184. Srimad-Bhagavatam [Canto 10, Ch. 2

more attractive than the delicate body of Cupid. Sometimes You are
called Giridhari because You lifted the hill known as Govardhana. You
are sometimes called Nanda-nandana or Vasudeva or Devaki-nandana
because You appear as the son of Maharaja Nanda or Devaki or
Vasudeva. Impersonalists think that Your many names or forms are ac-
cording to a particular type of work and quality because they accept You
from the position of a material observer.

“Our dear Lord, the way of understanding is not to study Your ab-
solute nature, form and activities by mental speculation. One must
engage himself in devotional service; then one can understand Your ab-
solute nature and Your transcendental form, name and quality. Actually,
only a person who has a little taste for the service of Your lotus feet can
understand Your transcendental nature or form and quality. Others may
go on speculating for millions of years, but it is not possible for them to
understand even a single part of Your actual position.” In other words,
the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, cannot be understood by the
nondevotees because there is a curtain of yogamdyd which covers
Krsna’s actual features. As confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (7.25),
naham prakdsah sarvasya. The Lord says, “I am not exposed to anyone
and everyone.” When Krsna came, He was actually present on the bat-
tlefield of Kuruksetra, and everyone saw Him. But not everyone could
understand that He was the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Still,
everyone who died in His presence attained complete liberation from ma-
terial bondage and was transferred to the spiritual world.

Because foolish midhas do not awaken their spiritual nature, they do
not understand Krsna or Rama (avajénanti maém midha manusim
tanum 4sritam). Even big academic scholars, not considering the en-
deavors of the dcdryas who have recommended devotional service in
many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Krsna is fictitious.
This is due to a lack of transcendental knowledge and a failure to awaken
Krsna consciousness. One should have the common sense to ask why, if
Krsna or Rama were fictitious, stalwart scholars like Sridhara Svami,
Ripa Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Viraraéghava, Vijayadhvaja, Valla-
bhacarya and many other recognized Gcaryas would have spent so much
time to write about Krsna in notes and commentaries on Srimad-

Bhagavatam.
