Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.61.39
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
śyāle
—
His brother-in-law
Locative of śyāla, 'wife's brother.' Sanskrit kinship is exact: Rukmī is Kṛṣṇa's śyāla through Rukmiṇī. The verse names the relationship to mark the affectional stake — śyāla-killing is a particular dharmic load.
-
sādhu-asādhu-vā
—
good or not good
The two judgements He withheld. Sādhu = 'well done'; asādhu = 'wrongly done.' Kṛṣṇa refuses both — neither approving nor blaming. The Bhāgavata gives us the exact words He did not say.
-
sneha-bhaṅga-bhayāt
—
out of fear of breaking the affection
sneha (affection) + bhaṅga (breaking) + bhayāt (out of fear). The compound is theological gold for Gauḍīyas: Bhagavān is 'afraid' — afraid of breaking the loving bond with His devotees. Bhakti-vaśya Bhagavān, the Lord conquered by love, here in one compound.
-
hariḥ
—
Lord Kṛṣṇa
From √hṛ, 'to take away.' Hari takes away sins, illusions, attachments — but does not take away His sneha for Rukmiṇī or Balarāma. The verse ends on this name to underline whose silence this was.
It was proper that Kṛṣṇa say that it was good that Rukmī die since he was evil. But he did not say that. He also did not say that it was bad that killing a brother-in-law was bad, since in saying Rukmī’s killing was good, he feared that Rukmiṇī would become angry with him, and his affectionate relationship with Rukmiṇī would be broken or would disappear (bhaṅga) and if he said killing Rukmī was wrong, Balarāma would be angry with him, and his affectionate relationship with Balarāma would be broken. Thus if he did not say anything, the affection would continue. Or, bhaṅgā can mean crookedness, the appearance of anger in affection. Or bhaṅga can mean a wave. Kṛṣṇa feared that Rukmiṇī and Balarāma would waver in their affection for him. “How can I say the opposite to each of them?” Therefore he was silent out of shame (bhayāt). Or, he remained silent since Rukmiṇī would immediately become angry at Balarāma on realizing that Kṛṣṇa approved the killing. He feared the relationship between Rukmiṇī and Balarāma would be broken. In approving the killing he feared criticism from Rukmiṇī’s family and the public, and humiliation of Rukmiṇī. Rukmī was a brother -in-law (śyāle). Kṛṣṇa was able to take away (hariḥ) the breaking of affection. He could create joy because of his skill. Previously when Kṛṣṇa disfigured Rukmī she spoke slightly harsh words to Kṛṣṇa. What would she say to him now when Rukmī was killed by Balarāma? Śukadeva addresses Parīkṣit with excitement. “O king!”
Like a man standing equidistant between two beloved lamps, who will not blow on either flame lest one go out, Kṛṣṇa speaks neither praise nor protest — the silence is not indifference but the most exquisite calibration of Yadu-affection, balancing Rukmiṇī's grief against Balarāma's dharma.
Gauḍīya ācāryas dwell on this verse as a study in the Lord's restraint. Kṛṣṇa is not 'caught between' but is the conscious holder of both relationships — Rukmiṇī's brother lies dead, Balarāma's hand is justly raised. Speaking 'good' would wound Rukmiṇī; speaking 'bad' would dishonor His brother.
Caitanya Mahāprabhu in CC Madhya 2 quotes Bhāgavata verses on Kṛṣṇa's prema for His devotees to argue that the Lord is always bound by sneha. The present verse is the textbook case: Bhagavān, who could speak the cosmos into being, declines to speak because love-of-devotees forbids it. Bhakti-shaped speech includes bhakti-shaped silence.
My note
Source: vedabase.io