SB 10.53.37

All were completely overcome on seeing the excellent suitability of Kṛṣṇa and Rukmiṇī. They speak in three verses. Kṛṣṇa alone (asya eva), and no one else, is suitable to be his wife and no one else except Rukmiṇī is suitable as his wife. He alone and no other is most suitable (samucitaḥ) as a husband for Rukmiṇī alone, and no one else. There is not even a little unsuitability in others. This is a different way of asserting the same fact. To derive another meaning from one statement is considered to be a fault since an imaginary meaning is not respected. One will not be able to obtain the true meaning if a statement has various interpretations. It is said śabda-buddhi-karmānāṁ viramya vyapārābhavah: when the function of words has been understood in a sentence their use is finished (a statement should be made only once). (This quoted in Sāhitya-darpaṇa commentary 1.23) However, the conclusion is stated in Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary. Anudya-vidheya-bhedena vibhinnānām eva vākyānām saha prayogāt: various statements can be used to express the same meaning in different words. Generally one should not repeat a statement. However one can do so eloquently by using different words. Thus Rukmiṇī should be the wife of Kṛṣṇa alone, not the wife of someone else. That is the first statement. Rukmiṇī alone should be the wife of Kṛṣṇa. That is the second statement. By use of the word eva (alone) the statements become different and thus fault is avoided, like cleaning a sacrificial spoon with a piece of cloth (grahaṁ samarṣṭi, a term from Pūrva-mīmāṁsa raised in Śrīdhara Svāmī’s commentary). The utensils become the main object, and also serve a purpose in the sacrificial rites. Thus all those particular items known as grahas should be purified, not just one. If the meaning is otherwise, the action becomes meaningless. In this particular instance the meaning of the sentence should be repeated so that all the vessels are cleansed, even though the statement is general. Similarly, statements may be repeated in a slightly different manner and this will not produce fault. The main object is expressed first by general indication and purpose. It is indicated by the particularizing, secondary word eva in this verse. In the first statement Rukmiṇī is stated to be most suitable as the wife of only Kṛṣṇa with Kṛṣṇa’s possessiveness as the intention and purpose. In the second statement only Rukmiṇī is suitable as the wife of Kṛṣṇa, with emphasis on Rukmiṇī. As in the case of cleaning the utensils, there is no fault in repetition of the statement in a different way. The word eva should be understood to with both asya and bhaiṣmyāḥ to indicate that they are mutually qualified in the same way. (He alone is qualified for her and she alone is qualified for him.) The word anavadyātmā (completely faultless) should also modify both. This verse shows the great attraction of the people for both Rukmiṇī and Kṛṣṇa.