Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.88.2
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
veditum icchāmaḥ
—
we wish to understand
Contiguous-join from synonyms (veditum + icchāmaḥ). Parīkṣit models the disciple's posture: not 'we already know,' but 'we wish to understand.' Jijñāsā is the prerequisite of jñāna in Gauḍīya pedagogy.
-
sandehaḥ
—
doubt
Honest doubt is welcome in this paramparā; suppression is not. Parīkṣit names it openly — and Śuka answers without rebuke. The Bhāgavatam is built of such asked-and-answered doubts.
-
viruddha-śīlayoḥ
—
whose characters are opposite
Contiguous-join (viruddha + śīlayoḥ). Viṣṇu and Śiva differ in śīla — one a renunciant of ashes, the other Lakṣmī's husband — and the difference matters. Gauḍīyas refuse the smārta flattening that says they are 'the same.'
-
prabhvoḥ
—
of the two lords
Dual genitive of prabhu. The verse acknowledges both as lords — but the chapter will rank them. Lordship is not flat.
-
gatiḥ
—
destination, fruit of worship
What you actually arrive at. The Gauḍīya frame distinguishes gatis sharply: temporary opulence vs. nitya-dāsya at Hari's lotus feet.
The preceding chapter ended with the recommendation that one should always meditate on Lord Hari, the bestower of liberation. In this regard Mahārāja Parīkṣit here expresses a common fear among ordinary people that by becoming a devotee of Lord Viṣṇu one will lose his wealth and social status. For the benefit of such persons of little faith, King Parīkṣit requests Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī to explain an apparent paradox: Lord Śiva, who lives like a beggar, without even a house to call his own, makes his devotees rich and powerful, while Lord Viṣṇu, the omnipotent possessor of all that exists, often reduces His servants to abject poverty. Śukadeva Gosvāmī will respond with reasoned explanations and an ancient account concerning the demon Vṛka.
Those who worship Siva who is a beggar get wealth, and those who worship Visnu the husband of Laksmi become beggars. This opposite bestowal seems wrong.
I desire to know the reason (etad) for this. The plural is used (we desire) to indicate the crowd of Śaivites who were also in the assembly, and who were glancing about, expressing opposition to what was just said. Śiva and Viṣṇu have opposite characters: Śiva is a renunciant and Viṣṇu is an enjoyer. The possessive (prabhvoḥ) indicates the accusative case. The result of those who worship the two is opposite to the natures of the two since those worshipping Śiva get enjoyment and those worshipping Viṣṇu do not. One sees worshipers of Śiva attaining great wealth immediately. Śiva however is dependent on Lakṣmī, wife of Viṣṇu, for wealth. This is strange. This is not expressed directly however.
I desire to know the reason (etad) for this. The plural is used (we desire) to indicate the crowd of Śaivites who were also in the assembly. “Śiva generally gives material happiness. The Lord gives the supreme abode. That is well known everywhere.” That is true. But seeing the direct contradiction we are not certain. We have a great doubt. The cause is given. There is opposite attainments for the worshippers of the two with opposite natures. Śiva’s excellence occurs because of seeing the great bestowal of wealth to his worshippers.
- What spiritual confusion have I been pretending to understand?
- Where could naming 'I am puzzled' begin to unlock real teaching?
Parīkṣit's doubt is a clean astronomer's doubt: two stars appear, the bright one gives no warmth, the dim one burns the hand that holds it. He does not resolve it by guessing; he asks Śuka. Sincere inquiry from a qualified guru is the only telescope that resolves such paradoxes.
My note
Source: vedabase.io