तमङ्कमारूढमपाययत्स्तनं
स्नेहस्नुतं सस्मितमीक्षती मुखम् ।
अतृप्तमुत्सृज्य जवेन सा यया-
वुत्सिच्यमाने पयसि त्वधिश्रिते ॥
स जातकोप: स्फुरितारुणाधरं
सन्दश्य दद्भिर्दधिमन्थभाजनम् ।
भित्त्वा मृषाश्रुर्दृषदश्मना रहो
जघास हैयङ्गवमन्तरं गत: ॥
tam aṅkam ārūḍham apāyayat stanaṁ
sneha-snutaṁ sa-smitam īkṣatī mukham |
atṛptam utsṛjya javena sā yayāv
utsicyamāne payasi tv adhiśrite ||
sa jāta-kopaḥ sphuritāruṇādharaṁ
sandaśya dadbhir dadhi-mantha-bhājanam |
bhittvā mṛṣāśrur dṛṣad-aśmanā raho
jaghāsa haiyaṅgavam antaraṁ gataḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.9.5–6)
“Raised in her lap, she [i.e., Yaśodā] had him [i.e., Kṛṣṇa] drink from her breast, flowing [with milk] out of affection, as she beheld his smiling face, but when the milk on the fireplace was beginning to boil over, she put him down [although he was] unsatiated, and quickly went over [to attend to the milk on the fireplace]. Angered [by this] and biting his quivering reddish lips with his teeth, he [then] broke with a grindstone the pot [that Yaśodā had been using] for churning yoghurt, went inside [the house] with false tears [alt., non-false tears, in his eyes], and in a concealed place devoured the fresh butter [that Yaśodā had just churned].”
Commentary
sa-smitaṁ mukhaṁ tasyekṣamāṇā sneha-snutatvād eva kṣudhitatvād eva vā | tat-pāne’tṛptam api tyaktvā | nanu taṁ pāyayanty evāṅke kṛtvā kuto na gatā? tatrāha—javeneti; tathā sati vegena gamanāsiddheḥ | tatraiva hetuḥ—utsicyamāna iti | evaṁ dṛṣṭi-gocare’natidūre payaḥ-pāka-sthānaṁ jñeyam; tat payo’pi mathyamāna-dadhivad eveti tasyaivopabhogāpekṣayā lava-mātram anyatra gamana-doṣo’pi parihṛtaḥ syāt, ata eva tu-śabdaḥ |
(Bṛhad Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-ṭīkā)
“His face, being beheld by her, was smiling because of the flowing [of her breast milk] out of affection or because of [his] being hungry. She put him down while he was drinking even though he was unsatiated. [A question may arise here,] ‘Well, why didn’t she go [over to the fireplace] while also [simultaneously still] holding him in her lap and suckling him?’ To that, he [i.e., Śukadeva] says, ‘Quickly’ (javena), that is, because of the non-accomplishment of going quickly as such [i.e., because she could not go over the the fireplace quickly if she continued to hold and suckle him as she went]. The reason in this regard is ‘beginning to boil over’ (utsicyamāne) [i.e., the reason she needed to go quickly was because the milk on the fireplace was beginning to boil over]. Thus, that the site of the cooking of the milk was in the range of sight and not far away is understood. That milk [on the fireplace] too was just like the yoghurt being churned [by her, i.e., it was also to be used for the breakfast she was preparing for Kṛṣṇa]. So, even the [supposed] fault of [Yaśodā’s] going elsewhere [i.e., away from Kṛṣṇa] just for a second can be annulled because of her regard for his enjoyment alone [i.e., because she attended to the milk on the fireplace only out of regard for Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure and not for any other reason]. Therefore, there is [usage in the verse of] the word tu [‘but’].”
sa-smitaṁ payasaḥ svayaṁ snutatvān madhuratvāc ca smitena gaṇḍe lakṣyamāṇena sahitaṁ mukhaṁ tasyekṣamāṇā, atṛptam api tyaktvā | nanu, taṁ pāyayanty evāṅke kṛtvā kuto na gatā? tatrāha—javeneti | tathā sati vegena gamanāsiddheḥ | tatraiva hetuḥ—utsicyamāna iti udañcatīty arthaḥ | evaṁ dṛṣṭi-gocare anatidūre payaḥ-pāka-sthānaṁ jñeyam, tat payo’pi mathyamāna-dadhivad eva iti kṣaṇika-tat-tyāgo’pi kṛtaḥ | athavā—‘yad dhāmārtha-suhṛt-priyātma-tanaya-prāṇāśayās tvat-kṛte’ iti kaimutyāt tasyās tu viśeṣataḥ sarvaṁ tasyaiva | pitarau ca putrasyāpāta-duḥkhaṁ soḍhvāpy udarka-deha-dhana-vidyādi-sampatty-artha-karmāṇi sadaivehate, tac cauṣadha-pāyana-snapana-tāḍanādau prasiddham | anyatra ca na sambhavatīty anya-bhāva-durbodho mātā-pitṛ-sneha-paripākaḥ khalv asau | gopa-jātīnāṁ ca sarvato dugdha-sampattāv evāgrahaḥ | tato’yaṁ bālako na kāñcid api sva-sampatti-rakṣāṁ jānātīty ato mayaivādhunā sā kartavyeti dhiyā tat-parityāgena tad-artha-gamanam api tat-sneha-mayam eva | yathātma-sampatty-arthaṁ sahyamāne’py ātma-duḥkhe sneha-viśeṣa evātmani gamyate tadvad iti vivecanīyam | ata eva tu-śabdaḥ |
(Laghu Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-ṭīkā)
“His face, being beheld by her, was smiling, that is, it had a perceivable smile on its cheeks, because of the milk [from her breasts] was flowing by itself and because of [its] sweetness. She put him down even though he was unsatiated. [A question may arise here,] ‘Well, why didn’t she go [over to the fireplace] while also holding him in her lap and suckling him?’ To that, he [i.e., Śukadeva] says, ‘Quickly’ (javena), that is, because of the non-accomplishment of going quickly as such [i.e., because she could not go over to the fireplace quickly if she continued to hold and suckle him as she went]. The reason in this regard is ‘beginning to boil over’ (utsicyamāne), meaning, rising [i.e., the reason she needed to go quickly was because the milk on the fireplace was rising up and about to boil over]. Thus, that the site of the cooking of the milk was in the range of sight and not far away is understood. That milk [on the fireplace] too was just like the yoghurt being churned [by her, i.e., it was also to be used for the breakfast she was preparing for Kṛṣṇa], and thus a momentary abandonment of that [i.e., the yoghurt] too was done [by her]. Alternately, by a fortiori reasoning (kaimutya), on the basis of [the statement in regard to the Vraja-vāsīs in SB 10.14.35], ‘they whose homes, wealth, well-wishers, dear ones, bodies, sons, vitals airs, and desires are for your [i.e., Kṛṣṇa’s] sake,’ everything of hers [i.e., Yaśodā’s every thought, word, and deed] is solely for him. Furthermore, parents invariably always strive for actions conducive to [their son’s] future well-being in terms of the body, wealth, knowledge, and so forth, tolerating even the son’s immediate unhappiness [i.e., parents still engage in activities that lead to their son’s long-term well-being even if they may cause him some temporary, initial unhappiness], and that [i.e., doing so] too in the cases of administering medicine, bathing, spanking, and so on is well known. This is also no possible elsewhere [i.e., in other types of relationships], and thus, this shrewdness of a mother and father’s affection is difficult to understood for those with other attitudes (bhāvas). Also, those of the gopa class always have great regard for milk products. Thus [Yaśodā thought as follows], ‘This boy does not know at all how to protect his own property [i.e., the milk and yoghurt for his own breakfast]. So, that [i.e., the protection of these things] now is to be done only by me.’ Thus, with this thought, even her leaving him and going [over to the fireplace to tend to the milk that was beginning to boil over] for his sake is based solely on affection for him. As even one‘s own unhappiness being tolerated for the sake of one’s well-being is understood to be only a type of affection for oneself, so it [i.e., Yaśodā’s apparent neglect of Kṛṣṇa] is to be considered [as actually an act of affection for him]. Therefore, there is [usage in the verse of] the word tu [‘but’].”
nanu, kṛṣṇād api tasyā dugdham atimamatāspadam abhūt yad anurodhenātṛptaḥ kṛṣṇo’py upekṣitaḥ satyam—
tad-bhakṣya-peyādiṣu kāpy apekṣatā
yayā punaḥ so’pi samety upekṣyatām |
premṇo vicitrā paripāṭy udīritā
bodhyā tathā premavatībhir eva yā ||
(Excerpt from the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā)
“[A doubt may be raised,] ‘Well, the milk was a greater object of her affection (mamatā) than even Kṛṣṇa since out of consideration for it even Kṛṣṇa, who was unsatiated, was neglected [by her].’ [To this doubt, it should be said] True: the sort of regard [on the part of Yaśodā] for foods, beverages, and so forth [that are] for him [i.e., Kṛṣṇa], whereby further even he is as though disregarded, and which is an extraordinary manner of expression (paripāṭī) of prema understandable only by those possessed of prema, is described [here in SB 10.9.5].”
payasi tasyā mamatvaṁ putrārthatvān na dūṣaṇam api tu bhūṣaṇam eva |
(Excerpt from the Vaiṣṇavānandinī-ṭīkā)
“Her affection (mamatā) for the milk is not even a fault but rather is verily a quality because of [its] being for the sake of her son.”