pride over Satyabhāmā as 'justice' owed to Prasena. A devotee learns to suspect any righteousness whose root is a personal slight against Kṛṣṇa's choices.
My note
Source: vedabase.io