Devanagari
मन्त्रेषु मां वा उपहूय यत्त्व-
मकुण्ठिताखण्डसदात्मबोध: ।
पृच्छे: प्रभो मुग्ध इवाप्रमत्त-
स्तन्नो मनो मोहयतीव देव ॥ १७ ॥
Verse text
mantreṣu māṁ vā upahūya yat tvam
akuṇṭhitākhaṇḍa-sadātma-bodhaḥ
pṛccheḥ prabho mugdha ivāpramattas
tan no mano mohayatīva deva
Synonyms
mantreṣu
—
in consultations
;
mām
—
unto me
;
vai
—
as either
;
upahūya
—
by calling
;
yat
—
as much as
;
tvam
—
Your Lordship
;
akuṇṭhita
—
without hesitation
;
akhaṇḍa
—
without being separated
;
sadā
—
eternally
;
ātma
—
self
;
bodhaḥ
—
intelligent
;
pṛccheḥ
—
asked
;
prabho
—
O my Lord
;
mugdhaḥ
—
bewildered
;
iva
—
as if it were so
;
apramattaḥ
—
although never bewildered
;
tat
—
that
;
naḥ
—
our
;
manaḥ
—
mind
;
mohayati
—
bewilders
;
iva
—
as it is so
;
deva
—
O my Lord .
Translation
O my Lord, Your eternal Self is never divided by the influence of time, and there is no limitation to Your perfect knowledge. Thus You were sufficiently able to consult with Yourself, yet You called upon me for consultation, as if bewildered, although You are never bewildered. And this act of Yours bewilders me.
Translation (Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura)
O master! O Lord! You who are always full of knowledge, unaffected by time and complete, would call me for consultation and ask me, just as ignorant people would do, attentive to my advice. When you, though full of knowledge, act in this way, it bewilders my mind.
In various undertaking such as killing Jarāsandha or performing a rājasūya sacrifice, he would definitely call me and ask “Uddhava, tell me what I should do.” He was always aware of everything (sadātma-bodhaḥ) and was complete (akhaṇḍa), and not worn out by such things as time (akuṇthita). Though he possessed the samvit-śakti, he was like a fool, asking like a person who does not know. But he was not inattentive to the advice. Being at once ignorant and full of knowledge bewilders the mind indeed (iva). In this verse it is said he was like a fool.
One could explain that this means that he appeared like a fool but was not. Thus this is bewildering, but actually it only seems to be bewildering (iva). Thus there is no incongruity here. However, it would be useless to raise a point in the sentence where the statements are not contradictory, and therefore this type of explanation is rejected.
Purport
Uddhava was never actually bewildered, but he says that all these contradictions appear to be bewildering. The whole discussion between Kṛṣṇa and Uddhava was meant for the benefit of Maitreya, who was sitting nearby. The Lord used to call Uddhava for consultation when the city was attacked by Jarāsandha and others and when He executed great sacrifices as part of His routine royal work as Lord of Dvārakā. The Lord has no past, present and future because He is unhampered by the influence of eternal time and thus nothing is hidden from Him. He is eternally self-intelligent. Therefore His calling for Uddhava to give Him enlightenment is certainly astonishing. All these actions of the Lord appear to be contradictory, although there is no contradiction in the routine activities of the Lord. Therefore it is better to see them as they are and not attempt to explain them.