The Latest

atra sārvajñatvaṁ mahaiśvaryam eva na tu mādhuryam | mādhuryaṁ khalu tad eva yad aiśvarya-vinābhūta-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam iti sthūla-dhiyo bruvate ||2||
mādhuryādikaṁ nirūpyate | mahaiśvaryasya dyotane vādyotane ca nara-līlātvānatikramo mādhuryam | yathā pūtanā-prāṇa-hāritve’pi stana-cūṣaṇa-lakṣaṇa-nara-bala-līlātvam eva | mahākaṭhora-śakaṭa-sphoṭane’py ati-sukumāra-caraṇa-traimāsikyottāna-śāyi-bāla-līlātvam | mahādīrgha-dāmāśakya-bandhatve’pi mātṛ-bhīti-vaiklavyam | brahma-baladevādi-mohane’pi sārvajñatve’pi vatsa-cāraṇa-līlātvam | tathā aiśvarya-sattva eva tasyādyotane dadhi-payaś-cauryaṁ gopa-strī-lāmpaṭyādikam | aiśvarya-rahita-kevala-nara-līlātvena maugdhyam eva mādhuryam ity ukteḥ krīḍā-capala-prākṛta-nara-bālakeṣv api maugdhyaṁ mādhuryam iti tathā na nirvācyam ||3||
(Rāga-vartma-candrikā: 2.2–3)

“‘In this regard, omniscience (sārvajñatva) is only [an instance of] great aiśvarya and not, rather, mādhurya; mādhurya verily is simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of the nature of pure human līlā isolated from aiśvarya.’ This the dull-witted say [i.e., the idea that omniscience (sārvajñatva) is invariably an aspect of aiśvarya and is non-existent within mādhurya is erroneous, and the reason for that will now be explained]. Mādhurya and so forth [i.e., aiśvarya] are now to be described [to provide an apt understanding of the nature of both]. Non-contravention of the nature of human līlā in the midst of manifestation or non-manifestation of great aiśvarya is [called] mādhurya, as in (1) the nature of the līlā of a human baby in the form of suckling Pūtanā’s breast even while being the remover of her prāṇas [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa retaining the appearance of a normal human child while sucking the breast of Pūtanā yet also liberating her by drawing the prāṇas out of her body], (2) the nature of the līlā of a three-month old baby with exceedingly tender feet lying on a bed even while breaking apart a very hard cart [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa breaking the cart under which he was placed with his tender baby foot], (3) the bewilderment [he felt and exhibited] in fear of [his] mother even while being unable to be bound by very long ropes [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa crying in fear of punishment from his mother even while defying her attempts to bind him with rope], (4) the nature of the līlā of herding calves even in the midst of [his] omniscience even amid of the perplexity of Brahmā, Baladeva, and others [i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa acting like a playful and confused cowherd boy even while self-manifesting himself in the forms of the calves and friends he appeared to be searching for after they were abducted by Brahmā and thus bewildering Brahmā, Baladeva, and all other living beings], (5) and [his] theft of milk and yoghurt, lustfulness for cowherd women, and so on during non-manifestation of [his] aiśvarya indeed amid its presence [in him, i.e., mādhurya is shown in the case of Śrī Kṛṣṇa stealing milk and yoghurt, pursuing gopīs amorously, and other such acts during which there was no overt manifestation of the aiśvarya inherently and invariably present in him]. On account of the [errant] statement [posited above] that mādhurya is specifically simplicity [i.e., charming unknowing] (maugdhya) on account of [only that being of] the nature of pure human līlā free from aiśvarya, the simplicity existent even among mundane human children thoughtlessly at play is [also to be regarded as] mādhurya [as a result of such an erroneous definition]. Thus, such is unfit to be said [i.e., mādhurya is not an utter absence of any manifestation of aiśvarya but rather non-contravention of the general nature of human līlā irrespective of whether any manifestation of great aiśvarya is co-occurent with it or not because if mādhurya were not defined this in this way and rather as only a state of being limited in awareness like a human being then excessive pervasion [i.e., breadth] of the definition would occur since it would include even common human children engaged in care-free play].”