The Discussion Between Jaḍa Bharata and Mahārāja Rahūgaṇa

The Tenth Chapter describes how King Rahūgana, understanding that the foul words he used to describe the carrier of the palanquin were not suitable for a great sage, got down from the palanquin and praised Bharata.

Bharata gave mercy to his brothers and neighbors who maintained him with rice and oil cakes, even though they were materialists filled with rajo-guṇa, by letting them see his form for a considerable period of time. He also gave mercy to the leader of the thieves, even though he was in deep tamo-guna, attached to sinful activities, and had beaten Bharata, because he arranged for thief’s liberation in the next life because he saw himself and Kālī directly. And he gave mercy to King Rahūgana who was in sattva-guṇa, being a jñānī, even though the King made him carry the palanquin through a manifestation of rajo-guṇa suitable to the position of a king. Because the King did not show rajas or tamas, and shows sattva, Bharata revealed bhakti and jñāna to the King. He did not reveal this to his brothers or the thieves. The story begins in order to reveal this. It should be explained that though, as paramahaṁsa, one should see everything equally, mercy manifests from one’s being a great devotee. Some say the story is told to explain how, by the mercy of the Lord, Bharata’s own bhakti, jñāna and vairāgya were multiplied a hundred times.

Rahūgana was King the states of Sindhu and Sauvīra. The leader of the carriers (tat-kula-patinā) was searching for another carrier. Bharata had well-nourished limbs and was strong. Thinking that he was capable (alam,) he forcibly engaged him.

Bharata moved only after glancing three feet ahead to avoid violence to ants. The movement of the men was not synchronized.

The carriers heard abusive (sopālambham) words of the King (īśvara). The fourth method among sāma, dāna, bheda and daṇòa is punishment.

We are not inattentive, but follow your orders.

The King addressed him as brother with sarcasm. Saḍghaṭtinaḥ means associates. By taking the opposite meaning of the words, the King criticized Bharata. You are not tired, because you have just started carrying the palanquin. You are well-nourished with strong limbs, and you are young. Are you showing deceit to me, the King, by saying “I cannot carry the palanquin in a regular way with these other carriers” even though they are moving in unison? Though he was abused, he remained silent and continued to carry the palanquin. The reason is given. He was not covered with a false conception of I and mind in his final body made of the five gross elements, the senses, pious and sinful results, and the antaḥkaraṇa, which was insubstantial since he had no relationship with it, though it was real. He had attained brahma-bhūtaḥ.

Actually Bharata, like Śukadeva, had a spiritual body which was not destructible. It was eternal. Because of the arousal of prema at this time, he actually did not have possessiveness for anything except the Lord. However, because of not attaining direct service to the Lord in that body at that moment, he manifested humility produced from increased longing, and therefore did not want to offer his sense of “I” to the Lord. Because of this, Bharata made a show of having a material body, even though he was full of knowledge. Therefore Śukadeva also describes him as if he had a material body, if one takes the superficial meaning of the words. The last phrase appears to mean “

in his final body made of the gross elements, senses, karma, and antaḥkaraṇa, produced by māyā—a body which was insubstantial, though having a particular appearance.” However, it should be explained that his real opinion is that Bharata had a spiritual body. Thus the phrase avidyayāracita-dravya-guuṇa-karmāśaya-sva-carama-kalevare actually means “in his eternal body that remained after all previous bodies had been destroyed, which was not made of (avidyā aracita) material elements, senses, karma and antaḥkaraṇa.” Or svacarame can mean be su acarame kalevare, an exalted body. Instead of avastuni, the word can be vastuni, with no sandhi. Then it means the body was absolute, since it was devoid of prārabdha-karma. That body possessed Vaikuṇṭha-loka (saṁsthāna-viśeṣe). He simply acted like a material person out of humility arising from prema. He had no sense of identification with me and mine.

Abaddham means incoherent. Anuviddhena means “mixed with.” The King had criticized the perfect (aśesa) devotee (bhagavat-priya-niketam). Bharata was the very form of being the friend of all beings. This means that he was merciful even to those who offended him. The King thought that he was learned. He had a little knowledge, but thought he knew everything. The King did not know much about the conduct of great yogīs, such as acting dull. Bharata smiled, thinking “The King thinks he is a jñānī, but he speaks like a fool.” Iva indicates that the smile did not manifest externally. Bharata was without pride in being a jñānī.

I will show mercy to this person who thinks he has knowledge by defeating him with knowledge. This is expressed by contrary statements. You have said that I am not tired and have not come a long way. That is not incorrect. It is not sarcasm. If the burden of the palanquin carrier (bhartuḥ) belonged to me, then it would be sarcasm. Since I am different from my body, I am not the carrier. If the destination of the traveler or the path of the traveler belonged to me, then it would be sarcasm. Calling me well-nourished belongs to the body (raśau) of the living entities. It is not the talk of persons in knowledge. It is true that I am well-nourished, but for me as a conscious soul, it is slander.

Not only am I a well-nourished, but no bodily quality belongs to me. One who is born with a body, the jīva who identifies with a body, certainly has all these qualities. I do not, since I do not identify with the body.

You have said that I am living but dead. If you are defining me in terms of bodily identity, then living but being dead do not belong to me only. Everything seen is a transformation, since transformation takes place at every moment, with a beginning and end. You said that I am disobeying the order of the master. The states of servant (sva) and master (svāmya) exist. When these are fixed, then one can say “This person is fit to carry the palanquin.” Ucyate can mean “it is said” or “It is suitable.” If you give up the kingdom and I obtain the kingdom, then I make you carry the palanquin and say “What is this?”

“As long as I am king, I am the master.” I do not see even a little opportunity (vivaram) for distinction of servant and master other than convention. But if you have such an identity, what should I do for you?

You have said you will punish me for being inattentive. What do you hope to accomplish by verbally or physically punishing a person who is situated in Brahman (sva-saṁsthām), though he may appear to be mad, for liberated persons do not accept either what is useful or not useful? If I am not liberated but mad and dull (stabdha), by your punishment (śikṣitena) you are grinding what is already ground. Just as by pounding powder you do not recreate a solid object, but finer powder, by punishing the mad person one does not pacify madness, but one makes him more insane.

Bharata answered the King by explanations with repetition of the King’s statements. Bharata had destroyed the cause of identification with the body (anātmya), ignorance. “If Bharata had no material identification, why did he appear to be unable to tolerate the King’s words and thus answer him?” In order to destroy the King’s prārabdha-karma recognized by enjoyment of royal wealth and power, in the guise of repeating the King’s statements, by following the process of bhakti taught by Bharata by his mercy, the King could destroy his karmas. Or, another meaning is “He thought he was destroying his own karmas by this experience, carrying the palanquin (upabhogena), since he did not consider himself a devotee, due to humility produced by prema.”

Adhikṛtādhikāraḥ means “he had attained qualification.”

Who are you among the brāhmaṇas, since you wear the thread? Are you Dattātreya, the avadhūta? Whose son are you? Which state were you born in (kutratyaḥ)? If you have come to benefit us, are you not Nārāyaṇa? Or are you not Kapila (śukla)?

“Sitting on your palanquin, what is the use reflecting in this way?” If they try to kill me in battle with their weapons, I am not afraid, since I have my natural courage. Rather I experience joy in such competition. Or, having offended them, I do not fear them when they attack me in anger with their weapons.

Therefore please speak, and say who you are. “I am your palanquin bearer.” Enough with trying to fool me! I know that you are a great yogī, because your words about yoga cannot be understood by my mind. Or, words concerning the yoga process, the teachings of the great yogīs, have not been able cut my doubts, since I am very tough, though I desired to understand those words with my attentive mind, without argument. But my doubts have been cut by your answers today.

The chief among the great yogīs will be able to cut my doubts. That is indicated in this verse. Sakṣat hari means Kapiladeva who appeared for giving knowledge as a portion of the Lord’s jñāna.

Are you (kim svit) Kapiladeva? The person with blind intelligence refers to himself, the king.

The King thought, “I will begin questioning Kapiladeva. Having met him on the road, I will first reject his answers, and in that way discover all that I asked about him.” First Bharata said he was not tired. The King inferred as follows. You become tired by carrying a load since you are the doer. The doer becomes tired, just as I become tired when I fight. One cannot say “That this is how people speak in the world, but spiritual people do not talk in this manner” since one cannot uproot practical existence. If one says “Bring water by means of the pot” one cannot bring water using a non-existent pot. Material existence is approved (iṣṭaḥ) as real (sa-mūlaḥ). Thus by inference, the material world is real, because of real objects and real doers. What is not real does not have objects and doers. If the world is unreal, there is no pot and no one to carry the water.

An example is given to illustrate that the ātmā becomes tired because of fatigue of the body and senses from carrying a load. Because of the heat of fire on a pot, the milk within it becomes hot. Because of the heat of the milk the outer portion of the rice becomes hot. Then the inside of the rice grains becomes cooked. Similarly, because of relationship with the body, senses, life airs and mind, saṁsāra of the ātmā occurs. Asu means life air and āśaya means the mind. This takes place from successive effects on the coverings of the ātmā (anurodhāt). For instance, because of the sun’s heat, the body becomes hot. The senses then become hot. Then the life airs and the mind become hot. Then the ātmā becomes hot.

You have said “If the states of servant and master were permanent…” Even if these conditions are impermanent, when a person is the king, he is the punisher and protector of the citizens. You have said “giving punishment to a dull person has no effect, like grinding already ground flour.” But a servant of the Lord like me does not act uselessly since, even if a person’s dullness does not go away by punishment, by fulfilling the order of the Lord, one becomes successful. The king, in following his prescribed dharma, by punishing the citizens, which is worship of the Lord, destroys all his sins.

Since your statements appear to me to contrary, glance upon me with affection. I have been intoxicated with false identity as a king, thinking myself learned, and being falsely proud. Because of this I have offended the greatest devotee. I thought, “What do these people know?” Because of this I will fall to hell. Thinking in this way, show an affection glance to me, by which I will be able to cross the sin of insulting the devotees.

“But I do not suffer becomes of your offense. What is the question of counteracting it?” Even though you are not disturbed (tavāpi na vikriyā), persons like me get destroyed. Even persons like Śiva are affected.

nāścaryam etad yad asatsu sarvadā

mahad-vinindā kuṇapātma-vādiṣu

serṣyaṁ mahāpūruṣa-pāda-pāṁsubhir

nirasta-tejaḥsu tad eva śobhanam

It is not surprising that the materialists, claiming that the gross body is the soul, constantly criticize the devotees with envy and become deprived of their powers by the dust from the feet of the great devotees. That glory of that criticism is the result it gives. SB 4.4.13

Thus ends the commentary on the Tenth Chapter of the Fifth Canto of the Bhāgavatam for the pleasure of the devotees, in accordance with the previous ācāryas.