• sandiṣṭā — having been ordered
  Past passive participle of sam-√diś — 'thoroughly instructed.' The prefix sam intensifies: she received the order fully, not partially. Devotional obedience begins with full hearing.
• tathā iti — 'so be it'
  Two-word acceptance. The Gauḍīya literature treats brief, complete assent as a mark of mature surrender. Compare Arjuna's longer 'karyiṣye vacanaṁ tava' at the end of the Gītā — same posture, more verbose because Arjuna is just beginning.
• om — the affirmation om
  The praṇava, used here as personal assent. Vedic resonance: every yajña begins with om. Yoga-māyā's mission is itself a yajña — the offering of her own service into the fire of the Lord's plan.
• parikramya — after circumambulating
  Pari-√kram — to walk around. Pradakṣiṇā is the bodily form of agreement in this culture. She does not just say yes; she physically encircles Him, marking her orbit around His will.
• akarot — she executed
  Simple past — 'she did.' The whole verse arcs from order to execution with no gap. Gauḍīya pastoral teaching: between hearing and doing, the devotee inserts no clever delay.

• Jananivas Pr SB 10-02-14 - 2019 ISKCON Mayapur
  His Grace Jananivas Prabhu· English
• Padaseva Pr SB 10-02-14 Oriya
  His Grace Padaseva Prabhu· Oriya
• SDAP SB 10-02-14 - 2007-05-01 Riga Latvia
  His Grace Sankarshan Prabhu· 2007-05-01· English
• BPSPSw SB 10-02-14 Hindi - 2013-05-01 ISKCON Mira Road
  His Holiness Bhakti Padma Saurabh Pracharak Swami· 2013-05-01· Hindi
• BKG SB 10-02-14 - Understanding the purpose behind Vedic injuctions - 2018-11-10 New Goloka
  His Holiness Bir Krishna Goswami· 2018-11-10· English
• CMS SB 10-02-14 - 2016-01-22 Bhaktivedanta Manor
  His Holiness Candramauli Swami· 2016-01-22· English
• PrahladAnS SB 10-02-14 - Attentive Hearing - 2023-04-15 ISKCON Slovenia
  His Holiness Prahladananada Swami· 2023-04-15· English
• PrahladAnS SB 10-02-14 Slovenian Translation - Pozorno poslu%C5%A1anje - 2023-04-15 ISKCON Slovenia
  His Holiness Prahladananada Swami· 2023-04-15· Slovenian

• Identify one direct instruction from śāstra or guru you have been softening, and execute it today exactly as given — no edits, no delay.
• Before acting on any opinion or trend, test it against śāstra-pramāṇa; refuse to treat your preference as equal in authority to Kṛṣṇa's word.
• When you receive an order in your sva-dharma today (from guru, scripture, or duty), answer inwardly with 'tathā' and then circumambulate it with full attention before beginning.

• When the Lord — through guru, śāstra, or sādhu — gives me a clear instruction, where do I delay, negotiate, or 'think it over' instead of responding with Yoga-māyā's immediate 'tathā' and 'om'?
• What scriptural injunction do I currently treat as optional or open to interpretation, and what would change today if I received it as a Vedic order containing no mistake, illusion, or imperfection?

• Treating Yoga-māyā's instant acceptance as blind obedience and using that as an excuse to suspend discrimination toward unauthorized 'orders' — forgetting that her surrender was specifically to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, not to any voice claiming authority.
• Quoting śāstra selectively to win arguments while privately ignoring the injunctions that inconvenience us — the very 'no purpose in quoting śāstra' Prabhupāda warns against.
• Mistaking circumambulation, chanting om, and ritual confirmation for actual execution — Yoga-māyā went to Gokula and 'did everything just as she had been told,' but we often stop at the 'yes, sir' and never reach the doing.

• Yoga-māyā says 'tathā' and then 'oṁ' — a double confirmation before she even moves. Share with your partner one instruction from your guru, parent, or scripture that you 'agreed' to but never actually executed. What was the gap between your tathā and your oṁ?
• Prabhupāda says 'whatever is spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is a Vedic injunction that no one should neglect.' Where in your life do you quietly negotiate with śāstra — keeping the parts that fit your lifestyle and softening the parts that don't? Be specific; don't let your group settle for a generic answer.
• Yoga-māyā circumambulates Kṛṣṇa before leaving — she does not just nod and walk off. Discuss: what would it look like to add a parikramā-like ritual of acceptance to the orders you receive (from guru, śāstra, even your boss)? Does anyone in the group think this is performative rather than substantive — and why?

Two students. Student A is a senior devotee who has just been asked by their temple president to relocate to another city to help open a new preaching center — a clear, direct instruction with scriptural and guru sanction. Student A has career plans, a comfortable apartment, and a circle of friends here. Student B is Student A's close godbrother/godsister, sitting with them the evening after the request was made. Student B's job is NOT to convince or comfort, but to surface — using this verse — the difference between Yoga-māyā's tathā-oṁ acceptance and Student A's actual internal response. Run for 7 minutes, then switch. Debrief: where did the conversation drift toward 'finding a compromise' and away from the verse's standard?

• Yoga-māyā is a divine personality with no material conditioning. It's unrealistic — even unfair — to hold ordinary conditioned souls to her standard of instant, unquestioning acceptance. Doesn't this verse just describe a transcendental transaction that has nothing to do with us?
  It is precisely because she is liberated that she is shown to us — she is the model, not the exception. The Bhāgavatam does not record her acceptance to entertain us; it records it so that we may calibrate our own response. Yes, our acceptance will be halting, partial, mixed with doubt — but the *direction* must be hers. The Gauḍīya path does not ask us to already be Yoga-māyā; it asks us to stop pretending that our negotiation with the Lord's order is somehow more sophisticated than her simple oṁ. Begin by noticing the gap, not by excusing it.
• 'No one should violate the Vedic injunctions' sounds like religious authoritarianism. In a world where scriptures have been used to justify caste oppression, gender hierarchy, and worse, isn't blind acceptance of śāstra dangerous? Shouldn't we test every injunction against reason and conscience?
  The verse Prabhupāda quotes — tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te — does not abolish discrimination; it locates it. Reason is the instrument by which we understand śāstra, not the tribunal that overrules it. The Gauḍīya teacher would point out two things. First, what gets called 'śāstra' in the abuses you mention is usually smṛti misapplied, cultural accretion, or self-interest dressed in Sanskrit — not the direct words of Kṛṣṇa, which are what this purport is about. Second, the modern alternative — every individual conscience as final authority — has produced its own catastrophes. The question is not whether to accept an authority above your own preference, but which one. Yoga-māyā chose Kṛṣṇa. The verse invites you to examine what you have chosen.

A trusted minister receives the king's letter, presses it to her forehead, says only 'as you command,' and leaves at once. There is no debate, no second meeting. Yoga-māyā's 'om' is exactly such a forehead-press — total acceptance, instant departure.