The Lord, being complete in his svarūpa, does not care for the sum total of all wealth, which is worshipped by those desiring all wealth, and does not care for those desiring even a little wealth, or for human kings or devatās. He is dependent on his devotees. How could the devotee reject this Lord even a little? Just as the devotees have possessiveness of the Lord and no one else, the Lord has possessiveness of the devotees. This dependence on the devotee is described here. The Lord does not care for the personification of all wealth (śriyam) who is followed by persons desiring increase in their wealth (anucaratīm), or for those who want a little wealth, or kings or devatās. This is because, though he is complete in himself (sva-pūrṇaḥ), in his svarūpa, he is dependent on his devotees. This dependence of the Lord on the devotee is actual, not a show. How can one reject this Lord even a little? Just as it has been mentioned that the Lord knows the prema-rasa of the devotee, the devotee also knows the prema-rasa of the Lord. [Note: It seems there is another version with rasaj-jṣaḥ instead of kṛta-jṣāḥ.] These two are knowers of rasa in this world. “It is proper that the Lord should control the devotee. However, when the devotee controls the Lord, such rasa just a show, something artificial?” No, not at all. Rasa is a sthāyi-bhāva, accompanied by elements such as vibhāva. It is called sthāyi or permanent. It is also called prema or rati. With a desire to please the Lord who is the object of intense, natural possessiveness, that prema takes shelter of the devotees. Because that desire to please the Lord is without motive, though the Lord is complete in his happiness, that desire to please the Lord gives great satisfaction to the Lord. The causeless nature of prema is well known in the śrutis and smṛtis. How can rasa be artificial? Thus it should be concluded that the Lord’s nature of being controlled by prema is intrinsic to him. Prema accepts the devotee as its shelter. Thus the Lord is controlled by the devotee.