Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.54.52
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
ahatvā
—
without killing
Gerund a- + √han + indeclinable suffix. The form of his impossible condition. Cf. BG 1.35 where Arjuna uses the same verbal phrase about NOT wishing to kill — but in opposite mood. Rukmī's ahatvā is failure; Arjuna's ahatvā is intuition toward bhakti.
-
durmatim
—
evil-minded (referring to Kṛṣṇa, in Rukmī's view)
Same family as ku-matiḥ (v. 23). Rukmī cannot revise his vocabulary. Yet, as Śrīdhara Svāmī noted at v. 22, durmati can be read in reverse — beautifully-minded one. The Sanskrit always saves the Lord from the slander.
-
yavīyasīm
—
my younger sister
Yavīyasī — younger. The same Rukmiṇī he calls 'dārikā' and 'svasṛ' across the chapter. Vyāsa keeps shifting the noun: Rukmī's relation to Rukmiṇī is unstable, depending on his mood, while her relation to Kṛṣṇa is fixed.
-
ruṣā
—
in anger
Instrumental of ruṣ. Ruṣa is the technical term for the anger that has gone on long enough to become disposition. Cf. Bhagavad-gītā 16.21 (the three gates of hell — kāma, krodha, lobha). Ruṣā is krodha hardened into character.
-
avasat
—
he took up residence
Imperfect of √vas. To dwell. The same root as Vasudeva (Kṛṣṇa's father) and Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa Himself). Even the verb of dwelling whispers the Lord's name — and Rukmī cannot escape that resonance even in his fortress of resentment.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī explains that the word bhoja means “experience” and that, kaṭaḥ, according to the Nānārtha-varga dictionary, means “vow.” Thus Bhojakaṭa is the place where Rukmī experienced misery as a result of his vow.
His previous oath is described again. The long ū in apratyūhya is poetic license.
He had affection for Rukmiṇī. Thus he calls her his younger sister (yavīyasīm). That will be clear in the marriage of Pradyumna and Rukmanvatī. He made this statement in his pitiful condition because he was angry. In anger one does not consider things logically.
A vow made in anger becomes a cage in time — Rukmī cannot re-enter Kuṇḍina without breaking his word, so he settles where he was shamed. The Bhāgavatam quietly insists: an oath uninformed by Kṛṣṇa-consciousness eventually punishes the one who took it.
Jaḍa-Bharata in SB 5.7–8 had renounced everything for spiritual practice but became attached to a baby deer. The vow of renunciation collided with the vow of mercy; his next birth came as a deer himself.
Vows have karmic weight. The Bhāgavatam treats them with respect: Rukmī here cannot escape what he promised, even though the promise was foolish. Only the saṅkīrtana-vow, undertaken under Kṛṣṇa's name, frees rather than binds.
My note
Source: vedabase.io