दृष्टेऽपि शाम्येन्मयि तन्न दुःखं
विच्छेदचिन्ताकुलितात्मनां वै ।
हर्षाय तेषां क्रियते विधिर्यो
दुःखं स सद्यो द्विगुणीकरोति ॥
dṛṣṭe’pi śāmyen mayi tan na duḥkhaṁ
viccheda-cintākulitātmanāṁ vai |
harṣāya teṣāṁ kriyate vidhir yo
duḥkhaṁ sa sadyo dviguṇīkaroti ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 1.7.96)
“Even if I am seen [by them at last],
That suffering shall not cease
For they whose hearts are indeed overwhelmed
By unrest because of separation [from me].
The means which are enacted [by me]
For the sake of their elation
Immediately double their suffering.”
Commentary
Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmīpāda explains in his commentary on this verse that after hearing Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s statement in the previous verse which explained that when the people of Vraja have been engulfed in prolonged separation from him, they immediately upon seeing him enter a state of intense stupor in which they experience perceptions of internal manifestations (sphūrtis) of him along with his companions and because of this he is unable by going there to bring them into a state of well-being such that they remain externally conscious and stable in mind, Satyabhāmā Devī replies by saying let it be so that in the state of stupor they enter upon seeing you they retain no awareness of anything except the internal manifestations (sphūrtis) of you along with your companions which they perceive in their minds since they will ultimately also have a meeting with you externally as a result of perceiving those internal manifestations (sphūrtis) of you along with your companions in their minds given that an arising of very deep bhāva for you naturally causes an external meeting with you to occur (nanu māstu mohe’nya-jñānam, antas tava sa-parikarasya sphūrtyā bahir api tvat-sandarśanaṁ ghaṭata eva vigāḍha-bhāvodayasyaiva tat-svabhāvakatvāt). Satyabhāmā Devī further reasons as follows: because the sight of you directly is the greatest of all possible attainments, well-being is certainly able to be brought about for the people of Vraja if you go to Vraja and meet them (sakala-phalādhikatare sākṣāt tvad-darśane sati svāsthyaṁ sambhaved eva). Śrī Kṛṣṇa agrees that this is true yet considers that one cannot bring about the well-being of persons who have been undergoing severe suffering immediately, or alternately, that even in that case their unwellness will come about again soon after it is relieved by his arrival because of their fear of future separation [from him], and thus he speaks the first half of BB 1.7.95, “Even if I am seen [by them], that suffering shall not cease for they whose hearts are indeed overwhelmed by unrest because of separation [from me]” (satyam, tathāpi duḥkha-viśeṣavatāṁ sadyaḥ svāsthyāpādanaṁ na kila sidhyet, yad vā tatrāpi bhāvi-viraha-śaṅkayā punar asvāsthyaṁ jāyata evety āha—dṛṣṭeti). Śrī Sanātanapāda explains that the word ātmā, rendered above as “heart,” can also be interpreted here to refer to the mind, the body, or the disposition (ātmā cittaṁ deho vā svabhāvo vā).
Śrī Sanātanapāda also elucidates the intent behind Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s usage of the word “overwhelmed” (ākulita) as follows: as the unwellness of a severely hunger-stricken person all of whose bodily humors (dhātus) have become acutely depleted by prolonged fasting does not go away even by obtaining food and rather goes away only gradually by partaking of food in proper measure [i.e., in initially small amounts that are gradually increased] for a prolonged period, so the unwellness of the people of Vraja will not go away just by seeing me there in Vraja and rather will go away only by means of play and so forth with them that is aptly in accord with their wishes and extended for a long time, yet that is not possible for me to occasion because I am gripped by a multitude of various compulsory duties, so how can their well-being be achieved by my going there? [It cannot] (ākulita-śabda-prayogasyāyam abhiprāyaḥ—yathā bahulopavāsa-kṣīṇāśeṣa-dhātoḥ parama-kṣudhāturasyānna-prāptyāpi asvāsthyaṁ nāpayāti, kintu tad-upabhogenaiva tatrāpi na sadyaḥ kintu surītyā cireṇaiva, tathā tatrāpi na khalu darśana-mātreṇaiva kintu krīḍādinaiva tatra ca tat-tad-icchayā samyaktayaiva bahu-kālena ceti tac cāvaśyaka-vividha-kṛtya-samuccaya-vyagrān matto na sidhyatīti kutas teṣāṁ svāsthyaṁ ghaṭatām iti bhāvaḥ). Śrī Sanātanapāda adds that alternately Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s intent is that after seeing him there in Vraja again with them, the people of Vraja will become overwhelmed at heart by unrest because of the thought of impending separation from him and thus because this is their nature their well-being will not come about even as a result of direct sight of him there in Vraja (yad vā vicchedasya bhāvinaś cintayā cintanena ākulitātmanām, atas tat-svabhāvakatvāt teṣāṁ sākṣād darśanād api svāsthyaṁ na bhaved iti bhāvaḥ).
After hearing this response from Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Satyabhāmā replies as follows, “You are the greatest of highly cultured persons and possessed of unlimited potency. You should please them such that even if separation [from you] occurs sometimes, they shall still verily remain happy” (bhavān parama-vidagdha-śekharo’śeṣa-śaktimān tathā tān ramayatu yathā kvacid vicchede’pi sati te sukhina eva varteran). In response to this, Śrī Kṛṣṇa speaks the second half of the verse, “The means which are enacted [by me] for the sake of their elation immediately double their suffering” (harṣāya teṣāṁ kriyate vidhir yo duḥkhaṁ sa sadyo dviguṇīkaroti). Here, “means” (vidhi) refers to his manner of sweet, sweet sporting and so forth (vidhir madhura-madhura-vihārādi-prakāraḥ). Regarding the mention of “immediately” (sadyaḥ), Śrī Sanātanapāda gives the follow illustration: water thrown into hot oil to reduce the heat of the oil only immediately creates fire (yathā tāpa-śāntaye pratapta-taile prakṣiptaṁ jalaṁ vahnim eva sapadi sākṣāt tanotīty eṣa dṛṣṭānto’tra draṣṭavyaḥ). The sense is thus that as throwing water on hot oil to reduce its heat only creates fire, which produces even more heat, so if Śrī Kṛṣṇa were to go from Dvārakā to Vraja and sport with the people of Vraja there, their suffering would not decrease but rather only increase. Śrī Sanātanapāda further explains the purport of this statement as follows:
ayaṁ bhāvaḥ—aho etādṛśasya śrī-kṛṣṇasyāsya kathaṁ virahaṁ soḍhuṁ śakṣyāmaḥ? kiṁ vā ciraṁ tathā vartamāne’pi mayi etādṛśo’yam adhunaiva kutrāpi gata-prāya eveti cintayā viraha-duḥkhasyaivodayān madhura-madhura-vihāra-viśeṣādinā tad-duḥkham adhikam eva syād iti | evaṁ mayā vihito’gner uṣṇa-svabhāvo yathā katham api nāpayāti tathā teṣām api mayaivāsādhāraṇa-nija-mahāprasādatayā pradattas tat-svabhāvo mayāpi kiñcin nirākartuṁ na śakyate yatas tayaiva teṣāṁ sarvato’dhika-māhātmya-viśeṣa-siddhir iti dik | yadyapi parama-madhura-mahānanda-ghana-mūrteḥ śrī-nanda-nandanasya sākṣād-āliṅganādinā vastu-svabhāvatas tad-anurūpa-paramānanda-viśeṣo’pi kadācit tāsām āvirbhavati tathāpi tadīya-virahaja-prema-viśeṣasyaiva parama-mahattvāc caramakāṣṭhā-prāpta-parama-sukha-viśeṣamayatvāt tan-mahāprasāda-viśeṣa-pātrabhūtāsu tāsu prāyas tathaivāsāv udetīty ūhyam | tatra yadyapi prāyaḥ sarveṣām eva bhagavat-prāpty-ābhāvāt tad-viraho vartata eva tathāpi tādṛśa-premābhāvād virahārteḥ samyag-anudayena tādṛśa-mahāsukha-viśeṣo na kila sampadyate | tādṛśa-premā ca kevalaṁ śrī-kṛṣṇasya mahākṛpā-viśeṣeṇa prāyas tat-sandarśanādinaiva sidhyatīti dik | evaṁ sarvathaiva teṣām āvirbhavat-parama-prema-vaikalya-santānaṁ sākṣād draṣṭum aśaktas tatrāhaṁ na vasāmi na yāmi ceti tātparyam |
“[Śrī Kṛṣṇa considers the situation as follows:] ‘[Were I to return to Vraja, the people of Vraja would expect that I might leave again soon after arriving and thus think,] “Aho! How shall we be able to tolerate separation from him, Śrī Kṛṣṇa of such nature [i.e., who is naturally so loving, charming, and so forth]?” Alternately, even if I remain present there for a long time, indeed greater suffering on their part shall come about by way of special, sweet, sweet sports and so forth [with them] because of the arising of the suffering of separation [in them even when I am there with them] as a result of the unrest [in their minds], “He of such nature is even now as though already gone somewhere” [since they will fear that I may leave Vraja again some time soon]. In this way, as fire’s established hot nature is not removed by me by any means, so their nature—granted [to them] indeed by me as my own extraordinary, immense grace (mahāprasāda) [upon them]—is not able to be negated even by me since their attainment of special, all-surpassing greatness is specifically because of that [i.e., I have blessed them with the nature of having such intense prema for me that they faint at the sight of me after I return to their midst following prolonged separation and they remain anxious about my potentially leaving them again at any moment even when I am sporting with them exactly in accord with their wishes such that even my sporting with them in that way does not cause them happiness and rather increases their suffering; I also cannot change this nature I have blessed them with, just as I cannot change fire’s nature of being hot, because this nature is the cause of them being the most exalted of all my bhaktas and companions throughout all the worlds, and it would be not right for me to deprive them their most exalted nature].’ This is the direction. Although as a result of the direct embrace and so forth of the blessed Son of Nanda, the Embodiment of the most sweet and immense condensed bliss, even a special type of paramount bliss befitting that sometimes manifests for them by virtue of the nature of the object [i.e., by virtue of the nature of Śrī Kṛṣṇa], still because of the special form of prema born of separation from him [which they experience] being possessed of paramount greatness and being filled with a special form of paramount joy that has reached its climax—that [i.e., the aforesaid special form of prema born of separation] arises indeed accordingly and abundantly in they who are existent recipients of a special form of his immense grace (mahāprasāda). This is to be inferred [i.e., because these people of Vraja are the ultimate recipients of his grace, the bliss they experience is also the greatest of all and that ultimate bliss occurs as a result of a special form of prema for Kṛṣṇa that is manifested by separation from him]. In this regard, although separation from him verily exists for indeed nearly everyone because of the non-occurrence of attainment of Bhagavān [i.e., because nearly everyone in the world can be said to exist in a state of separation from Bhagavān because nearly no one in the world has attained Bhagavān], still, because of the absence of such prema [i.e., the prema found in the people of Vraja], the special, great joy of such nature [i.e., as is experienced by the people of Vraja in separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa] certainly does not come about on account of the non-arising of the sorrow of separation [from him, meaning, because nearly everyone in the world does not have prema for Śrī Kṛṣṇa like the people of Vraja, they do not feel sorrow in separation from him as the people of Vraja feel it, and because they do not feel such sorrow, they do not experience the special joy that the people of Vraja feel in the midst of their separation from Kṛṣṇa]. Such prema [as is found in the people of Vraja], moreover, is manifested [into the heart of someone] for the most part only by means of meeting with him [viz., Śrī Kṛṣṇa] and the like [i.e., and having other forms of direct perception of him] as a result of a special manifestation of immense grace from Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This is the direction [i.e., the intensity of prema that gives rise to the sorrow of separation that causes the superlative joy that the people of Vraja feel in separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa does not manifest in someone’s heart until they have actually directly perceived Śrī Kṛṣṇa, that is, someone does not deeply feel separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa until they have first of all personally met Śrī Kṛṣṇa]. In this way the intent (tātparya) [of Śrī Kṛṣṇa] is as follows: ‘Being unable to observe directly the continuous succession of their becoming evidently overwhelmed (vaikalya) by paramount prema indeed in all circumstances, I do not reside there [in Vraja] and do not go [there either, meaning, I find it too hard on my heart to see both the states of separation that the people of Vraja undergo in my absence and the lack of improvement in their condition that remains even if and when I return to their midst in Vraja; thus, I do not go to Vraja or reside there].’”