Devanagari
श्रीपरीक्षिदुवाच
कृष्णं विदु: परं कान्तं न तु ब्रह्मतया मुने । गुणप्रवाहोपरमस्तासां गुणधियां कथम् ॥ १२ ॥
Verse text
śrī-parīkṣid uvāca
kṛṣṇaṁ viduḥ paraṁ kāntaṁ
na tu brahmatayā mune
guṇa-pravāhoparamas
tāsāṁ guṇa-dhiyāṁ katham
Synonyms
śrī
—
parīkṣit uvāca — Śrī Parīkṣit said
;
kṛṣṇam
—
Lord Kṛṣṇa
;
viduḥ
—
they knew
;
param
—
only
;
kāntam
—
as their beloved
;
na
—
not
;
tu
—
but
;
brahmatayā
—
as the Absolute Truth
;
mune
—
O sage, Śukadeva
;
guṇa
—
of the three modes of material nature
;
pravāha
—
of the mighty current
;
uparamaḥ
—
the cessation
;
tāsām
—
for them
;
guṇa
—
dhiyām — whose mentality was caught up in those modes
;
katham
—
how .
Translation
Śrī Parīkṣit Mahārāja said: O sage, the gopīs knew Kṛṣṇa only as their lover, not as the Supreme Absolute Truth. So how could these girls, their minds caught up in the waves of the modes of nature, free themselves from material attachment?
Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
Śrī Parīkṣit Mahārāja said: O sage, the gopīs knew Kṛṣṇa only as their lover, not as the Supreme Absolute Truth. So how could these girls, their minds caught up in the waves of the modes of nature, free themselves from material attachment?
KB 10.29.12
Mahārāja Parīkṣit heard Śukadeva Gosvāmī explain the situation of the gopīs who assembled with Kṛṣṇa in the rāsa dance. When he heard that some of the gopīs, simply by concentrating on Kṛṣṇa as their paramour, became freed from all contamination of material birth and death, he said, “The gopīs did not know that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They accepted Him as a beautiful boy and considered Him to be their paramour. So how was it possible for them to get freed from the material condition just by thinking of a paramour?” One should consider here that Kṛṣṇa and ordinary living beings are qualitatively one. The ordinary living beings, being part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa, are also Brahman, but Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme—Para-brahman. The question is, If it is possible for a devotee to get free from the material, contaminated stage simply by thinking of Kṛṣṇa, then why should this not be possible for others who are also thinking of someone? If one is thinking of a husband or son, or if anyone at all is thinking of another living entity, then, since all living entities are also Brahman, why are all those who thus think of others not freed from the contaminated stage of material nature? This is a very intelligent question, because there are always atheists imitating Kṛṣṇa. In these days of Kali-yuga, there are many rascals who think themselves to be as good as Kṛṣṇa and who cheat people into believing that thinking of them is as good as thinking of Lord Kṛṣṇa. Parīkṣit Mahārāja, apprehending the future dangerous condition of blind followers of demoniac imitators, therefore asked this question, and fortunately it is recorded in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to warn innocent people that thinking of an ordinary man and thinking of Kṛṣṇa are not the same.
Actually, even thinking of the demigods cannot compare with thinking of Kṛṣṇa. It is warned in the vaiṣṇava-tantra that one who puts Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa or Kṛṣṇa on the same level as the demigods is called a pāṣaṇḍī, or rascal.
Purport
King Parīkṣit was sitting in an assembly of great sages and other important personalities, listening to the words of Śukadeva Gosvāmī. According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī, as Śukadeva began speaking of the
gopīs’
conjugal love for Kṛṣṇa, the King noticed the expressions on the faces of some of the more materialistic persons present there and realized the doubt lurking in their hearts. Therefore, although the King thoroughly knew the purport of Śukadeva’s words, he presented himself as experiencing personal doubt so that he could eradicate the doubt of others. That is why he asked this question.
Purport (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
Though Pariksit Maharaj understood the meaning of Sukadeva’s words, noticing the doubt on some of the faces of the materialistic men in the assembly, to remove their doubts he asks this question. "Oh muni , one who knows everything! the gopis knew Krsna, the parama purusa (param) as their lover, not as Brahman or God. Thinking of Krsna in a material way (guna dhiya), how could they become purified of the gunas.
The upanisads say, tam eva viditva atimrtum eti (knowing him one surpasses death) atmanam atmataya vicaksate ( one sees the Lord by the pure soul.) Such statements in sruti and smrti indicate that knowledge of paramatma is necessary for liberation."
Purport (Jiva Goswami)
Parīkṣit means “he who sees with complete vision (pari),” or “he who knows the sentiments of everyone.” Even though he knows the glories of the gopīs, he expresses doubt in order to dispel the doubts of other intimate devotees. He expresses doubt like a person propounding brahma-jñāna in order to dispel another doubt of the material doubters. Some versions have rājovaca. Rāja (king) also indicates a person who can perceive everyone’s sentiments. Śukadeva will answer. The meaning of Parīkṣit’s words as meant for external people is easily understood: how could the gopīs who thought of Kṛṣṇa in terms of material guṇas rather than thinking of Brahman without guṇas, give up material guṇas?
The internal meaning for the devotees is this. It was said that these gopīs gave up their guṇa-maya bodies. If this means they gave up their bodies which were transformations of the three material guṇas, why should the despicable bodies which by their nature were anyway composed of guṇas be particularly designated as “made of the three guṇas?” As an alternative, one should rather say that they gave up bodies profoundly (maya) endowed with good mental qualities. The present verse asks this by saying “since they thought of the Lord as their lover, not Brahman.” Or, since they are designated as having bodies made of the three guṇas in contrast to their later condition with spiritual bodies, the phrase “composed of guṇas” indicates that they would attain bodies with good mental qualities in their spiritual bodies similar those of their previous bodies.
They knew only Kṛṣṇa as their lover, who was excellent because of having all astonishing, attractive qualities. They did not know him as Brahman, a manifestation with no qualities. Their minds were absorbed in his wonderful qualities (guṇa-dhiyām), while rejecting absorption in Brahman. They had spiritual qualities (guṇa) because the qualities of prema arising from absorption in his qualities. They could give up material bodies, but how was it possible for them to give up spiritual qualities in those bodies? Kṛṣṇa appeared to them with all qualities, not just some experience of bliss, devoid of qualities, though that is claimed by the worshippers of Brahman. For worshippers of Brahman, guṇas refers only to material guṇas like sattva. According to them, it is possible to give such qualities. They do not consider the appearance of the spiritual qualities of the Lord.
Another meaning can be as follows. Since they knew Kṛṣṇa only as their lover and not with his all-pervading nature as Brahman, and he did not appear within their houses since his pervading nature could not manifest, how could they give up the waves of suffering in separation (guṇa-pravaha) from his association? This is according to the reasoning that the Lord responds according to the nature of the worship. (BG 4.11) Guṇa-dhiyām means “the gopīs who thought of his qualities like beauty and cleverness.” O omniscient sage (mune)!
Purport (Sanatana Goswami)
Parīkṣit means he who, endowed with wealth (śrī), examines others. He asked for the benefit of others, not out of ignorance, not out of doubt.
The gopīs knew Kṛṣṇa only (param) as their husband, or as a beautiful person (kāntam), or only as their illicit lover. With their intellects focused on his qualities (guṇa-dhiyām) like beauty, sweetness, skill and compassion, not on tattva, how could they destroy saṁsāra (guṇa-pravāha)? How could they get liberation, the crown jewel of human goals? Tam eva viditvātimṛtyum eti: knowing that, one achieves immortality. (Śvetāśvatāra Upaniṣad 3.8) One destroys saṁsāra by knowing the truth (tattva) about the Lord. Liberation is rare, being the best of all. Or the lover of the gopīs would also have to consider what was mentioned in the scriptures about liberation.
Or they knew Kṛṣṇa as the dearest, most attractive lover (param kāntam). Thus their minds were absorbed in his qualities like beauty, sweetness, skill and anurāga, not his svarūpa. How could they, the dear lovers of the Lord, who are served by devotees who deride liberation, attain utterly useless liberation? How could they attain liberation when they considered it most insignificant?
O omniscient sage (mune)! You know all about this. You can remove the doubt.
nātha yoni-sahasreṣu
yeṣu yeṣu bhramāmy aham
tatra tatrācyutā bhaktir
acyutāstu dṛḍhā tvayi
Wherever I may wander, O master, among thousands of species of life, in each situation may I have firmly fixed devotion to You, O Acyuta. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa)
nāhaṁ brahmāpi bhūyāsaṁ tvad-bhakti-rahito hare
tvayi bhaktas tu kīṭo ’pi bhūyāsaṁ janma-janmasu
I do not aspire to take birth as a Brahmā if that Brahmā is not a devotee of the Lord. I shall be satisfied simply to take birth as an insect if I am given a chance to remain in the house of a devotee. Nārāyaṇa-vyūha-stava
Since the devotees pray for birth in order to increase bhakti, it is improper to stop saṁsāra characterized by birth. Giving up a material body meant for nourishing bhakti out of disgust to accept a spiritual body is not proper. They were aware of his spiritual qualities (guṇa-dhiyam). How could they give up their bodies having a host of qualities like beauty (guṇa-pravāha) which satisified the Lord? They would have to consider their bodies unsuitable for the Lord’s service. Or they gave them up because of unbearable suffering. But it was not proper to give up those bodies.
Or though their minds were absorbed in Kṛṣnā’s qualities like his beauty and fragrance or the rāsa dance (guṇa-dhiyām), how could they give up the recurrence or ever freshness of special good fortune of the rāsa dance, or living in Vraja, in Vṛndāvana like other gopīs (guṇa-pravāha)? What could be accomplished by giving up bodies filled with all good qualities pleasing to Kṛṣṇa? Or if they decided to give up their bodies out of lack of intelligence, how could that really occur, since their very natures were in such bodies?