Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.74.38
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
abhadrāṇi
—
harsh words, inauspicious things
A (not) + bhadra (auspicious). 'Un-auspicious utterances'. Gauḍīyas: vaiṣṇava-nindā is the textbook a-bhadra — the original inauspicious act; Caitanya warned even hearing it without leaving is fall (verse 40).
-
naṣṭa - maṅgalaḥ
—
whose good fortune is ruined
Compound: naṣṭa (lost) + maṅgala (auspiciousness). Śukadeva's verdict on Śiśupāla — already destroyed by the speech itself. Gauḍīyas: bhagavat-nindā does not need an external punishment; it is the punishment. The cakra in verse 43 is just the receipt.
-
siṁhaḥ
—
a lion
From √sah (to bear, to overcome). Kṛṣṇa-siṁha is a Bhāgavata epithet (cf. SB 1.11.8) — the Lord at rest with full strength. The verse's simile relies on the lion's poise, not his roar.
-
śivā
—
of a jackal (female)
Feminine of śiva (jackal). Yipping, opportunistic. Gauḍīyas: the verse uses śivā (jackal) not for euphony but for contrast — śivā the howler vs. Śiva the auspicious; in the original, the contrast is implicit in the homophone.
As a lion hears the howling of the jackal (siva arutam), Krsna listened to Sisupala without replying. The other meaning is "As nrsimha deva hears the praises spoken by Siva and remains silent because there was no comparable auspicious reply, Krsna remained silent hearing those praises (unintended of course) from Sisupala."
Śiśupāla was more or less dead (naṣṭa-maṅgalaḥ). The phrase can also be taken as anaṣṭa-maṅgalaḥ: he had some profound auspiciousness—he was actually an associate of the Lord. He was now about to be reinstated. In the Seventh Canto Nārada explains to Yudhiṣṭhira that his sins were destroyed by Kṛṣṇa’s cakra (SB 7.1.46) His sins were destroyed but he was not destroyed. The Third Canto describes Hiraṇyakṣa’s anger at the Lord. (SB 3.19.9) But it was explained that he did not have actual anger. His chasing the Lord described in SB 3.18.9 is only imitation anger. The Lord acted in order to dispel the devatās’ fear of the demon’s words. Though it is not mentioned, the Lord had no cause for anger. Therefore the bad words of these two actually indicate another meaning, but to protect the pastime desired by the Lord, he made a show with words that have another meaning. The negative meaning is taken for the words of other demons however (who were not associates of the Lord) because of their demonic nature, but the actual (positive) meaning was created by Sarasvatī (not by their intention). Externally, Śiśupāla spoke inauspicious words (abhadrāṇī). But the other meaning is “He spoke words of which nothing could be more auspicious.” The Lord did not speak. Externally he acted as a great person, like a lion ignoring a jackal. The real meaning is that the Lord was silent because of his profound nature. Similarly Narasiṁha is praised by the Śiva.
Śiśupāla was nearing death (naṣṭa-maṅgalaḥ). Thus he spoke incoherently since the Yadus were not as he described. Because of that, and to ignore him, the Lord did not speak, since he was endowed with patience and profundity as bhagavān. He was not internally disturbed. An example is given.
- When have I felt the need to respond to an insult that didn't deserve a response?
- What is the lion's silence I might practice?
When a lion is settled by the river at dusk and a jackal in the brush yips at him, the lion does not even turn his head. Kṛṣṇa hears Śiśupāla's filth and stays silent — the simile is the Bhāgavatam's own image for sovereign aiśvarya untouched by abuse.
My note
Source: vedabase.io