मम प्रत्यक्षमेवेदं यदा कृष्णो व्रजेऽव्रजत् ।
ततो हि पूतनादिभ्यः केश्यन्तेभ्यो मुहुर्मुहुः ॥
दैत्येभ्यो वरुणेन्द्रादिदेवेभ्योऽजगरादितः ।
तथा चिरन्तनस्वीयशकटार्जुनभङ्गतः ।
को वा नोपद्रवस्तत्र जातो व्रजविनाशकः ॥
तत्रत्यास्तु जनाः किञ्चित्तेऽनुसन्दधते न तत् ॥
मोहिता इव कृष्णस्य मङ्गलं तत्र तत्र हि ।
इच्छन्ति सर्वदा स्वीयं नापेक्षन्ते च कर्हिचित् ॥
स्वभावसौहृदेनैव यत्किञ्चित्सर्वमात्मनः ।
अस्योपकल्पयन्ते स्म नन्दसूनोः सुखाय तत् ॥
mama pratyakṣam evedaṁ yadā kṛṣṇo vraje’vrajat |
tato hi pūtanādibhyaḥ keśy-antebhyo muhur muhuḥ ||
daityebhyo varuṇendrādi-devebhyo’jagarāditaḥ |
tathā cirantana-svīya-śakaṭārjuna-bhaṅgataḥ |
ko vā nopadravas tatra jāto vraja-vināśakaḥ ||
tatratyās tu janāḥ kiñcit te’nusandadhate na tat ||
mohitā iva kṛṣṇasya maṅgalaṁ tatra tatra hi |
icchanti sarvadā svīyaṁ nāpekṣante ca karhicit ||
svabhāva-sauhṛdenaiva yat kiñcit sarvam ātmanaḥ |
asyopakalpayante sma nanda-sūnoḥ sukhāya tat ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 1.6.39–40)
“[Rohiṇī Devī to Devarṣi Nārada:] This is verily my experience: when Kṛṣṇa went to Vraja, from right then on, and again and again, what calamity devastating to Vraja—starting from Pūtanā and ending with Keśī—[coming] from asuras, from devas like Varuṇa and Indra, from pythons and so on [i.e., and other fearsome creatures], and from [even] the breaking of a cart and arjuna trees that had long been our own—did not arise? Still, the people situated there [viz., the Vraja-vāsīs] did not consider any of that [i.e., still, their love for Kṛṣṇa did not wane, and rather, only increased (Vraja-janānāṁ Kṛṣṇe prītir na jātu kṣīṇā, api tu vivṛddhaiva, DDT)]. As if beguiled, in all those cases [i.e., calamities], they [viz., the Vraja-vāsīs] always desired Kṛṣṇa’s well-being, and they never considered their own [well-being]. Purely out of natural cordiality, they offered everything that was their own for his—the Son of Nanda’s—pleasure.”
Commentary
kṛṣṇenāpahṛta-vivekā iveti, tattvato mohāsambhavāt | yad vā, aindrajālikādibhir mohaṁ prāpitā itare janā yathā, tathety arthaḥ | kiṁ ca svabhāvena na tu kenāpi hetunā yat sauhṛdaṁ prema, tenaiva asya kṛṣṇasya sukhāya tat sarvam upakalpayante sma, asminn eva samarpayann ity arthaḥ … | nanda-sūnor iti sarvadaiva te nanda-nandanatvenaivemaṁ vidanti, na tu parameśvaratvena, yadu-nandanatvādinā vā | ata eva parama-prema-viśeṣodayena tathā vyavaharantīti bhāvaḥ |
(Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[The Vraja-vāsī are described as ‘as if beguiled’ (mohitā iva), that is,] As if having had their discrimination taken away by Kṛṣṇa, because of the impossibility of beguilement in reality [i.e., they were not and cannot actually be beguiled, so they are described here as ‘as if beguiled’ (mohitā iva)]. Alternately, the meaning is that as other persons become subjected to beguilement by magicians and others, so [they became as if in such a state]. … Furthermore, they offered (upakalpayante sma) everything for his—Kṛṣṇa’s—pleasure purely out of cordiality (sauhṛdam), that is, prema, which was from their nature (svabhāva), and not because of any motive [i.e., the prema by virtue of which they thought and acted only for Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure and not their own even in the midst of a continuous series of unprecedented calamities was part of their very nature and thus their prema had no ulterior motive of any kind]. On account of [the mention of] ‘The Son of Nanda’s’ (Nanda-sūnoḥ), [it is understood that] indeed always they knew him only as being the Son of Nanda, and not rather, as being the Supreme Īśvara, or as being a Son of the Yadus, or otherwise. Thus, they behaved in this way [as was mentioned earlier] by virtue of a manifestation of a special form of paramount prema. This is the purport.”