Excerpt from a lecture on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.11.32, given as temple class in Śrī Māyāpura Candrodaya Mandira

0% buffered00:00Current time00:00
Krishna's Return to Dvaraka courtesy of © The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. www.Krishna.com.
Krishna's Return to Dvaraka courtesy of © The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International, Inc. www.Krishna.com Artists Dhrti Dasi, Ramadasa Abhirama Dasa

Reading from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.11.32: 

tam ātmajair dṛṣṭibhir antarātmanā

duranta-bhāvāḥ parirebhire patim

niruddham apy āsravad ambu netrayor

vilajjatīnāṁ bhṛgu-varya vaiklavāt

Synonyms

tam — Him (the Lord); ātma-jaiḥ — by the sons; dṛṣṭibhiḥ — by the sight; antara-ātmanā — by the innermost part of the heart; duranta-bhāvāḥ — insuperable ecstasy; parirebhire — embraced; patim — husband; niruddham — choked up; api — in spite of; āsravat — tears; ambu — like drops of water; netrayoḥ — from the eyes; vilajjatīnām — of those situated in shyness; bhṛgu-varya — O chief of the Bhṛgus; vaiklavāt — inadvertently.

Translation

The insuperable ecstasy was so strong that the queens, who were shy, first embraced the Lord in the innermost recesses of their hearts. Then they embraced Him visually, and then they sent their sons to embrace Him [which is equal to personal embracing]. But, O chief amongst the Bhṛgus, though they tried to restrain their feelings, they inadvertently shed tears.

Purport

Although due to feminine shyness there were many hindrances to embracing the dear husband, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the queens performed that act by seeing Him, by putting Him in the cores of their hearts, and by sending their sons to embrace Him. Still, the act remained unfinished, and tears rolled down their cheeks despite all endeavors to check them. One indirectly embraces the husband by sending the son to embrace him because the son is developed as part of the mother’s body. The embrace of the son is not exactly the embrace of husband and wife from the sexual point of view, but the embrace is satisfaction from the affectionate point of view. The embrace of the eyes is more effective in the conjugal relation, and thus according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī there is nothing wrong in such an exchange of feeling between husband and wife.

(..)

His Holiness Bhaktividyā Pūrṇa Svāmī Mahārāja: Okay, so here is then discussion on transcendental ecstasy. That we see here is that then it is manifest to the queens. So much of the time we see the queens will be discussed, or previously then the women of Dvārakā on the roofs and their happiness what they were feeling. All these different... much of the time we see is ladies: Draupadī, Kuntī. Simply because there then the emotions, then they are so... How you say? Forceful, more obvious, very forceful, and the nature especially in this connection then the conjugal rasa because it is containing all the other rasas, then is the most inclusive. So, you are going to give an example, then you always give an example that is going to be... have the broadest application. So then... Then in this case then we see that the rasa here that has more of a full application to all situations because in it, it contains all elements of rasa.

So here then, it is being brought out that this insuperable ecstasy... One is we must appreciate here is Prabhupāda is coining a word. So he creates words. It was interesting, I was reading that English used to do this. Nowadays, people aren't clever enough so you have to be given a word. Previously you had a root and then you create the word. But Prabhupāda is still clever enough. So this ecstasy is so strong, insuperable, it can't be gone beyond, there is not something beyond this platform. And so in this then so much shyness is there. Now, this is the interesting point, is that so much ecstasy, so much happiness is there, but it still manifests through shyness. Nowadays the idea is, is when you are happy, you show it, you bring it out, it goes, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" But according to śāstra, that is called a third-class man. First class is: something amazing happens, there may be a little smile. [Devotees laughing] Second class, in the very, "Hey, how, like this," just like that. Third class, then it is, "Yes! Aahhh!" roaring, all this stuff. And that's all you see nowadays, and that is considered to be normal. Yes, normal for third-class men. But Yudhiṣṭhira, he would win the gambling match, he would lose the gambling match, there would just be a slight smile or a slight feeling of dissatisfaction. That is first class, that is culture.

So we see here, so that is balance. Because otherwise if there is so much that way there must be so much the other way. Along with all the "Yes! Yes!" comes all the swearing and the unforgiveness and the feelings of justice and bitterness and all that. They go together, they are a package, right? If something amazing happens, there is just a little smile. If there is something un-amazing happens, there is just a little bit of feeling of "this is not so great." So this is what Kṛṣṇa s talking about in the Gītā, because one is not elated in happiness. That means there will be happiness, but you are not elated. And so, the opposite also: one is not disturbed when there is unhappiness. That is balanced. Because that is the whole point: if you can balance it, that is the meaning, it is the middle path. So that middle path is what is... That is devotional service: it is between karma and jñāna, it is the path that actually functions. So this is what is being brought out. Of course, this is the metaphysical aspect.

But here we see the point being made is that so much insuperable ecstasy is there and shyness can still be manifest. So this is the whole point, is one can feel all emotions to their fullest extent and follow the culture. This is being shown here. I mean, in our experience here, I don't necessarily speak for everybody, but like that is: can we say that our ecstasies or our pains are as great as in these pages? Right? We have met a friend or something, or been in a situation where our ecstasy was greater than this ecstasy of these queens? Or the pain that we felt and our sense of injustice was greater than Yudhiṣṭhira Mahārāja's losing the emperorship of the whole world, unlimited, unfathomable wealth and position out of pure cheating? Have we had an experience greater than that? Right? And if we think about it realistically. Poetically, yes, we can say, just like the man approaches the girl and says, "If you marry me I will be the happiest man in the world!" Right? But every man says that. So, you know, of course, poetically, we could say, "Yes, it is the same!" But in actuality, if we think about it, it is not. Because here they are dealing with very, very full emotions. Right? So, they are still able to maintain the culture. This is important.

Because otherwise, there is this modern idea that "No, you should show, you should let it out!" Yeah, you show, you let it out. But you have to know how to show it and let it out. Just like, yes, you have to cook. So, therefore, you have to cut the vegetables. So, get in there, cut the vegetables! Do it how you like! You know, but is it going to come out nice? No. It comes out nice because you go in there and very nicely, very carefully go in and cut it. It is controlled. All this show, this, that, that is great for three-year-olds, right? That is what three-year-olds, two-year-olds are known for: it is showing everything, doing everything, right? And then, and what do they call it? "Terrible twos", right? Three is my... When do they start becoming normal? Four, they start to become a little normal. Why? Because they start to become a little controlled, a little shy. Yes? No? Think about it!

So, that is the whole point. So, we are having a culture that we are being expected that we are supposed to act like two- and three-year-olds. But because we are mature adults and have adult false egos and everybody does it, then it is considered okay. Right? That is how modern social things work. If everybody does it, then it is normal. If one or two do it, it is strange. But that is all we are dealing with. We are not necessarily dealing with... We are dealing with maturity, you know, experience and all that, but we are not dealing with necessarily cultural development. So, this should always be considered that these are keys on how it actually functions and works. This is actually how it works. Right? You want to know how to get satisfaction in your life - this is how it works. It doesn't work in another way. You can try. So many have been trying, it hasn't worked for them, it won't work for you. I can say this boldly: try whatever you like, it will not work for you. Because it can't. Because God made it, not you, not anybody else. God made it, and this is the way God likes it. God likes to come home and have His women behave like this. That's why He made it like that. That's why He made the śāstras like that, that's why He made the culture like that. Because this is what a man is looking for. And this is what gives the full expression to all the woman's feelings.

See, three things are going on here at once. She is seeing the Lord and embracing Him in the heart. So you get the very emotional. Then, in the eyes, then is the physical, but it is still subtle. Then she sends the son, which is more gross, and it is based on relationship. Right? One could say, "No, no, but she will get more out of embracing herself." Okay, so then, what is more intimate? The embrace or the conception of a child? Right? Which is more intimate? Conception of a child. So, the child's manifestation is a manifestation of the utmost intimacy between the husband and wife. So, that child embraces the husband, that is the most intimate aspects of the woman's existence. Right? Of course, I will give a caveat here: we are discussing human society, like that. We are discussing human society and human standards. So, we see here, they are getting three things; plus, now they still have the opportunity when everything has calmed down, everybody has met and the formal situations are all done and that, and then in the evening, then when it is just the husband and wife alone, then she can physically embrace Him. So, she has gotten four things out of it. You name me what the modern woman gets out of it. And you add it up - one against four. And that one then is in public where she can't actually fully manifest her emotions. You cannot tell me, even the sleaziest woman in the world can embrace someone in public fully with all her full emotions, full heart, full giving everything. You can't. The lowest class woman still cannot get because she is still a woman. It can't happen. When she is alone, only then she can manifest.

So, now that means the modern woman doesn't even get the one. She gets a part. And now we are going to hear, we have to listen that the modern thing is going to fully satisfy us culturally, when it doesn't even get a part of one, whereas in the Vedic the woman gets full four. And the man gets full satisfaction also. So, that's why these are here. God made it this way, because that is the way He likes it. We have to remember, He is a man, and these goddesses of fortune are women. Right? And we have to remember, we are a bunch of women that have come here to the material world, that every one of us thinks we are a man. And then by the modes of nature, we have ended up, some of us have a male form, and some of us have a female form. So, male-female relationship is two men trying to lord it over each other, but one does it through the modes of nature that push in the feminine direction, and one does it through the modes that push in the masculine direction. So, unless there is some culture, it is not going to work. It can't work. And there is no one who can say otherwise because that is the way it is. If one says otherwise, it can only be said by someone who is in ignorance, who does not know what the material world is, does not know what the living entity is, does not know who God is, does not know what His pastimes are. So, we can see that... Yeah.

So then, such nice things are happening here. So, here it says, "The embrace of the eyes is more effectual in the conjugal relation, and thus according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī there is nothing wrong with such an exchange of feelings between husband and wife." So, here is the point. These are the feelings being desired, this is the method to get it. It is not wrong. But if one knows how to do it, then one gets the benefit. And if one doesn't know how to do it, one neither gets the benefit, nor does one get social peace. Right? It doesn't. Because one must always understand, one's own freedoms cannot impinge upon another's rights. No one has that right.

So, that is the problem. Previously, the Vedic is, is you drop one rock in the pond and you get so many concentric circles, and each of those circles are in harmony because they are perfectly in line with the center. That means Kṛṣṇa is the center of the closest, Kṛṣṇa is the center of the farthest. Therefore, there is no overlap. But the modern is, you throw in a handful of rocks and you get so many circles that all they do is bump into each other. And each one is trying to establish their right as the center or their right as the victim. And you can never have social harmony. Never in a million years. Why a million? Billion, trillions. Never in 311 trillion years. Right? [Laughter] It is not possible. So, this is the point. We can either take it from here, that these are the practical ways to be Kṛṣṇa conscious. The essence of this is that it is connected to Kṛṣṇa. And it is the exchange between Kṛṣṇa and His devotees. That is what's really going on here. But we as conditioned souls, because of the material needs, then the material needs are also fulfilled through the same method. Because Kṛṣṇa only wants people to actually act how they act in the spiritual world. That is what we are supposed to be doing. But we don't do that because of our self-centeredness, our control and enjoying mood. So, that has to be controlled and channeled, so it looks like the spiritual world and because of that you get as close as you can get. Because we are not enjoyers, we cannot be direct enjoyers. Only Kṛṣṇa can. He is male and He is it, there is only Him. He can directly enjoy. The female energy cannot directly enjoy. It enjoys through the connection with the male. That is the way it is. It is the way it is designed. So, if we accept this basic fundamental fact of just science, then everything can start to work for us. Therefore, our connection with Kṛṣṇa makes everything special. When Kṛṣṇa is in the center of whatever we do, everything becomes special. And if Kṛṣṇa is not in the center, there is only going to be unrest, there is only going to be dissatisfaction, there is only going to be fighting and everything. It cannot be otherwise.

So, that's why when you control yourself, you control your senses, then what you are looking for with your senses is available. When you control your emotions, what you are looking for in emotion is available. So, this doesn't make sense. Why doesn't it make sense? Because we are trying to think like a male. We are trying to think like God. But we are not God. We are energy. So, therefore, in connection with, then only you get your happiness. When Kṛṣṇa is pleased, we are pleased - that is the only way we are pleased. We cannot be separately pleased. So, that is the contradiction.

These queens here, the ecstasy they are feeling, they would love to just run over and embrace Kṛṣṇa. But they don't because of the shyness. That shyness is inherent. That shyness is natural. That is natural. The street mentality, that is unnatural. Nowadays, just as the Gītā says, religion is said to be irreligion, irreligion is said to be religion. And Kṛṣṇa is telling this to Arjuna because it is a mistake that a devotee can make. If it wasn't relevant to a devotee, Kṛṣṇa wouldn't have said it in Gītā. They are in the middle of a battlefield. They are about to have a war. He is not going to go on some tangent. 700 verses, the essence of all the Vedic literatures. I mean, that's concise. The Purāṇas themselves, 400,000 verses. Mahābhārata, 100,000. 18 Purāṇas - 400,000. One Mahābhārata, 100,000. That's 500,000. Then you add in the Vedas, Upaniṣads, this and that, you may get another 100,000. Right? 700 verses. And the first chapter is the opening. So there are already... Then He doesn't start giving instruction until the 11th verse of the second chapter. So that's already what? 56 verses already gone. So that's 650 verses Kṛṣṇa is going to give instruction.

So He is saying this because devotees can make the same mistake. I hear it myself. I heard it from the mouths of devotees. They are trying to tell me that things that are irreligious are normal and things that are normal are not normal. And it is ignorance and every last one of them has never gotten the result that they claim that they are going to get. I have yet to see it. I have not seen it. So, here we see: is this is what works. It is working here. You have to remember, Kṛṣṇa and the queens were married all through their whole life. They had 10 children. It went well. It worked. Draupadī and the Pāṇḍavas, it worked. Yaśodā and Nanda, it worked. You can say, "Well, it's spiritual." Well, maybe that is the point. [Laughter] Maybe that is what we have to do: is get spiritual. Because the mundane is also created. We have to remember, who created the material world? Right? So, that's the point. Kṛṣṇa made it. So, Kṛṣṇa knows how it works.

So, here it is working. This is natural. This is normal. It works. Just as one may say, "No, but the girl can express how she likes, does what she likes." Yes, and the boy also, it is natural that he will be dissatisfied and he will go looking around. The two go together. That is the problem, is the living entity, because they feel they are the center everything is going to go my way. They even wrote a song about it, you know. But we have to remember in the song, things didn't go good. [Laughter] The guy did it his way, but it didn't work out nice. So, this is the point, is that this is how it can work. It is not exactly the same, but in the situation it gets you the maximum you can get. That is the thing, is we have this idea, "I'm going to get everything out of everything." I think I mentioned this before, I was in Vṛndāvana, and this car goes by, you know how... With decals, and they put them right on the windshields and everywhere. So, then this one, it says, "All I want is everything." That was on one of the Brajabasi car. So, that's it. It is simple. "All I want is everything. I am not asking much." Straightforward, simple, you know, down to earth. So, that is the thing, is that you want everything, but everything is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is everything. So, as soon as Kṛṣṇa is part of the equation, you have everything.

See, the masculine concept is, "I get what I want, I am happy." It is not the experience of the thing, it is the getting of the thing. Getting the control, and that you therefore can enjoy it. And even you have it, you are enjoying it, it is still how you control it and get what you want from it. If you think about it, we are talking here just the fundamental mechanics of it, we are not talking all the nice poetics about it. If you are honest and think about it, this is what is going on. So, that is the problem, you are not enjoying it. So, this is the problem, is we think, "No, I'm going to be happy if this, this, this, this happens." But we see from evidence here, that that doesn't have to happen, something else completely different can happen, and you can be happy. So, that is the problem, our own false ego gets in the way that you have situations that you could be happy in something different than the way we have designed it in our mind, but because the element of "If I control, I enjoy," therefore the situation is not going the way I want it to, I'm not in control, therefore I cannot enjoy, even though you could be. I have seen myself, we went once to a restaurant, and we had this idea, we were going to order this one particular, whatever preparation, or it was a thali or something like that, and everybody was attached to that idea. Go there, that item is not available. Right? So many other nice items are there, but because the idea was this, "I am going to get this and enjoy that," therefore when an alternative was ordered, one couldn't enjoy it. Even though if it was known from the beginning that one is not available, then you would naturally choose what is the best out of what is left, right? That is normally what happens, right? Does that make sense?

I remember I was in Haridaspur, I was sitting there, it's not a whole lot, in those days not a whole lot happening, so this was the big event of the day. The morning, then, first thing when the sun comes up, then the goats come through, and they come through to get, there is a big peepal tree, and they get... They would come, go and eat all the leaves that fell off the tree. So then first they go to is the greenest leaves, and they pick up the greenest leaves, and they put them in their mouth, and they munch them until they get to the stem. And when they get to the stem, they bite it off and it drops on the ground. And they go through, very choosy and everything like this. Then, the next big event of the day would be they would come back at noon time, right? For the second round. Now they'll pick up, also, you know, good green leaves and everything, and they will... How you say? Yeah, less good, no, it would be green leaves, and then they would eat them, and, but they would eat the stem this time. They wouldn't drop it off onto the ground. Then, the next big event was the evening, just before the sun goes down, they would come through again. This time, any leaf that was on the ground, they would eat the whole thing, yellow, dry, brown, with the stem, everything. Because that is all that was available. So, that is actually how we work. But the problem is, is because we have made one plan, then when the situation is different, we don't move with that, we still try to apply our old plan due to attachment. And then, when it is not working, then only when we are banged over the head so many times, then we start to actually accept the situation we should have accepted when we started. But now, even that has started to adjust and it is not available. Does that make some sense? While if one comes into the situation with the serving mood, and how is Kṛṣṇa seen here, then when the situation comes up, you see, what is the best way to engage this in Kṛṣṇa's service? And then, take that and move with it. That's real, that's on the ground. You want to know what reality is? That is reality: dealing with what is happening this second, right now, in consideration of the bigger plan of how Kṛṣṇa says what is standards. That is reality. Because reality in this place is always changing.

And in the spiritual world, rasa is always changing, the flavors of rasa. So therefore, sometimes Kṛṣṇa is with Rādhārāṇī, and sometimes He gets stuck in a tree, and He can't be with Her. But that is the flavors that are happening. So, therefore, if this masculine identity is given up, and mood of, the identity of "I am servant of Krishna" is accepted, then the servant is able to adjust with whatever has to be done. Otherwise, what is it? Okay, so, "Go and weed the garden." So the servant is out weeding the garden. Then, ten minutes later, you call him, "Oh, hey, go over to this person's house and pick this thing up, because they went..." "But hey, you told me to weed the garden." "No, no, no, okay, you weed the garden later, we got to go..." "Oh, why can't you just tell me just what you want me to do? I mean, why can't you be straightforward? Why can't you have a plan? What is going on?" Is that a servant? No. It is a matter of, this needs to be done, and something else is not more important, so you do it.

So, that is the point, is we have this thing, "Why can't God make it like this?" You know, you hear devotees say, "Why didn't God make us so that we would be Kṛṣṇa conscious? Why did he make us so that we would be un-Kṛṣṇa conscious? So, it is His fault that we are not Kṛṣṇa conscious. Right? It is not our fault." No, He made us conscious. Now, it is our choice whether we want to be Kṛṣṇa conscious or not. That is how He has created us. We are conscious. Taṭastha means conscious. Taṭastha doesn't mean specifically Kṛṣṇa conscious, or specifically in Māyā. It means conscious of both, so one can make a choice. Internal potency is not conscious of the external potency. They come to the material world, they only see Kṛṣṇa's creation. They don't even see material energy. We see both, that's how we are created. So, the contradiction is inherent in our nature. One could say, well, why did God create that? But that is the way everything in creation is. There is inside, there is outside. You take this window, you open the window. Now, that space in the window, in the window between the window frames, is that inside or is that outside? You understand? The space in the door, the door frame, the threshold, is the threshold in the house or outside the house? You understand? So, everything is created like that. There is always a junction, a sandhi. There is always, so, we are the sandhi. We are the junction between internal potency and external potency. Therefore, then that contradiction will be there. You could take this or that. It is just the way it is. It is just like the windows here have a valid existence. In fact, you probably appreciate them more than the columns. Look at the windows, look at the wall, look at the columns, what do you like better? Think about it. Okay. So, that means the junction is not that bad. You have the daytime, you have the nighttime, you have the twilight. Some poetics are there about the night, some are there about the day. How many are there about the sunset? Right? So, that's why there is junction. So, that's us. So, it is not a bad thing. So, the point is, is connected to Kṛṣṇa it has meaning. It's not connected to Kṛṣṇa, then it doesn't have meaning.

(..)

The modern is, is they can't distinguish. Someone is in conjugal, all they know is conjugal. Wherever they are, they got to be holding hands and as close as possible and all that. It means, just... How do you say? One-track mind, means, very undeveloped personality, very shallow, undeveloped personality. Because all they can be is conjugal no matter where they are. They can't discriminate, so their intelligence is less. Their training is less. Their culture is less. So, they are a very undeveloped person. Right?

But if they can take the situation and understand that "This situation is public, therefore, I engage in this way; this one is more private, I engage in this way." Just like this, this is when He has walked into the palace. So, the children are there, the maidservants are there, everyone is there, but it is in the palace. So, it is the queen's place, so, therefore, she manifests this much. If He was walking out in the street, she would be looking out the window, then she wouldn't manifest all of these. She would only embrace him in the heart. She wouldn't even do it in the eyes, because people can see the eyes. Right? When someone looks at someone with some feeling or emotion, you can see it. Right? You've never had that? You are sitting there and talking, someone walks into the room and you look up at them and there is some exchange in the eyes; everyone in the room turns around to see who it was. Because they can see something is happening. So, that's why this one is only happening in the palace. But, therefore, it's said it is natural. Here, "The embrace of the eyes is more effective in conjugal relation, and thus, according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, there is nothing wrong in such an exchange of feelings between husband and wife." But - in the appropriate situation. It can't be seen by others. Right? It wouldn't be seen by the son. Because the son has the back to the mother and facing the father. So, he can't see your eyes, so, it is appropriate.

So that is the point, is one has to use intelligence to see what is appropriate. So, Lord Caitanya is manifesting this, therefore manifesting this, but when it is appropriate. He doesn't manifest everything. You see a lot when He is doing saṅkīrtana, but you don't see everything. You just see Him dancing in ecstasy in the Harināma, but the Ācāryas reveal what the conversation is. You don't hear that conversation on the street. Lord, how Lord Caitanya is inviting Jagannātha to come back to Vṛndāvana, you don't hear on the street. You only hear "Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa..." But those who know can see. And then when He is alone with the devotees, then He manifests more. They are not singing Gīta-govinda on the street. It is being sung in the Gambhīra. Plus, He has taken the male form. The male form, even in manifest ecstasies, it is not seen as much. Do you understand? In other words, the feminine, it comes out more. That's why it must be controlled more. There is more happening. You know what I am saying? The bigger, the more volatile a substance, the more it has to be controlled. Right? Does that make sense? So, that is the thing, is the emotions, the reactions that the feminine nature gains from any situation, sensual, emotional, is far greater than the masculine. So the masculine, it is more subtle. The feminine is that same subtlety, much more intense, that it could manifest externally if it is not controlled. So if the situation warrants, then it is manifest. If it doesn't warrant, it is controlled. Does that make sense?

So, in other words, we were discussing more generic before. Does that make it more clear? Like that. So if it is appropriate, then it is natural. But even here it is saying that it wasn't... "inadvertently shed tears." They didn't feel it was appropriate. But because of the insuperable ecstasy, they couldn't hold them back. If the ecstasy was a touch less, they could have. Because it is not the right place. Does that make sense? So if that science is understood, then it creates social harmony and what one is looking for in the social life one gains. If not, speculation, it hasn't done the Māyāvādīs any good. It hasn't done the Buddhists, the Jains, hasn't done the academics. None of them have actually benefited from mental speculation because it is not connected to Kṛṣṇa. Yeah?

So that's why then we don't speculate. We speculate only, it means we do what is... Technically it is called speculation, meaning if you are practicing like the last six chapters of Gītā, where you are seeing... In other words, you are taking what you have heard from śabda and applying it on pratyakṣa, what you see, and you try to put it together. So technically it is mental speculation, but because it is based on śāstra according to what Kṛṣṇa says to please Him and according to the authority of Guru, therefore it is not classified as wrong. But when Kṛṣṇa is left out of this speculation, there is nothing good about it. You know, it is like so many zeros. Even you find something useful, until you put the one of Kṛṣṇa, it has no meaning. So for us, without putting the one, what is the meaning?

Excerpt from a lecture on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.11.32, given as temple class in Śrī Māyāpura Candrodaya Mandira

0% buffered00:00Current time00:00
    Comments
    All comments.
    Comments