Text 5: A wrong act committed by a servant leads people in general to blame his master, just as a spot of white leprosy on any part of the body pollutes all of the skin.
Text 6: Anyone in the entire world, even down to the caṇḍāla, who lives by cooking and eating the flesh of the dog, is immediately purified if he takes bath in hearing through the ear the glorification of My name, fame, etc. Now you have realized Me without doubt; therefore I will not hesitate to lop off My own arm if its conduct is found hostile to you.
Text 7: The Lord continued: Because I am the servitor of My devotees, My lotus feet have become so sacred that they immediately wipe out all sin and I have acquired such a disposition that the goddess of fortune does not leave Me, even though I have no attachment for her, while others praise her beauty and observe sacred vows to secure from her even a slight favor.
Text 8: I do not enjoy the oblations offered by the sacrificers in the sacrificial fire, which is one of My own mouths, with the same relish as I do the delicacies overflowing with ghee which are offered to the mouths of the brāhmaṇas who have dedicated to Me the results of their activities and who are ever satisfied with My prasāda.
Śrīdhara Svāmi-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Vyākhyā
Furthermore. He says that these two have done harm to me alone. The fame of that master whose names they are. Here āmaya means white leprosy. (5)
For me, whose immersion by hearing is in the pure, nectar-like fame, spreading instantly throughout the world it purifies even a dog-eater. I, who am free from anxiety, have obtained from you who are the cause, the beautiful fame that is like a sacred place. Therefore I would even slay the world-ruler who is like my own arm - what to speak of others? The description of one's own qualities is only for the exaltation of Brahmins. (6)
The pure dust particles situated at whose lotus feet, and thus the impurity of the entire world is destroyed by him. Or alternatively, analyze it as: on which the pure dust clings from the lotus feet, and whose entire impurity is destroyed. By whose service these qualities are obtained by me, therefore Śrī (Lakṣmī) does not abandon me even for the sake of a mere glance. I would cut off the hostile behavior of others like Brahmā towards you - this connects with the previous verse. (7)
Furthermore, the Brahmin is my own supreme mouth, therefore by disrespecting you, it is as if my own mouth is insulted, he says. I do not: In a sacrifice, even though eating through the mouth of Agni who consumes the oblations like purodāśa offered by the sacrificer, I do not eat in that way. As I eat from the mouth of the wise Brahmin who eats each morsel with relish, mixed and coated with ghee dripping and flowing. The meaning is: who is desireless, satisfied by the fruits of actions offered to me. (8)
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara-kṛtā Bhāvārtha-dīpikā Prakāśa Vyākhyā
Now, if you ask how there can be an offense against you, the Supreme Lord, and even if there is, who can punish you, so why do you hesitate? To this he replies - Even if there is no punisher, there will certainly be infamy, as he says:
With these two, Jaya and Vijaya. Just as when it is said "This servant of so-and-so has committed an evil deed," it brings infamy to the master, similarly, one whose skin has a disease causes censure by making people say "This man has leprosy." (5)
Now if you say it is strange that infamy comes to you from our offense and fame from pleasing us, since we living beings are created by you and are therefore superior to you, he replies there is no doubt about this, saying: "Of whom." He says "Lord of the worlds" because it is stated "The arms of Indra and others are called the Vedas." The meaning is: If I were to cut off even my own limb which is the abode of ego, then what to speak of Jaya and Vijaya who are the abodes of affection? The idea is that I am incapable and guilty towards you.
Now if you say that since statements like "Whose pure..." indicate self-glorification, how could the Lord do that which deserves punishment due to the fault of revealing one's own qualities? To this he replies "By his own group." This shows that describing one's own qualities for self-glorification alone is a fault, not when done for glorifying others. (6)
Now if you say that this is the result of our coming to Vaikuṇṭha, that you who are our desired deity speak thus to us, he replies that this is not contradictory, saying "Which." For this very reason, because of being the pure dust at the lotus feet. Now if you say that by this one's own excellence is stated, which is not appropriate when praising another, he replies "Or which." For this very reason, good conduct comes only from the connection with the dust of your feet. Moreover, when you offer obeisances etc. to me, that too is not prevented only out of fear of transgressing your wish. (7)
Thus I serve only the brahmins, and in my view those who serve the brahmins are my servants, not others - he says this in "Moreover." Since you are my mouth, therefore disrespecting brahmins is like slapping my face, causing insult - this is the meaning. By "etc." things like sacrificial food offerings are included. By that mouth, meaning by the mouth in the form of fire, as Kaśyapa says in the 8th Canto "The brahmin and fire are indeed the mouth of Viṣṇu, the soul of all gods." The meaning is: The brahmin devoted to me alone is worthy of worship as he alone satisfies me - this is the idea. (8)
Śrī Rādhā Ramaṇa dāsa Gosvāmi Viracitā Dīpanī Vyākhyā
According to the maxim that the deeds of a servant reflect on the master, it is mine alone - this is the definition of offense in this context of your misdeeds. (5)
Thus having rebuked them as his own, he praises them as brahmins due to his reverence for brahmins. "Of whom" - Vaikuṇṭha means uncovered by limitations. Holy fame means supreme purifying renown of devotion to brahmins. Although the contextual a fortiori argument that the Lords of the worlds are indeed most inferior to them does not fit here, nonetheless, since cutting of the arms which are of the nature of one's own self is impossible, it is explained as his own arm-like being only to cover impropriety. (6)
Although the purity of the dust is eternal and always so, praising it thus is with the intention of manifesting it excellently through the quality of devotion to brahmins. For this very reason, in the first meaning there is difficulty in understanding due to the dust being pure, direct self-praise, while praise of brahmins is indirect - if this is unpalatable, then "or which" means "of the brahmins" is to be understood from "lotus feet." Here the impurity referred to in "the independent, peaceful sage" etc. should be completed with "may I purify with the dust of your feet." That impurity in the form of indebtedness is destroyed by serving such brahmins. Good conduct here means experiencing the joy of devotion to devotees etc. These qualities of being holy, pure, etc. are due to having such qualities. For this very reason, due to possessing such qualities. (7)
One who knows God, not just a dry philosopher, as equal vision and relishing of flavors is impossible for the latter while eating. (8)
Śrīmad Vīrarāghava Vyākhyā
He says that the deed done by a servant culminates in the master. "Which" - When a servant commits an offense, people take the names of that master. By this, through the servant the master has done such and such improper deed, so he is wicked - the world also speaks such censorious words. That destroys the fame of that master, just as a disease destroys the beauty residing in the skin. The meaning is: Just as a skin disease destroys the beauty born in the skin, similarly censure due to a servant's offense culminates in the master and destroys only his fame. (5)
Therefore, I who am endowed with fame due to auspicious qualities like accessibility to devotees, if opposed to you who are extremely dear, would cut off even my own limb - he says this in "Of whom." The immersion in hearing about whose pure nectar-like fame instantly purifies even a dog-eater, I who am unconquerable, endowed with fame that instantly purifies the world just by entering the ears, unconquered, having obtained holy fame from you who are the cause - or if the reading is "from you" in the ablative, then "from you" means "due to you as the cause" - I who am accused of being inaccessible to devotees, if opposed to you, would cut off even my own arm - this is the meaning. (6)
Thus having revealed his intended supreme love for devotees and removal of those opposed to them, following the maxim "That is the king's praise which tells of his city and treasury," he praises his devotee brahmins in order to praise himself, in five verses starting with "By whose service." Now one should not doubt how self-praise, which is censured, is done by the Lord, because self-praise by attributing non-existent qualities is censured, but this praise is in the manner stated in the śruti "Knowledge, strength and action are natural," so it is not a fault as it is describing natural qualities. By whose service - by serving which brahmins, the pure dust situated at the lotus feet becomes pure - the idea is that the purity of his foot-dust is obtained by serving brahmins. For this very reason, instantly destroyed, removed is the impurity of the entire world by whom, he who has obtained good conduct. These qualities were obtained by himself only through serving brahmins - this is the idea. Even such a detached, disregarded me, Śrī Lakṣmī does not abandon - her non-abandonment too is only due to serving brahmins, this is the heart. And what kind of Lakṣmī is she who does not abandon me? To this he says: For a mere glance from whom, others like Brahmā etc. perform regular vows. That Lakṣmī worshipped by Brahmā etc. does not abandon even disregarded me only due to the power of serving brahmins - this is the meaning. (7)
Moreover. In a sacrificial ritual, the oblation of the sacrificer that is dripping with melted ghee, mixed and stirred with ghee, and offered with the intention of pleasing the deity - meaning the oblation in the form of rice cakes, purodāśa etc. - I do not consume through the mouth of Agni, the eater of oblations, in the same way as I consume through the mouth of a brāhmaṇa (brahmin) who is naturally satisfied by his own karmic fruits appropriate to his varṇa (social class) and āśrama (life stage), which are offered to me. The mouth of a brāhmaṇa who is eating each morsel. As stated in "I am indeed the enjoyer and lord of all sacrifices", the Lord who bestows the fruits of all sacrifices, who is the indwelling controller of Agni etc. as declared in śruti (scripture) texts like "That verily is Agni, that is Vāyu", and who enjoys the sacrificial oblations, is not as satisfied by consuming through the mouth of Agni as he is by consuming through the mouth of a brāhmaṇa - this is the meaning. There is also the reading "yajamānahavirvitānaiḥ". In that case, the syntactical connection is: I do not consume through the mouth of Agni in the same way as I consume through the mouth of a naturally satisfied brāhmaṇa who is eating each morsel dripping with ghee, by means of the sacrificer's oblations and ritual procedures which are offered to me in the form of one's own meritorious fruits. This indicates that worship of the Lord through desireless sacrifice and through the mouth of a desireless brāhmaṇa devotee who worships the Lord is extremely pleasing to the Lord. (8)
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha-kṛtā Pada Ratnāvalī Vyākhyā
He explains this very point. What names. Then what is the loss? To this he says: He. Āmaya means characterized by leprosy. From the root "āma" meaning disease, the affix yac is used in the sense of itself, or the affix ṇic is used in the sense of "removes the disease, the physical disability". (5)
To be revered in the world, Hari establishes his supreme affection for brāhmaṇas. With "yasya" etc. The meaning is: I, whose immersion in the form of bathing characterized by hearing etc. about my pure immortality-bestowing fame, immediately purifies even a dog-eater, whose fame obtained by your devotees is expansive and supremely purifying - I, Vaikuṇṭha, would cut off even my own arm that acts against you. Although the Lord is supreme, for the sake of worship by brāhmaṇas etc., the objection "How can Hari, who is complete in qualities and self-satisfied, obtain qualities from others?" is refuted by the statement "Though always full of qualities, he speaks of obtaining qualities. And others sometimes speak thus, in accordance with his statements. And he also accepts boons, for the delusion of people." (6)
He qualifies himself with the sense that this is said merely for imitation and delusion, having obtained the nature through service, imitating that nature, by the service of the purifying dust of the lotus feet of brāhmaṇas. Immediately. One by whom all the impurity and sin of people is immediately, instantly destroyed by chanting of the names etc. - him. "Mala" means affliction and sin, not feminine, according to Yādava. Although situated as if devoid of attachment in essence, Lakṣmī does not abandon me - therefore I would cut off even my own arm, connected with the previous. The objection "Why would Hari not be free of impurity by serving the feet of brāhmaṇas?" is refuted by the śruti "The unspoken qualities of Viṣṇu are spoken, but not his faults. Knowledge of faults is due to ignorance, knowledge of qualities is accurate." The doubtful statement is understood to be for the sake of delusion, to be resolved by "Janārdana may sometimes speak of obtaining belovedness, worshipability, and extreme fitness from brāhmaṇas and other devotees, from Brahmā, Śaṅkara and other deities, from himself and from Śrī, deluding." What greatness is specified by saying "does not abandon me" without distinction of femininity? To this he says: Whose. The meaning is: The austerity-characterized discipline of others like Brahmā etc. is worthy for a mere glance, a mere sidelong glance of Śrī whose. Or, the discipline of others is worthy for a mere glance of her - that Śrī does not abandon me, whose nature has become constant worship of me through service of the purifying dust of my lotus feet. Therefore, being of such greatness, I would cut off even my own arm that opposes you. He says that he does not expect anything from brāhmaṇas: Immediately. By "immediately" he suggests that his devotees obtain results without delay, unlike other servants. Although Śrī has a purpose from me, it is not detrimental to me, he says: Unattached. The meaning is: Attached to me who am distinguished. He scorns the expectation of purpose from others for one attached to oneself, with "api". (7)
As if instructing generous men, he again praises brāhmaṇas, saying: I do not. The meaning is: I, consuming through the mouth of Agni the sacrificer's oblation dripping with flowing ghee, saturated with that ghee, by means of elaborate sacrificial rituals, do not attain satisfaction in the same way as I eat through the mouth with each morsel of a brāhmaṇa, a true devotee, who is satisfied with his own karmic fruits offered to me - by this I am pleased. Therefore brāhmaṇas are to be worshipped due to being extremely dear to me - this is the purport. (8)
Śrīmaj Jīva Gosvāmi-kṛtā Krama Sandarbha Vyākhyā
How do you have such a nature from us? To this he says: By whose service. The meaning is: In accordance with what will be said - "The Lord is the deity of brāhmaṇas who are gods among gods" - I who have obtained such power manifested by the purifying dust situated on the lotus feet of you brāhmaṇas who are naturally devoted to contemplation of me as Brahman, merely by connection with service to you. And thus I have become one by whom all impurity in the form of indifference etc. even towards devotees is destroyed, due to being self-satisfied. And thus I have obtained a nature of affection for devotees etc. from whom even Lakṣmī, the ruler of half the universe, does not depart after obtaining me though unattached. Therefore her glory has also become great by service to her. He says this applies to others also: Whose. Others means the world protectors etc. Therefore it is well said "I to you" etc. - this is the purport. Even the obeisances etc. that you perform are also not prevented, only out of fear of transgressing your wish. (7) Therefore my inner satisfaction would be only through the satisfaction of brāhmaṇas, he says: I do not. Offered to me with great affection. (8)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravarti-kṛtā Sārārtha darśinī Vyākhyā
Now, how can there be an offense against you, the Supreme Lord? Even if there is an offense, who can punish? Why do you hesitate? To this he says - even if there is no punisher, there will certainly be infamy. The names of the master whose servant this evildoer is, destroy the fame of that master. Disease destroys the skin, and also produces censure that "this man with skin disease is a leper" - this is the meaning. (5)
If you say that your infamy comes from our offense and your fame from your grace, and thus we created beings are superior even to you the Supreme Lord, then what doubt is there about this, he says "yasya" (whose). I am Vaikuṇṭha (faultless), who has obtained fame in the form of holy places from the devotees who are the cause. "Even my own arm" - what to speak of the objects of my possessiveness Jaya and Vijaya, I would cut off even my own limb which is the object of my ego, but being unable to do so, I am certainly at fault towards you - this is the meaning. (6)
If you say this is the result of our coming to Vaikuṇṭha, that you who are our desired deity speak thus to us, then why do you speak contradictorily, he says: By serving whom, the dust particles at my lotus feet purify the world. All impurities like lust etc. are destroyed by me, the cause, even for others. Gentleness is obtained, and Lakṣmī who has limitless wealth does not abandon me, for even a fraction of whose glance others like Brahmā etc. perform austerities - all this is by whose service alone, "I would cut off even my own arm against you" - this connects with the previous verse. (7)
Thus I serve only the brāhmaṇas, and those who would serve the brāhmaṇas with my vision are indeed my servants, since I eat only through the mouth of the brāhmaṇas, he says: I do not eat the sacrificial offerings like caru, puroḍāśa etc. of the sacrificer with the mouth of the fire god, in the same way as I eat through the mouth of the brāhmaṇa, with each morsel dripping with ghee. This also applies to one who is satisfied by the fruits of actions offered to me. By this and the next statement that "the Lord is the presiding deity of the brāhmaṇas who are gods among gods", the contradiction with statements like "One should not look at a brāhmaṇa who is not a Vaiṣṇava, like a dog-cooker" is resolved, as it should be understood to mean a non-Vaiṣṇava who is hostile to Vaiṣṇavas. Thus only a brāhmaṇa who follows his dharma mixed with devotion is a true brāhmaṇa, like Vasiṣṭha etc. When devotion is primary, even one born as a brāhmaṇa is called a Vaiṣṇava, like Śrī Nārada etc. - this should be discriminated. (8)
Śrīmac Chukadeva-kṛta Siddhānta Pradīpaḥ
Whatever belongs to the master, that belongs to the master alone. (5)
I, whose pure fame granting liberation is grasped by hearing and bathing, which purifies the world even from a dog-eater, who has obtained fame in the form of holy places from the devotees who are the cause - I being such would cut off even my own arm against you. (6)
By whose service the purifying dust at the lotus feet destroys the impurity of the entire world - I would cut off even my own arm against you - this connects with the previous verse. (7)
The sacrificial offering of the sacrificer like caru, puroḍāśa etc. dripping with flowing ghee. In the sacrifice. I do not eat as I eat from the mouth of one who is satisfied, moving about eating, with each morsel of the fruits of their own actions offered to me. (8)
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Grace should be shown here in all ways, otherwise great misfortune would occur, he says with "yan nāmāni". Even great people fear public censure. That is why when a servant commits an offense, people take the name of his master. The plural "names" means all names are taken in connection with insulting him; and also his qualities and actions are revealed for the purpose of criticism. What then if it is so? To this he says - "that infamy". That infamy uttered by people. Proclaiming as bad, that is, defamation. It destroys the fame of that person who is its object. If one doubts how it can destroy existing, well-known fame, he confirms with an example - "destroys the skin". Disease like leucoderma, though existing in the body, destroys its skin, revealing its own form. (5)
If one doubts what offense there is in a lowly servant of the all-controlling Lord not entering, as people would not say there is infamy when lowly people do not enter a great king's house, he says "yasya" (whose). There would certainly be infamy for me in transgressing against brāhmaṇas who are my dependents. My fame depends on them, he says - my pure immortal fame, when heard and bathed in, purifies the entire world up to the dog-eaters. Thus because of fame that purifies the world, I am Vaikuṇṭha (faultless), without any defect in any part. Though such a Supreme Person, I have obtained fame in the form of holy places from you. Fame is born of prowess, while kīrti is born of good conduct. My fame produces purity in the world by suppressing sins in the form of the wicked, through fear of me. Prowess removes faults. If the fault were innate, even that would be destroyed by fear of me. So even the fault of being born in a caṇḍāla's body is destroyed. Thus fame manifesting the Vaikuṇṭha abode indicates my power. Still, fame occurs only if good people praise. Those who are my devotees through that fame become dedicated to me and fulfilled by constant glorification. Thus brāhmaṇas are to be depended upon as producers of fame that is like a holy place. Therefore I would cut off even Indra in the form of Māhendra who offends them. That is why Indra suffered greatly with loss of his kingdom etc. when he transgressed against Bṛhaspati. So placating them is indeed proper - this is the meaning. Fame, wealth and enjoyment - these three come from the grace of brāhmaṇas. Since Lakṣmī is the daughter of Bhṛgu, and brāhmaṇas are my mouth. Having described fame, he describes Lakṣmī who depends on brāhmaṇas with "yat sevayā".
Women are naturally wicked and fickle always. Fame is born of conduct, and brāhmaṇas are the controllers. (1)
But the supreme energies of the Lord are not stable in one who is detached. Therefore, having obtained the order of Bhṛgu, Lakṣmī became stable in me. (2)
He describes his own excellence for the purpose of praising brahmins. Those brahmins by whose service there is sacred dust on his lotus feet. The dust related to the feet, which is the impression produced by service, becomes purifying like the Ganges. If the reading is "reṇuḥ" (dust), this much is a separate sentence. But in the accusative case reading, the attributes in the first half are objects accomplished by service to brahmins. Detachment also comes from that alone, and even the dharma characterized by the constant abode of Lakshmi, which is opposed to detachment, also comes from that alone. The greatness of Lakshmi is for the purpose of the greatness of brahmins. By which the impurity of all is immediately destroyed. By which good character is obtained. For glimpsing which Lakshmi, others like Brahma etc. undertake vows, austerities, and divine vows. The meaning is they perform austerities desiring a sidelong glance from Lakshmi. The destruction of sins is also through service to brahmins, from their very words as a rule, and because everything is dependent on brahmins in the Sarasvata kalpa. In reality, the Lord is free from sin, therefore sins are destroyed for people also through connection with him, and faults are removed even for Lakshmi. The good nature characterized by maintaining proper conduct of powerful people absorbed in enjoyment is accomplished through the arrival and service of great persons, and detachment also occurs only through devotion to them. But in reality, dharma is established in the Lord alone, so due to its faultlessness there is no passion or improper conduct. (7)
He states that his own enjoyment is dependent on brahmins: "I do not eat in that way". By nature I remain without eating with my own mouth, as per the sruti "The other one watches without eating". And my two mouths are secondary - fire and the brahmin are my functional mouths. Among those, the brahmin is my more proper mouth compared to fire. He says: I do not eat with the mouth of fire in that way. Then if sacrifices would become fruitless, addressing that concern he says: Even while eating, I do not eat in that way. Eating by fire is not prohibited, since fire consumes everything and eats wood etc., its being a mouth would become undesirable. But the prohibition has a different reason, which he states to explain: "The ghee-drenched oblation offered by the sacrificer in the ritual". The word "sacrificer" prohibits sattra sacrifices, due to their cruelty and having multiple performers, as per the sruti "What are these sattrikas", and because it is group food. "Oblation" refers to sacrifices other than animal sacrifices, so the word "oblation" prohibits animal sacrifices etc. "In the ritual" means in an elaborate sacrifice. "Ghee-drenched" means dripping ghee on both sides. The fire-mouth does not eat the oblation dripping with ghee on both sides. In fire, ghee is first poured, then the oblation is offered, then ghee is poured again. Even though it eats what is offered, it is not eating in that way, because it depends on mantras and oblations, and because it is offered with a loud sound. But in the brahmin's mouth this fault does not exist. The attribute of the brahmin is "eating each morsel". Eating each morsel. There, in one oblation there are four portions - for the invitatory verse, for the offering verse, for the deity, for the vaṣaṭ exclamation. Here only one eats each morsel, for he eats directly with the mouth, which is the special mouth of the mouth. Just as the special quality of fire was stated, he also specifies about the brahmin: "who is satisfied". Satisfied with me, satisfied with me alone even without other objects. Satisfied even with unfavorable results of one's own actions, meaning not agitated even when suffering is obtained due to karma, or having offered everything to the Lord. The meaning is having performed the offering of actions and being satisfied. (8)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama Caraṇa Viracitaḥ Śrī Subodhinī Prakāśaḥ
Regarding "yan nāmāni" (whose names). "That fame" etc. The fame of the one who is the object of the offense. Regarding "yat sevayā" (by whose service). The Lord himself speaks of his own excellence, addressing the doubt that this seems improper from a worldly perspective, they explain the purport: "One's own" etc. Thus there is no fault in this. (7)
Regarding "nāham" (I do not). "Of that" means of the ordinary fire that consumes everything. "Offering of actions" means the offering of actions in the form of establishing the sacrifice, as stated in the story beginning "Vāsiṣṭha Sātyahavya" in the 6th Aṣṭaka of the Taittirīya, or as stated "Purification of action is offering to me". (8)
Śrī Giridhara-kṛtā Bāla Prabodhinī
Addressing the doubt of how an offense committed by another can be considered as done by oneself, since such usage is well-known in the world, he says "yan nāmāni" (whose names). When a servant has committed an offense, people take the name of the master and criticize "This wicked deed was done by this very master through his servant, so he is wicked" - that criticism destroys the pre-existing fame of that master. He gives an example for this: "Like skin" - here disease means leprosy etc., just as it destroys the beauty etc. residing in the skin. (5)
Thus having justified that an offense committed by a servant is considered as done by oneself, and having indicated the loss of one's own fame if there is no punishment, suggesting the appropriateness of punishment, he also substantiates what was said "The supreme divine Brahman is mine" in these five verses. He whose fame is sweet like nectar, pure and free from all faults, immersion in hearing which immediately purifies the whole world extending even to dog-eaters (outcastes), I who am unobstructed everywhere, have obtained excellent fame that is like a holy place from you brahmins alone. If there is conduct opposed to you, I would cut off even my own arm - what to speak of servants etc. (6)
On whose lotus feet clings purifying dust, by which all impurity is immediately destroyed, by which good character is obtained - the wealth (Lakshmi) known for fickleness does not abandon even me who am detached, due to service to those brahmins. The connection is the same as before - "I would cut off even my own arm if there is conduct opposed to you." Addressing the doubt of what is so special about abandoning Lakshmi, he states her greatness: For even a glimpse of whom others like Brahma etc. undertake vows, meaning they perform austerities, vows etc. (7)
Moreover, I have two mouths - fire and the brahmin. Among those, the brahmin mouth is superior to fire. So by disrespecting you, my very mouth has been insulted - with this intent he says "nāham" (I do not). I do not eat from the mouth of the brahmin who eats each morsel, tasting the flavors, of the ghee-drenched oblation like porridge dripping in the sacrifice. He specifies the brahmin who is his mouth to distinguish from others: Satisfied with me, with the fruits of his own actions offered to me, meaning free from all desires and devoted to worshipping me. (8)
Hindī Anuvāda
When servants commit offenses, the world takes the name of their master. That infamy tarnishes their reputation, like a skin disease affects the skin. (5)
By immersing in the pure nectar of my good fame, the entire world up to the caṇḍāla (outcaste) immediately becomes purified, that's why I am called 'Vaikuṇṭha' (one who removes obstacles). But I have obtained this pure fame only from you people. Therefore, if anyone acts against you, even if it is my own arm, I will immediately cut it off. (6)
It is only by serving you people that my foot-dust has attained such purity that it instantly destroys all sins, and I have obtained such a beautiful nature that even when I remain indifferent, Lakshmi never leaves me even for a moment - although other deities like Brahma observe various rules and vows for just a glimpse of her grace. (7)
Those desireless brahmins who, having offered all their karma-fruits to me, always remain content, when they eat various dishes dripping with ghee, being satisfied with every morsel, I am not as satisfied through their mouths as I am when receiving oblations offered by the yajamāna (sacrificer) through the mouth of fire in a sacrifice. (8)
SB 3.16.5-8
