Krishna – the Eternal Ideal

Please welcome guest writer* Dr Harsh Chaturvedi, currently at the Department of Physics at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune. Harsh holds a Doctorate in Optical Science and Engineering from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.  His blog post is a far cry from his dissertation which was on “Photon Induced Effects in Molecular Assemblies of Single Walled Carbon Nanotubes”!! Recently honoured with the Ramanujan Fellowship by Department of Science and Technology (DST, India), Harsh is deeply interested in and inspired by Indian Philosophy. One of the most enlightened Hindus I have had the pleasure of interacting with, you can follow him on Twitter @hchaturv 

Philosophy of Upanishads is characterized by a rational temper, a passion for the welfare of the human beings and spirit of harmony which applied to whole world and every human being. Though impersonal abstract, aspects of this philosophy have been personified idealized by galaxy of personalities born in this land, our motherland. Among these Ram and Krishna have been the brightest ones who have influenced the Indian thought life and culture in many profound ways.  Krishna means 'black'. Krishna was also beautiful hence we call him as "Shyamsundara' the 'black-beautiful'. One "beautiful" who has mesmerized us for generations the 'black' has been an enigma too for thousands of years.  This land has produced the greatest of men, the kings, Gyanis, yogis, how many of them we remember today? There has to be something eternal to life of these that withstood the test of time not over just centuries but thousands of years and under dynamically changing society with varied interests. He was as relevant then as he is now.  HE is not burden on history but is breath of our society, living through traditions and times.

Krishna has entered, not only into religion and philosophy, but also into mysticism poetry painting sculpture music dancing and all aspects of Indian folkfore. To say the least he has mesmerized a whole generations. Where else can one seek the reason of this then in his great character and noble life? And yet, it is strange irony that no other person in India's history and culture has been subjected to foul criticism based on either incomplete incorrect understanding of facts available, if not a deliberate distortion of the same to serve an ulterior purpose.

We come across several Krishnas in the scriptures. The Rigveda (1.116.23) mentions one Krishna, the father of Visvakya. The last mandal of same work (10.42-44) attributes two suktas to sage Krishna. We also find mention of Krishna Angirasa in Kausitaki Brahmana (30.9) and a Krishna Harita in Aitareya Aranyaka (3.26). Then there is Krishna Dvaipayana also called Vyasa, the celebrated author of epic Mahabharata. It can safely be assumed none of these Krishnas is the Krishna, as we know him. However, the Chandogya Upanishad (3.17.6) mentions Krishna -Devakiputra as a disciple of Ghora Angiras, by whom Krishna was taught the science of Purusayajna. It is very likely this is same Krishna the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. However, even at the time of epic Mahabharata, Krishna was well known not only as a very great person but even deserving worship as manifestation of the divine. As a matter of fact, Indian scholars D.S Triveda and K.S.Narayanachar conclude the date of Mahabharata to be 3206 B.C and 3067 B.C.

There are four primary source of Krishna 's story - the Mahabharata and its adjunct Harivamsa, the Vishnupurana and Bhagvata. The story is also referred in Brahmapurana, PadmaPurana and Brahmavaivarta-purana. In Mahabharat, Krishna appears for the first time during the marriage of Draupadi with the Pandavas. Though casual references about his earlier life have been mentioned no details are given. To make up for this Harivamsa was added as adjunct, later. It is fairly long work of over 16000 verses and deals with story of Krishna in great detail in section called Vishnuparva. Vishnupurana (300 AD, 6000 verses) is one of earliest puranas and deals with the story of Krishna in fifth section. Bhagvata (600 AD; 18000 verses) seems to be expanded version of the Vishnupurana dealing in much great detail.

Whether Krishna Vasudeva was "Super" Human being or God Incarnate there is no gainsaying in fact that he has been ruling hearts of millions of hindus for over three millennia. If a person can make such a profound impact on the Hindu race affecting its psyche and ethos and all aspects of its life for centuries he is no less than the God. And the Hindus do believe that he was an avtara. An Avtara or incarnation of God is not a product of history but creates it shapes it. The primary purpose of avtara as Krishna himself has stated in Gita (4.7, 8) is to re-establish dharma or righteousness on a firm foundation. Throughout his life, Krishna sole concern was dharma to uphold it, to protect it and to reassert its supremacy and to unravel its mystery whenever it became inscrutable.

Dharma becomes just an ethereal concept unless it lives in the minds and hearts of human beings expressed through actions. Krishna’s life shows his concern for everybody around with no discrimination. The care he bestowed on cowherds of Vrindavan , curing Kubja,  protecting honour of Draupadi or his bestowal of wealth on the poor Kucela, washing sudama's feet and so many more incidences, all reveal his grace. Krishna though possessing heart "softer than a flower" could exercise terrific valour in defence of dharma. In fact he was the strongest man and the greatest warrior of his times. He knew no fear nor tasted defeat at any time in his life. He killed demons even as a toddler, he was the one requested not to take up arms himself from either side in Great War of Mahabharata.

All the same he was not the war-monger. He was a master statesman, skilled in the art of peace too. He was interested in peace, but not the cost of dharma. There is a common belief that brain and brawn cannot go together. But Krishna was extraordinary exception. His scholarship in the Vedic lore secular sciences, politics arts was renowned. His three Gitas the BhagvadGita, the Anugita and the Uddhavagita are standing monuments to his learning and wisdom. Intelligence and learning do not necessarily lead to culture and refinement. Arrogance is a more common result. But Krishna was a perfect gentleman. When he killed Kansa or got Jarasandha eliminated, he put Ugrasena and Sahadeva on thrones. He was the first to honour elders, brahmans and sages. Even in the face of grave provocation he could be calm; the remarkable tolerance he exhibited towards the cantankerous Sisupala or Duryodhana is a case to the point.

Krishna was not only a philosopher but an accomplished Yogi or mystic as well; hence the epithet 'Yogesvara'. The Bhagvata narrates several incidents where in he has displayed yogic powers. Mysticism and activism rarely go together; but in Krishna, they did. From cradle to grave, his life was one continuum of dynamic activity; but always for the good of others and never for himself. He was very personification of selflessness, he lived ever for others.   Krishna as a rule followed old customs and time honoured traditions but if in his judgement any custom needs to be altered he would unhesitatingly do so.  He stopped worship of Indra by cow herds and substituted with worshipping cows and Govardhan hill which were backbone of their agrarian society.

Above all, Krishna was intensely human. He responded to every human emotion in an appropriate way. His parents Devaki Vasudeva, his foster parents Yasoda and Nanda his mates at Gokula and Vrindavan the Gopis, his wives like Rukmini and Satyabhama, the Pandavas the elders of Hastinapur, even cows, horses in fact everyone that came in touch with him was never left untouched by his magic. It is but natural he was called 'Purusottama' the best of human beings.

Does Krishna who staked his life to defend and protect weak defenceless ones, himself need

defence? It appears so, on the face of it, if only we look at the spate of criticism and abuses heaped upon him by the aliens to Indian culture or de-cultured Indians themselves, who are aliens in their own society. At the outset, one thing has to be made clear. The criticisms levelled against Krishna are based on the story as depicted in the Mahabharata and the Bhagvata. These two works have declared not just the greatness the divinity of Krishna in no uncertain terms calling him as the supreme lord Himself. If the detractors of Krishna accept as true only those parts of these works that come in handy for their criticism and conveniently ignore the rest , they are no wiser than the guy who wanted to cut an egg into two halves , keep one half for hatching chicken and use the other for eating !

The criticisms fall under two broad categories: those pertaining to his relationship with the gopis of Vrindavan and those related to the various stratagems he adopted to get victory for the Pandavas. The former is related to well- known incidents as given in Bhagvata: gopivastrapaharana (snatching away clothes of Gopis) and Rasalila. Neither the Vishnupurana nor Harivamsa refers to first episode. Second is dealt with in all three works.

In the first incidence, the gopis were kumarikas (10.22.1) undergoing Katayanivrata (10.22.4) and Krishna was just seven years old (vide 10.26.3) Hope that gives perspective to perverted minds. Having seen for themselves all the super-human acts of Krishna from babyhood, it was gopis who were convinced of his greatness and divinity. This attitude of soul towards divine is well known as kantabhava or madhurbhava in the works on devotion and mysticism.  It is very much present in Christianity and Sufism too.  One who wants to approach God should eschew astapasas or eight infirmities that bind a soul like ghrina (hatred)  sanka (doubts) bhaya (fear) lajja ( shame) and so on. What is depicted here is just symbolic of this of total surrender of jivas or souls to God by giving up all bonds of life; and hence should be studied in the proper perspective.  The five chapters 29 to 33 of the tenth skandha of the Bhagvata are called Rasapancadhyayi and deals exclusively with Krishna’s play with the Gopis.  And summary of the concluding part of section is stricken with remorse the gopis wail and wander pine for and pray for HIM.  After chastising them thus Krishna reappears in their midst to their great delight and dances the Rasa, multiplying himself so that each gopi has her own Krishna at same time. All the while, the people at the home of gopis have not missed them at all ! They continue to exist physically there too. Was it a play of ordinary mortal paramour or divine sport between Jiva and Shiva?  Many a mystic both of the East and the West, have cultivated this type of love towards the divine.  Andal,  Akka Mahadevi and Mira of India, St. Teresa of Avila of Spain and Rabiya of Basra , Iraq are well known mystics who prove this point.

All this is from the subjective standpoint of Krishna and the blessed gopis. From the objective standpoint did not Krishna transgress dharma? If yes, has he not set a bad example to the world for centuries?  This is exactly the question that the king Pariksit put to sage Suka, the narrator of the Bhagvata (vide 10.33.27-29) Suka in reply classifies men into three groups: the Isvaras (Lords, Incarnations), the jivanmuktas (the liberated ones) and the ordinary people.

Those who realize God in this very life are called jivanmuktas. According to the Hindu scriptures like the Upanishads, they have transcended even dharma and hence are not bound by the dos and don’ts of this world.  (Kausitaki Upanishad 3.1). These jivanmuktas get that power by meditating on the lotus feet of God. Then, what to speak of Krishna the Lord Himself! The acts of such Isvaras cannot be should not be emulated by ordinary beings. If someone can do all that Krishna did, then and only then, he like Krishna can take liberties to define the dharma!

Krishna is true to his words: “In whichever way people approach me, in the same way do I respond” If we approach him as ‘problem-Krishna’ he will create more problems. On other hand, if we approach him as the divine incarnate in human form, ever gracious he will solve all our problems, cut our karmic bondages, bestows grace and answers our prayers. The innumerable mystics and devotees of Krishna over the centuries are the standing proof of this. The one who inspired so many ideal lives can he be just an ordinary womaniser, a failed human? How can we mortals comprehend the divine Sun, when likes of Swami Vivekananda are just moon reflecting HIS divine wisdom and grace dispelling darkness of gloom and ignorance. Words can’t suffice to describe the one, whose birth itself was divinity in action. “Under the divine spell, the gates of the prison opened up, the guards slept and Yamuna ji made way for the transportation of the divine infant.”

- Janmashtami. 2013.

[The article is in spirit inspired, edited, borrowed from Swami Harshanandaji ‘s book “All about KRSNA” RK Math, Bangalore. Indebted to him. All credits to him, any fallacies or misrepresentation will be due to my limitations for which I humbly, take the responsibility.]

* I may or may not agree with the views of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard

Kaṃsa’s Destruction: Sandhi Practice

So far all our stories did not display sandhi. Now that we are learning sandhi, I thought it might be useful to do some stories both in and out of sandhi till we complete this section. Simply by observing the difference in the sentences, you will begin to get a feel. Once we finish sandhi, I will post the rules for ready reference. Since the focus is sandhi, I will not be specifying gender, number, case, tense as I normally do. I trust you are fairly familiar with these by now. If you are new to the blog, please see earlier posts in Aug/Sept. In any case, if you have any doubts/queries/observations,  please leave a comment or write to me. 

Kaṃsa was on his seat

कंसः पीठे आसीत्

कंसः  पीठ आसीत् 

The visarga, as in कंसः is not dropped before the 'p' प् of the next word

The locative marker ए of  पीठम् is dropped before आ of the next word

He saw the death of Cāṇūra

सः चाणूरम् मृतम् अपश्यत्

सश्चाणूरं मृतमपस्यत्

The visarga of सः becomes a श् before the च्

The 'm' at the end of Cāṇūra has become an anusvāra* before the म् of the next word.

"Shortly, I will kill Krishna" Kaṃsa said

अचिरेण कृष्णम् व्यापादयिष्यामि इति कंसः अवदत्

अचिरेण कृष्णं व्यापादयिष्यामीति कंसो ऽवदत् 

The 'm' of कृष्णम् becomes an anusvāra before the 'v' of the next word. 

The इ at the end of व्यापादयिष्यामि joins the इ of 'iti' to become an ई 

The visarga of  कंसः becomes and 'o' and the अ of अवदत् is dropped and marked by an avagraha**

Krishna jumped towards/at Kaṃsa 

कृष्णः कंसम् प्रति प्लवनम् अकरोत्

कृष्णः कंसं प्रति प्लवनमकरोत्

The visarga of कृष्णः is retained before the 'k' of the next word

The 'm' at the end of  कंसम् becomes an anusvāra before the following consonant

The 'm' of प्लवनम् joins with the अ of अकरोत् to make a full 'ma' म

lit. Kaṃsa's hair are grabbed by  Krishna

कंसस्य केशाः कृष्णेन गृहीताः सन्ति

No sandhi changes take place in this sentence. Note that  both before the 'k' and the 's', the visarga is retained. 

Krishna threw Kaṃsa from his seat to the ground

कृष्णः कंसम् पीठात् भूमिम् प्रति अक्षिपत्

कृष्णः कंसं पीठाद्भुमिं प्रत्यक्षिपत् 

Anusvāra end of कंसम्

The 't' of पीठात् becomes a 'd' द् before the 'bh' of भूमिम्, and combines with it 

The 'i' of प्रति becomes a 'y' and combines with the 'a' of अक्षिपत् We did this only last Saturday, as you might recall. (Ref. Twitter session 5th October, soon to be posted on the blog)

lit. Kaṃsa became dead. (Kaṃsa died.)

कंसः मृतः अभवत्

कंसो मृतो ऽभवत्

Visarga of कंसः becomes 'o' before the 'm' of मृतः

Visarga of मृतः becomes 'o' and the 'a' of  अभवत् is replaced by an avagraha.

O my! O my! The people cried

अहो अहो इति जनाः अक्रोशन्

अहो अहो इति जना अक्रोशन्

Aho! Aho! is an exclamation of joyful (or painful) surprise. Please note that this expression is NOT subject to sandhi. For advanced students who are following this course to revise, the the rule for this in Panini's Astadhyayi is A.1.1.15.

The only sandhi change is the the visarga of  जनाः  is dropped before the 'a' of अक्रोशन्

Flowers fell from the sky

पुष्पाणि गगनात् अपतन्

पुष्पाणि गगनादपतन्

The 't' of गगनात् becomes a  'd' द् and combines with the following अ of अभवत् to make a full 'da' द 

Everywhere there was joy 

सर्वत्र आनन्दः आसीत्

सर्वत्रानन्द आसीत्  

The a of 'tra' combines with the 'aa' of आनन्दः 

The visarga of आनन्दः is dropped before the 'aa' of  आसीत् Please note that you can't do double sandhi. Once the visarga of आनन्दः has been dropped, you can't then join the da to the aa and make आनन्दासीत् !!

* anusvāra is the dot on top of the word which indicates a nasalisation

** avagraha is the 's' shaped mark which shows an elision - i.e. something has been removed that was here before. 

I would like to thank Dr. Alastair Gornall and the members of my Classical Sanskrit Course at SOAS for their help in clearing any doubts I have on grammar.

  

Sanskrit Grammar: Adjective+Noun agreement, with Vallabhācārya’s Madhuraṣṭakam

The 15th century bhakti saint wrote this octet in praise of the sweetness of Kṛṣṇa.

In the first verse, all the nouns are neuter - they end in 'm', and therefore all the adjectives describing them also end in 'm'. We understand each phrase to mean 'His' xyz attribute is sweet. However all that is written is sweet + xyz. Even the 'is' is assumed. So there is no 'asti' required.

अधरम् मधुरम्

sweet (lower lip) 

वदनम्  मधुरम् 

sweet face

नयनम् मधुरम्

sweet eye

हसितम् मधुरम्

sweet laughter

हृदयम् मधुरम्

sweet heart

गमनम् मधुरम्

sweet manner of going (trans. by most as gait, the way He walks)

मधुराधिपते: अखिलम् मधुरम्

Everything of the Lord of sweetness (is) sweet.

(It could be Lord of sweetness, or sweet Lord, depends how you interpret the compound)

When you hear this refrain, it sounds like मधुराधिपतेरखिलम् मधुरम्. That is because there are two sandhis taking place here: madhura+adhipati becomes मधुरधिपति, and  मधुराधिपते: is the 3rd person, masculine, genitive form - i.e. 'His' all, everything of His is sweet  (i.e. belonging to the Lord of sweetness). 

So far you have met the masc, genitive singular as Rāmasya or Kabandhasya. That is because they are 'a' ending nouns whereas pati is an 'i' ending noun fo which the genitive singular is पतेः. So after that long explanation, we come to the second sandhi - which is मधुरधिपतेः + अखिलम्, where the visarga reverts to a 'r' and combines with the 'a' of adhipati.

Now back to adjective+noun agreement. In verse 2 the nouns are neuter, like verse 1, so the adjective and noun both end in 'm'

वचनम् मधुरम्

sweet speech

चरितम् मधुरम्

sweet character

वसनम् मधुरम्

sweet garment (normally translated as clothes)

वलितम् मधुरम्

sweet posture*

चलितम् मधुरम्

sweet going (often translated as movement)

भ्रमितम् मधुरम्

sweet wandering

मधुरधितेरखिलम् मधुरम्

(Everything of the sweet Lord/Lord of sweetness is sweet)

* Valitam: This is a tricky one - if anyone has a solution, do write in: 'valita' in the neuter is pepper, and valita meaning a gesture or posture during dance is actually a masculine noun. So it seems to me that Vallabhācārya has shoe-horned this to fit the rhyme scheme. But if anyone has a better explanation, I would love to know your view.

Verse 3 is a combination of masculine and neuter nouns, and the adjective follow in lock-step, including the masculine dual पादौ, (two) feet. Some sandhi too in this verse, so I'll split it for you, as we haven't gone through it together yet.

वेणुर्मधुरो रेणुर्मधुरः

पाणिर्मधुरः पादौ मधुरौ

Masculine nouns:

वेणुः +मधुरः

sweet flute

रेणुः +मधुरः

sweet dust (normally understood to be the dust of the riverbank on his face...)

पाणिः+ मधुरः

sweet hand

पादौ +मधुरौ

sweet (two) feet

(You can tell by now that all translation is actually an act of interpretation too!!!)

Now the neuter nouns:

नृत्यम् मधुरम्

sweet dance

सख्यम् मधुरम्

sweet friendship (intimacy with)

मधुरधितेरखिलम् मधुरम्

Verse 4 (neuter nouns)

गीतम् मधुरम्

sweet song

पीतम् मधुरम्

sweet drinking (the way He drinks?)

भुक्तम् मधुरम्

sweet (way of) eating

सुप्तम् मधुरम्

sweet sleep (way of sleeping?)

रूपम् मधुरम्

sweet form

तिलकम् मधुरम्

sweet tilaka

मधुरधितेरखिलम् मधुरम्

(Everything of the sweet Lord is sweet)

Verse 5

करणम्  मधुरम्

sweet deeds/doings

तरणम्  मधुरम्

sweet... तरणम् comes from √tṛ meaning to cross over, from which we get the Hindi words तीर्थ and तैरना. so तरणम् could be crossing over, it could be swimming. I've even seen it translated as 'conquest' - again, I'd love to know how, if anyone has any ideas.

हरणम्  मधुरम्

sweet act of stealing (the heart??) or carrying away

रमणम्  मधुरम् 

sweet joy (रमणम् is often used in a sexual sense)

वमितम्  मधुरम् 

sweet ... well the dictionary meaning is to eject, so I'm going to take this as 'exude' - anything that comes out of his body

शमितम्  मधुरम्

sweet appeasement (from √शम्, from which we also get शान्त and शङ्कर)

मधुराधिपतेरखिलम्  मधुरम्

Verse 6 has feminine nouns as well as neuter. You can tell the feminine by the fact that the adjective will always end in 'aa' even if the noun doesn't as in वीचि मधुरा :

गुञ्जा मधुरा

गुञ्जा I have seen translated as a bunch of flowers, which I think is wrong, because that is a masculine noun (गुञ्ज) and also there is no association of Krishna with a bunch of flowers - a garland yes, bunch of flowers, not to the best of my knowledge. In the feminine sense, it could be berry, a kind of drum, or humming. I would take this as berry, because of the gunjaa beads and their association with Krishna)

माला मधुरा

sweet garland

यमुना मधुरा 

sweet Yamuna 

वीचि मधुरा 

sweet ripple (of the Yamuna?)

सलिलं मधुरं 

sweet water(s) (neuter)

कमलं मधुरं

Now, here it could be the obvious Lotus because of the association with Vishnu. Let me know if you have any other ideas...

मधुरधितेरखिलम् मधुरम्

Verse 7

गोपी मधुरा 

sweet cowherd-girl (if you have seen this translated in plural, it's wrong, because gopi declines the same way as nadi, and the plural 'gopi-s' would be  गोप्यः. Please see tables on themotherindia.com)

लीला मधुरा

sweet sport/play

युक्तम् मधुरम्

sweet union (a past participle as an adjective... united, joined)

मुक्तम् मधुरम्

sweet release (again, past participle... released)

दृष्टम् मधुरम्

sweet ... दृष्टम् is an neuter noun derived from the past participle दृष्ट meaning seen - and I'm not sure if it is the act of 'me' being seen by Krishna, or me seeing Krishna. Any thoughts?

शिष्टम् मधुरम्

sweet behaviour/conduct. The noun comes from शिष्ट  which is a past participle from √शास्, meaning to instruct/rule. So he who is instructed (in Vedic teaching/way of life) = शिष्ट which is a very important concept in Vedic thinking, and we often hear of it as शिष्टाचार. Also from the same root is shaastri, shaasan... but I digress...

And finally!! Verse 8

गोपा मधुरा (see below)

गावो मधुरा (see below)

यष्टिर्मधुरा सृष्टिर्मधुरा* 

दलितं मधुरं फलितं मधुरं

sweet destruction, sweet fruition

मधुराधिपतेरखिलम् मधुरम्

गोपा मधुरा

Now this is in plural although gopa could have been singular. But if it was, then the connected adjective would be मधुरः not madhuraa. So you must analyse everything carefully when you translate. What's happening here is that गोपाः the nominative masculine plural (like RaamaaH see table on themotherindia.com) is losing its visarga before the 'm' of madhuraa, by the rules of sandhi; Likewise, the visarga of मधुराः the corresponding adjective of गोपाः is losing its visarga before the 'g' of गावः

गावो मधुरा 

(His) cows are sweet. Here the visarga of  गावः which is the nominative, masculine plural of गो, the stem meaning cow/ox is being lost before the 'm' of मधुराः by the rules of sandhi, and as above, मधुराः is losing it's visarga before the 'y' of यष्टिः 

यष्टिर्मधुरा=यष्टिः + मधुरा  

his staff is sweet

यष्टिः is the 3rd person feminine nominative singular of यष्टि and declines like मति which is why it has a visarga, normally seen on masculine nouns. 

Similarly सृष्टिर्मधुरा=सृष्टिः+मधुरा
His creation is sweet. सृष्टिः is the 3rd person feminine nominative singular of सृष्टि and also declines like मति

Krishna: The lifting of the mountain

Continuing the series of stories which show the ascendancy of Krisha and the decline of the early Vedic gods: Krishna-Govardhana: I am only translatibg what I think we haven't met before. If you have any doubts, please leave a message on feedback, or send me a message on twitter. Thanks.

(This story can be found on pg 145 of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of Śrimad Bhāgvatam)

हे गोपालाः इन्द्रः न परमेश्वरः इति कृष्णः वदति

O cowherds, Indra is not the Supreme Being, says Krishna. 

( इति is the equivalent of quotation marks in English. When you see it, you can be pretty sure that direct speech is being used. Someone has said something, in this case, Krishna)

इन्द्रः कुपितः भवति

Indra becomes angry

वर्षाः भविष्यन्ति इति इन्द्रः वदति

The rains shall be (lit. become; means - it shall rain), says Indra (note the use of इति) 

मेघाः आगच्छन्ति 

The clouds come (मेघाः masculine, nominative, plural of 'megha' meaning cloud)

वर्षाः पुनः पुनः पतन्ति

The rains fall again and again (meaning it rains continuously)

कृष्णः हस्तेन अचलम् उद्धरति

Krishna lifts the mountain by his hand (lit. in English we would say with his hand. A mountain is called अचल, because it is that which does not move. Here it is in the accusative case -
Krishna अचल को = अचलम् )

गोपालाः कृष्णम् आगच्छन्ति

The cowherds come to Krishna

गोपालाः वर्षेभ्यः रक्षिताः सन्ति

The cowherds are protected from the rains - वर्षेभ्यः is the masculine, ablative plural.Please see the tables Mihir has uploaded on themotherindia.com

इन्द्रः कृष्णाय नमति

Indra bows to Krishna (In short he admits defeat)

कृष्णस्य मित्रम् भविष्यामि इति इन्द्रः वदति 

I (shall) become Krishna's friend, Indra says (please note the use of इति)

Story no. 6: Brahmā hides the cowherds and the calves

For this story, see pg 88 of Vol 3 of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Śrimad Bhāgvatam

For those of you who are interested in the History of Hinduism, this story, and the giridhara story in which Krishna protects his community from the rain (i.e. Indra) by holding up a mountain, are meant to demonstrate the ascendency of Krishna as a deity, and the superseding of Vedic deities like Indra and Brahmā by him.

1981 ed.

कृष्णः गोपालाः च वने खादन्ति

Krishna and the cowherds eat in the forest

Notice that the  च comes after both the things it connects.

कृष्णः 3rd person, nominative, masculine, singular 

गोपालाः 3rd person, nominative, masculine, plural

च and

वने locative case of 'vana', in the forest

खादन्ति - (they) eat, from √खाद्, agreeing with गोपालाः (along with कृष्णः as part of the plural group even though he is in singular)  

गोपालानाम् वत्साः दूरे चरन्ति

The calves of the cowherds are grazing at a distance

गोपालानाम् 3rd person, genitive, plural of 'gopala' - of the cowherds

वत्साः 3rd person, nominative, plural - calves

दूरे in the distance - locative case

चरन्ति - (they) graze, from √चर्, agreeing with वत्साः/calves

पितामहेन वत्साः तिरोहिताः सन्ति

(The) calves are hidden by Brahmā (पितामहः is another way to add

-ress Brahmā)

पितामहेन 3rd person, masculine, instrumental case - by 'Pitamah' 

वत्साः 3rd person, nominative, plural - the calves

तिरोहिताः (are) hidden, past participle acting as an adjective, agreeing with वत्साः

सन्ति are; verb in the 3rd person, plural, agreeing with वत्साः

कृष्णः वत्सान् न कुत्रचित् पश्यति

Krishna does not see the calves anywhere

कृष्णः 3rd person, masculine, singular

वत्सान् 3rd person, masculine plural, accusative - calves को (I'd like to flag this accusative form. As a Hindi speaker when I was learning Sanskrit, I had to train myself to use the accusative form all the time. Hopefully you wont have the same issue!)

न कुत्रचित् - not anywhere

पश्यति - sees, from √पश्, agreeing with Krishna

पितामहेन गोपालाः तिरोहिताः सन्ति

The cowherds are hidden by Brahmā

पितामहेन 3rd person, masculine, instrumental, case -by Him

गोपालाः 3rd person, nominative, plural - cowherds

तिरोहिताः past participle agreeing with गोपालाः

सन्ति are, from √as, to be - (they) are

कृष्णः गोपालान् न कुत्रचित् पश्यति

Krishna does not see the cowherds anywhere

कृष्णः 3rd person, masculine, singular

गोपालान् 3rd person, masculine plurar, accusative (cowherds को)

न कुत्रचित् - not anywhere

पश्यति - sees, from √पश्, agreeing with Krishna

सः नवान् गोपालान् करोति

He makes (lit. does) new cowherds

सः He 

नवान् new - adjective agreeing with the 3rd person, masculine, plural accusative, gopalaan

गोपालान् 3rd person, masculine, plural accusative (cowherds को)

करोति - does, makes, creates - from √kṛ, agreeing with Krishna

सः नवान् वत्सान् करोति

Same as sentence above, except here he creates/makes new calves

पितामहः नवान् वत्सान् पश्यति

Brahmā sees (the) new calves

पितामहः  नवान् गोपालान् पश्यति  

Brahmā sees (the) new cowherds

पितामहः कृष्णाय नमति

Brahmā bows to Krishna

कृष्णाय dative,3rd person, masculine, singular (Krishna ko)

 नमति - verb from√नम् agreeing with Brahmā (he) bows

तिरोहिताः वत्साः पुनः आगच्छन्ति

The hidden calves come again

तिरोहिताः गोपालाः  पुनः आगच्छन्ति

The hidden cowherds come again