SB 10.77.32

By service to his feet and realization of one’s true nature (ātma-vidyayā), devotees destroy knowledge which is opposite to their svarūpa. They attain liberation with realization of their svarūpa (ātmīyam) and Vaikuṇṭha (aiśvaryam) which is unlimited, infinite like the form of the Lord, though it is a planet. How can the Supreme Lord have ignorance (mohaḥ)? It is not possible that he began worrying on seeing bad omens. The Lord is attainable by the devotees, or the devotees not interesting in liberation (sad-gateḥ). Since he has a body of eternity, knowledge and bliss, it is not possible for Śālva to pierce his arm? Thus there is no contradiction in this episode. Since Balarāma took permission from the elder Kurus when he departed, according to the Sabhā-parva, it is not contradictory. Though Baladeva departed for Dvārakā first , it is possible he arrived at Dvārakā with Kṛṣṇa. If Balarāma was present in Dvārakā, it would seem improper that he let Pradyumna do the main fighting while he was present. Even materialists see no contradiction in this situation. What to speak of Vaiśampānaya and others being ignorant concerning this. Seeing omens and other actions were just pastimes. It is not contradictory. Since the Lord has his internal intentions it is difficult for others to understand such contradictions. That was expressed in the previous verse by Śukadeva. By saying the Lord has infallible knowledge and is also subject to lamentation, the words would be self-contradictory and would arise only from ignorance. By understanding the details, some persons obtain knowledge. Those who were previously controlled by māyā later become controlled by the sweetness of the supreme being. They are then among those who have crossed saṁsāra. (These are the persons mentioned in the verse. Still they apparently show material emotions.) An example of such a person is Prahlāda. On seeing the suffering of the materialists he revealed his sorrow to Nṛsiṁhadeva. At the beginning of the story of Brahmā’s bewilderment, Śukadeva was bewildered. Bharata became merciful and affectionate to King Rahugaṇa, who knew nothing of the Lord. The Kumāras described their fear caused by the curse of the door keepers to the Lord of Vaikuṇṭha. The Lord himself in the Dāmodara pastime established these contrary displays (such as being controlled by his mother though he is the controller) by showing that his nature is to be merciful to the devotees. Śukadeva also describes elsewhere: tān vīkṣya kṛṣṇaḥ sakalābhaya-prado hy ananya-nāthān sva-karād avacyutān dīnāṁś ca mṛtyor jaṭharāgni-ghāsān ghṛṇārdito diṣṭa-kṛtena vismitaḥ Kṛṣṇa, giver of fearlessness to all beings, saw that all the cowherd boys, who did not know anyone but him as their shelter, had now escaped from his hand and were helpless, where now suffering, like straws to be burned by the fire of the abdomen of Aghāsura, who was death personified. Bewildered by his affection, he was astonished by what been arranged his appointed śakti. SB 10.12.27 Similarly in order to protect the Yadus, he fought with Śālva and showed various emotions. Though he appears to be bewildered by the māyā of demons, one should not think that he can be subject to lamentation and ignorance. There are verses of course like the following: tato vatsān adṛṣṭvaitya puline ’pi ca vatsapān ubhāv api vane kṛṣṇo vicikāya samantataḥ Thereafter, when Kṛṣṇa was unable to find the calves, he returned to the bank of the river, but there he was also unable to see the cowherd boys. Thus he began to search for both the calves and the boys everywhere in the forest. SB 10.13.16 This is a description of Brahmā’s māyā. It should be understood that the Lord, by his own desire, accepted this position of bewilderment in order to have pleasing pastimes with his great devotee Brahmā. Because of the Lord’s infallible position, this verse says hinvanty anādyātma-viparyaya-graham: they destroy knowledge opposite to their svarūpa by serving the Lord’s feet. Thus verses 28 and 29 have another meaning. For some time Kṛṣṇa became absorbed in remembrance (anusaṅgataḥ) of Vasudeva (svajana) because of that imitation (tataḥ) while he remained omniscient (svabodhaḥ) in his svarūpa (prakṛtau). He remained aloof from illusion because he had great powers of perception (mahānubhāvaḥ). He did not see even the illusion after that (verse 29). An example is given. A person of discrimination even while sleeping thinks, “This is a dream.” Thus he does not see things related to dreams.