Verse 1.6.6-8

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of verse 1.6.6-8:

तस्मिन्न् अहनि केनापि वैमनस्येन वेश्मनः ।
अन्तः-प्रकोष्ठे सुप्तस्य प्रभोः पार्श्वं विहाय सः ॥ ६ ॥
अदूराद् देहली-प्रान्ते निविष्टः श्रीमद्-उद्धवः ।
बलदेवो देवकी च रोहिणी रुक्मिणी तथा ॥ ७ ॥
सत्यभामादयोऽन्याश् च देव्यः पद्मावती च सा ।
प्रवृत्ति-हारिणी कंस-माता दास्यस् तथा पराः ॥ ८ ॥

tasminn ahani kenāpi vaimanasyena veśmanaḥ |
antaḥ-prakoṣṭhe suptasya prabhoḥ pārśvaṃ vihāya saḥ || 6 ||
adūrād dehalī-prānte niviṣṭaḥ śrīmad-uddhavaḥ |
baladevo devakī ca rohiṇī rukmiṇī tathā || 7 ||
satyabhāmādayo'nyāś ca devyaḥ padmāvatī ca sā |
pravṛtti-hāriṇī kaṃsa-mātā dāsyas tathā parāḥ || 8 ||

Dejected for some reason that day, Bhagavān lay asleep inside the compound of the palace. Śrī Uddhava left Him alone and came to sit on a raised terrace a little distance away. Along with him, Śrī Baladeva, Śrī Devakī, Śrī Rohiṇī, Śrī Rukmiṇī, Śrī Satyabhāmā and other queens, as well as Padmāvatī, the mother of Kaṃsa and spoiler of one’s tendency to serve Bhagavān, and other maidservants were also present there.

Commentary: Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā with Bhāvānuvāda

(By Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī himself including a deep purport of that commentary)

The reason for Śrī Kṛṣṇa’s dejection will be determined later. By using the word kenāpi (for some reason), Śrī Parīkṣit Mahārāja considered it improper to elaborate on it at present. Or else, he feared that bewilderment might arise while narrating it. Therefore, Śrī Uddhava left the melancholic Lord sleeping alone inside the palace and quietly sat a little distance away on a raised terrace at the door. Śrī Baladeva and others also anxiously sat there.

Sā (she) refers to the notorious Padmāvatī who was also present. She is addressed here as notorious (prasiddhā), because she is that same mother of Kaṃsa whose chastity the demon Drumila[1] defiled by deceitfully posing as Ugrasena. Above all, she is addressed as pravṛtti-hāriṇī, because she “steals away the inclination to serve Bhagavān,” especially with gossipy kathā or tall tales and superficial, contrary arguments about Bhagavān. Therefore, she, or such persons like her, are understandably always present in the narration of Bhagavān’s pastimes.