45 verses
The King said: O brāhmaṇa! How did the Lord, the best friend of all beings, who is equal and affectionate to all beings, kill the demons for Indra as if partial?
The Lord who has a form of pure bliss has nothing to gain from siding with the devatās. And the Lord, because he is without material qualities, cannot have hatred or fear of the demons.
One cannot say that the Lord will derive happiness from the devatās and thus side with them. He has a svarūpa (ātmā) of the highest bliss (niḥśreyasa). Nothing else can produce happiness in him. And one cannot say that the disturbances of the demons make him suffer, and that thus he hates them. He has no anxiety from demons and no hatred of them because he is beyond the guṇas.
O greatly fortunate sage! You should dispel this great doubt I have concerning the favoritism and ill-will of Nārāyaṇa.
Guṇān means Nārāyaṇas displaying of favoring and disfavoring.
gīyate paramaṁ puṇyam ṛṣibhir nāradādibhiḥ natvā kṛṣṇāya munaye kathayiṣye hareḥ kathām
Śukadeva said: O great King! You have asked the correct question, because in answer to that question the astonishing activities of the Lord, which increase bhakti and glorify devotees, are sung by sages like Nārada. Offering respects to Vyāsadeva, I will speak about the Lord.
This is the correct questions because (yat) by that question the activities of the Lord must necessarily be described to answer you. Kṛṣṇāya means to Vyāsa.
Though the Lord is without material qualities, and unborn, unmanifest, and superior to matter, he enters into matter and causes the appearance of a subordinate guṇa or dominant guṇa.
Situated (adhiṣṭhāya) in the guṇas, he seemed to take on the qualities of being oppressed by guṇas or oppressing guṇas. The quality of unequal vision is imposed on the Lord, the controller of the guṇas.
Sattva, rajas and tamas belong to prakṛti, and do not influence the Lord. O King! They do not increase or decrease simultaneously.
In his svarūpa, the Lord is at all times equal. The guṇas belong to prakṛti, and do not influence the Lord (ātmanaḥ). This means that, though prakṛti is his śakti, it does not arise from his svarūpa.
When sattva becomes prominent he favors the devatās and sages. When rajas becomes prominent he favors the demons. When tamas becomes prominent he favors the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas. The Lord acts according to the dictates of time.
The inequality of the Lord seen everywhere is based on the inequality of the guṇas, according to their increase or diminution. Diminution and increase do not occur for one guṇa at the same time, but in sequence. Decrease is caused by oppression by other guṇas and increase is caused by oppressing other guṇas. By decrease or increase of the guṇas one can infer the decrease or increase of devatās, demons and Rākṣasas. Since the guṇas themselves are insentient, they cannot increase or decrease by themselves. The Lord must enter as their controller. When sattva becomes prominent, he favors devatās and sages. As much as sattva becomes prominent, the bodies suitable for sattva become prominent. Entering into their bodies, the Lord increases their strength, and restricts the demons and Rākṣasas. When rajas becomes prominent, he favors the demons. When tamas becomes prominent he favors the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas. He acts in accordance with time. The cause of the increase of a guṇa is time, not the Lord himself.
The Lord resides in all beings just as fire resides in wood, water in a cup or ether in a pot, but he is not perceived from seeing the material bodies. The wise know the Paramātmā situated in all beings by inferring through the effects, after discarding false doctrines.
An example is given to show how, with the increase or decrease of a guṇa, the bodies suitable to the guṇa increase or decrease. Fire is latent in wood, water is in a cup and ether is in a pot. When there is more wood there is more fire and when there is less wood there is less fire. One does not call this inequality. Similarly, when there is more sattva, encouraging to devatās, there are more forms of devatās. At that time, rajas favoring demons decreases, and there are less demons. If the demons are suppressed and the devatās are the suppressors, one can say that the Lord favors the devatās and disfavors the demons. When rajas increases, then one can say the Lord favors the demons and disfavors the devatās. From the common viewpoint this may seem like favoritism but it is not, for when sattva becomes prominent the Lord favors the devatās and when sattva is not prominent, he does not favor them.
In the example, we can understand that fire resides in wood by our intelligence. Do we perceive the Lord in the bodies of the devatās, demons and Rākṣasas? From the bodies of the devatās and others he is not perceived. The Lord is not perceived like others. Then how do we know that he favors some? The skilful people (kavayaḥ) know the Paramātmā (ātma-stham) by inferring through the effects (mathitvā). They know at the end (antantah), after rejecting theories like svabhāva-vāda or karma-vāda. Instead of vidanti there is a version with vindanti, but the meaning is the same.
The Lord, favoring Indra, sometimes kills the demons in sight of everyone. When rajas and tamas increase, sometimes the Lord favors the demons and rejects the devatās. If that were so, it would make his equality perfect. The answer to this is found in another meaning of the verse. Jyotirādiḥ iva means just as elements like fire which have the sense objects of form, taste, smell and touch existing within them. These are visible in objects, but because of the combination they are not clearly visible, though they are still present within. The Lord is visible to various degrees in this world in the devatās and asuras. And he resides internally. Because of a predominance of sattva, and not being covered by it, the sense object called form (or color) is perceived in the light. At a slight distance we see whiteness in milk. At a distance of 200,000 yojanas we see the white moon. This is clearly perceived by the eye. Because of the prominence of sattva in the devatās, and not being hidden by sattva, the Supreme Lord within them manifests as the form of Upendra clearly.
Because of the prominence of tamas and rajas in water and other elements, and being covered by those guṇas, sound, touch, smell and taste are not clearly visible in them. Because of the existence of some sattva with rajas and tamas, and thus the impossibility of being completely covered over, there is perception of the sense object when the object comes in contact with the gross sense organ (but not at a great distance.) Thus an object with taste in contact with the tongue gives experience of taste. An object with sound in ether, in contact with the ear, gives experience of sound. An object with coolness in contact with the skin gives the sensation of touch. A fragrant object in the air in contact with the nose gives the experience of smell.
Similarly because the predominance of rajas and tamas in the demons and Rākṣasas, and being covered by those guṇas, the Lord within them is not clearly seen as favoring them. If the sun is covered by clouds and not by sunshine, then it is not very visible. If it is not covered by clouds and is covered with sunshine, it is very visible. Similarly if the Lord is covered by tamas, then he is not visible, and if covered by sattva, he is visible. Well, with lack of clear perception of the Lords partiality to the demons, how can we know it exists? The wise understand its existence by seeing the effects--such as the devatās being defeated.
When the Lord desires to create bodies of the jīva he manifests rajas by his energy. When he desires to have pastimes he manifests sattva. When he desires to destroy, he inspires tamas.
One should not worry that the Lord is dependent on the guṇas, since according to the guṇas he is visible to various degrees. His creation of the guṇas takes place without effort. When the Lord desires to create bodies for enjoyment of the jīva (ātmanaḥ), he manifests rajas separately, which was previously situated in equilibrium. When he desires to enjoy in various bodies of the living entitiesto protect the righteous, he manifests sattva separately. When he desires to destroy, he inspires tamas separately.
O King! The Supreme Lord, creator of a real universe, creates time, which acts as a cause, an assistant to the Lord, and which exists along with prakṛti and jīva.
The previous verse mentioned that when the Lord desires to create he manifested rajas. This would imply that the Lord is controlled by time. This verse rejects that idea. O King! The Lord creates time, which acts as the cause assisting the Lord, since time is a form of his action. The meaning is this. When the Lord desires to create, by his own will, the time for creation with increase of rajas appears. When the Lord desires to maintain, the time for protection with increase of sattva appears. When he desires to destroy, the time of destruction with increase of tamas appears. These particular times are created by the Lord. Thus the meaning should be When the time of creation appears, then creation takes place. When should mean special time. This is created by the Lord.
It was also said that at the time of prominence of sattva, the devatās are favored. This again may indicate the Lords dependence on time. But this verse refutes that conception. Time exists along with māyā-śakti (pradhāna) and his expansions (pumbhyām).1 Because he is their cause, he is independent. Because matter is the product, the whole universe is dependent on him. But the universe, the product, is illusory. Some say that it is futile to argue about dependence or independence of illusory objects. The Lord is the creator of real objects (satya-kṛt). Therefore one should not say that the universe, the product of his real śakti, is illusory. This false philosophy implies that if the effects are all illusory, the Supreme Lord to be inferred from the effects cannot be proved. Madhva quotes śruti to prove the point. Satyaṁ hy evedaṁ viśvam asrjata: the Lord created the real universe.
O King! The Lord as time, friend of the devatās, increases the devatās in sattva by the Lords influence, and destroys the demons inimical to them, covered by rajas and tamas.
Since time is the product of the Lord, the nature of the product is applied to the Lord as well. Thus the Lord is described as time. The Lord increases the devatās with predominance of sattva. He destroys the demons who are enemies of the devatās. But time is the cause of disturbance of the guṇas, and not the Lord. Though a person makes a house, controls it and lives in it, the height or coolness of the house is not the height and coolness of that person.
The Lord is affectionate to the devatās (sura-priyaḥ). Though this is favoritism, it is his ornament, not a fault. This has been explained elsewhere. It is said:
samo 'haṁ sarva-bhūteṣu na me dveṣyo 'sti na priyaḥ
ye bhajanti tu māṁ bhaktyā mayi te teṣu cāpy aham
I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto me in devotion is a friend, is in me, and I am also a friend to him.
BG 9.29
Sometimes the devatās are defeated. This is arranged by the Lord to rid the devatās of their pride. How can you say that the Lord is affectionate to all beings and is friend of everyone? He is uruśravāḥ, most famous. His fame is proclaimed as the friend of all and most affectionate to all when he gives Pūtanā and others a place in the spiritual world even though they committed the greatest sins.
aho bakī yaṁ stana-kāla-kūṭaṁ
jighāṁsayāpāyayad apy asādhvī
lebhe gatiṁ dhātry-ucitāṁ tato nyaṁ
kaṁ vā dayāluṁ śaraṇaṁ vrajema
Oh! Evil Pūtanā, who offered her poisonous breast to Kṛṣṇa to drink with the intention of killing him, attained the position of a nurse in the spiritual world. How else is so merciful? I surrender to him! SB 3.2.23
Formerly, when Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira was performing the Rājasūya sacrifice, Nārada, responding to his inquiry, recited a story in this connection.
To clarify the meaning of his statements, Śukadeva tells a story concerning the Lords equal friendship with all beings.
tatrāsīnaṁ sura-ṛṣiṁ rājā pāṇòu-sutaḥ kratau papraccha vismita-manā munīnāṁ śṛṇvatām idam
O King! At the Rājasūya sacrifice, Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira saw Śiśupāla merge into the body of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore, struck with wonder, in the presence of the sages he inquired about the reason for this from Nārada, who was seated there.
Yudhiṣṭhira said: It is astonishing that the envious Śiśupāla attained Vāsudeva. This attainment is difficult for even unattached persons.
Ekāntinām means persons who are unattached to anything.
O sage! We all desire to know. King Vena fell to hell through the brāhmaṇas for criticizing the Lord.
From of his childhood, when he could not even speak properly, up until now, evil Śiśupāla, the son of Damaghoṣa, was envious of Kṛṣṇa.
Kala-bhācanāt means from when he could only a few soft words when a baby.
Although these two menŚiśupāla and Dantavakrarepeatedly blasphemed the indestructible Supreme Brahman, Kṛṣṇa, their tongues were not attacked by white leprosy, nor did they enter the darkest region of hell.
Param brahman means Kṛṣṇa.
How was it possible for Śiśupāla and Dantavakra in the presence of all persons, to enter easily into the body of Kṛṣṇa, whose body is difficult to attain?
Temporarily they merged into the Lord in the vision of those watching. Sāyujya (verse 14) means that they joined the Lord. For some time they remained with him, and then they attained sārūpypa. Yudhiṣṭhira would hear of Dantavakras liberation from Nārada later, but it is expressed in the past tense because he understood Dantavakra would die. While others watched indicates that the impossible was proven by the witnesses.
My intelligence waivers because of this, like a flame in the wind. O omniscient sage! Please tell me the most astonishing cause of this event.
My intelligence waives as a result of this event. Tell me the most astonishing cause, since you know everything (Bhagavān). What cases your intelligence to waive? Tell me the cause of their joining the Lord.
Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: After hearing the request of Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Nārada Muni, the most powerful sage, being pleased, addressing the King, then replied while the assembly listened to the discussion.
Śṛṇvatyās tat-sadaḥ kathāḥ means while the assembly listened to the talk. Ābhāsya means calling to the king. O King! Please understand this.
A body subject to criticism and praise, honor and dishonor is created by lack of discrimination between the self and non-self.
In order to explain that the Lord was not pained by the criticism of Śiśupāla, first he explains that the jñānīs do not feel happiness or distress by praise or criticism. Only persons attached to the body react with happiness and distress. The body which is a cause of verbal criticism and praise, bodily and mental respect and disrespect, is produced by lack of distinction of ātmā and non-ātmā.
O King! Ideas of violence arise by identification with the body. When ideas of punishment and threats arise, there is unequal treatment for all beings in this world. One thinks, These are my enemies. These are my friends. I will kill these enemies and protect these friends.
Happiness and distress arise by thinking He criticizes or praises me because of identification with the body. He attacks me arises in the same way when there is beating and threatening (pāruṣyam), such as I will beat you, arises in the same way. This unevenness (vaiṣamyam) is accomplished for all beings in this world. These are my enemies. These are my friends. I will kill these enemies and protect these friends.
Because of the bodily conception of life, the conditioned soul thinks that when the body is annihilated the living being is annihilated. Because of having no false identity, the supreme controller, identifying himself as Paramātmā, different from matter and the jīva, the Lord as a punisher, does not have a concept of being a killer or being killed.
Just as an ignorant person bound in the body thinks he has been killed when the body is killed, so the Supreme Lord with no material body, identifying himself as Kṛṣṇa, cannot think of violence, since he has no false identity, since he is simply Paramātmā (kaivalyāt). The meaning is this. For all jīvas there is a body which is not ātmā and an ātmā. If Kṛṣṇa were to have a body and ātmā, then he would also have false identity like the jīvas. But Kṛṣṇas body is not different from Kṛṣṇa. Paramātmā, arising from Kṛṣṇas svarūpa, identifies himself as Kṛṣṇa, and is made completely of Kṛṣṇa. He also identifies as the antaryāmī (akhilātmanaḥ), a portion of the Lord, but does not identify himself as the jīvas body or the jīva, which do not arise from the svarūpa of the Lord. He is different (parasya) from the jīva and anything made of māyā. Because of not identifying with things not arising from the Lords svarūpa, how can he hate anything, and who will hate him? Identifying himself as Paramātmā in the body which is also Paramātmā, whom will he hate and who, knowing him as Paramātmā, will hate him? Does the Lord harm persons like Śiśupāla who hate him? He punishes them for their own benefit (dama-kartuh), since he is the friend of all beings.
By continuous enmity, by favorable relationships, or by conjugal feelings arising from strong spiritual affection out of fear of transgressing morality as an unmarried lover, or even as a married lover, the mind should concentrate on the Lord. One will realize a relationship with the Lord only according to the mode of practice.
What is wrong with criticizing the Lord, since it does not affect the Lord in any way? The criticizer will generate bad karma for himself. This stated through kaimutya.
nindāṁ bhagavataḥ śṛṇvaṁs tat-parasya janasya vā
tato nāpaiti yaḥ so 'pi yāty adhaḥ sukṛtāc cyutaḥ
One who hears blasphemy of the Supreme Lord or his devotees should immediately take action or should leave. Otherwise he will be put into hellish life.
This is true. There are two types of criticism: favorable and unfavorable. The favorable type of criticism is a transformation of prema.
mṛgayur iva kapīndraṁ vivyadhe lubdha-dharmā
striyam akṛta virūpāṁ strī-jitaḥ kāma-yānām
balim api balim attvāveṣṭayad dhvāḍkṣa-vad yas
tad alam asita-sakhyair dustyajas tat-kathārthaḥ
Like a hunter, he cruelly shot the king of the monkeys with arrows. Because he was conquered by a woman, he disfigured another woman who came to him with lusty desires. And even after consuming the gifts of Bali Mahārāja, he bound him up with ropes as if he were a crow. So let us give up all friendship with this dark-complexioned boy, even if we can't give up talking about him. SB 10.47.17
This is a spurt of light from the crest jewel of prema, not attained by anyone except the gopīs. Unfavorable criticism has two types: that arising from absorption in the Lord, and that which does not arise from absorption in the Lord. The first type takes place in Śiśupāla. The bad karma created by his criticism was destroyed immediately by his absorption in the Lord. By bhakti-yoga, he attained a neutral condition, and then attained qualification for vaidhi-bhakti. That is now described in seven verses.
The meaning of the first statement in this verse therefore is: since the Lord is not pained by criticism and the sins of the criticizer are destroyed by that absorption, the mind should concentrate on the Lord with absorption as an enemy. Nirvaireṇa means without enmity, with bhakti-yoga. It refers to parental or other relationships mentioned as sambandha in verse 31. Kāma means kāma generated by prema (snehāt). Sneha cannot be regarded as a separate sādhana, since all the other sādhanas are in the instrumental case. The result is described. One should not see the Lord differently at all, but should directly see him according to ones own emotions. However, in the case of those who have enmity or fear, the words mean Either of these persons, having hatred or fear, does not see himself different from the Lord. By attaining sāyujya, they realize themselves non-different from him. One statement can have a different meaning according to a difference in the person in question.
The word yuñjyāt is in the potential mood. The mind should become absorbed in the Lord by continuous enmity, bhakti or conjugal feelings. This is a command. This however cannot apply to Śiśupāla and others, since they have no attraction for the Lord. One cannot also explain it as an order for others persons to have enmity towards the Lord seeing the example of Śiśupāla and others, since it is impossible to make a command to a devotee to do something unfavorable for the Lord. It is said ānukūlyasya grahaṇaṁ prātikūlyasya varjanam: those who surrender to the Lord accept what is favorable and reject what is unfavorable for the Lord. Nor does continuous enmity directed to other people by Śiśupāla generate absorption in the Lord, for this is contrary to thousands of contrary statements:
tān ahaṁ dviṣataḥ krūrān saṁsāreṣu narādhamān |
kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu ||
I cast those hateful, cruel, and lowest of humans, constantly doing evil, into repeated birth and death in the wombs of demons. BG 16.19
One should also not say that continuous enmity for the Lord, after producing genuine attraction for the Lord, will not produce hell, since this genuine attraction did not occur in Śiśupāla. One should also not say that this is an arrangement for persons other than Śiśupāla, since one cannot find actions directed with enmity to the Lord in all the rules of scripture.
His enmity certainly created absorption in the Lord. By understanding that the Lord would kill him, he heard, saw and respected the Lord, just as a person, understanding that a tiger or snake will kill him, becomes absorbed in that animal with fear, and not in any other object.
Therefore some persons explain the verse as follows. Since the Lord gives benefit even to those with animosity, the mind should become absorbed in the Lord with a mood opposite to animosity, since that animosity is not proper. The word therefore at the beginning of the verse thus has a negative implied in it, but not written. The meaning would be Therefore, those with animosity, giving it up, with a mood other than enmity, should engage the mind in the Lord as friend, or parent etc.
What type of enmity is necessary? Continuous enmity (anubandhena) should be there, and this produces complete absorption in the Lord. One who has continuous enmity has absorption in the Lord. Weak enmity is excluded.
Snehāt kāmena means by lust caused only by affection. This is further described by the word bhayena: by lust following after the young women of Vraja who had fear arising from rejecting the moral path of their elders.
Bhayena vā indicates that there is also lust without fear. This indicates persons following after devotees like Rukmiṇī who had conjugal feelings in marriage without fear. Scriptures indicate both unmarried and married conjugal relationships.
jārabhāvena susnehaṁ sudṛṭaṁ sarvato dhikam
Strong affection greater than anything else arises by thinking of the Lord as ones unmarried lover. Bṛhad-vāmana Purāṇa
agni-putrā mahātmānas tapasā strītvam āpire
bhartārañ ca jagad-yoniṁ vāsudevam ajaṁ vibhum
The great sons of Agni by austerities became women. Their husband was the unborn Lord Kṛṣṇa, cause of the universe. Kurma Purāṇa
By devotional service one cannot achieve such intense absorption in thought of the Supreme Lord as one can through enmity toward him. That is my opinion.
There is immeasurable glory of a great criticizer in part, because of absorbing his mind through enmity. By continuous enmity, a person who knows that the Lord will kill him (martyaḥ), and no other person, achieves complete absorption in the Lord (tan-mayatām) and nothing else, just as a lusty man always thinks of a woman. One does not become absorbed so quickly by bhakti-yoga. The word quickly should be added to the verse. I have discerned this. One does not have to ask for other proof. If an envious mind is greater than bhakti in causing absorption in the Lord, what can be said of bhakti-yoga which has absorption of mind in the Lord! Previously Parīkṣit has said that he was surprised that their tongues were not attacked by white leprosy, and that they did not enter the darkest region of hellish life.
You criticized continuous enmity thinking that such practice was not desirable in Śiśupāla and others, whereas I have praised it more than bhakti, which is the best of all practices. Why? Assuming that Śiśupāla and others will have a hellish end, though their inimical attitude is criticized on the path of bhāva, it is praised more than the purifying power of bhakti in one aspect: its power to produce quick absorption in the Lord. But then how much more will I praise the parental affection of Vasudeva, the friendly relationships of others, what to speak of Nandas and others relationships, which are respected on the path of bhāva, and which cause extreme absorption in the Lord at every moment! This is hinted at. Rāgānuga-bhakti of recent practitioners, desiring parental and other bhāvas following after Nanda and others, excels even vaidhi-bhakti. This is another hint.
evaṁ kṛṣṇe bhagavati māyā-manuja īśvare vaireṇa pūta-pāpmānas tam āpur anucintayā
A worm confined in a hole of a wall by a bee, always thinking of the bee in fear and enmity, later becomes a bee simply because of such remembrance. Similarly, if the conditioned souls out of enmity think of Kṛṣṇa, who is merciful to even the sinful, and become free from their sins, they attain him.
Among those with thoughts of enmity towards the Lord, some like Śiśupāla attained sārūpya. An example is given in two verses. An insect is sealed in a hole by a type of bee (peśaskṛtā) and thinking of the bee with hatred (saṁrambha) and fear, it becomes a bee. Māyā-manuje means to the Lord who is merciful (māyā) to men, even if they hate him. Or it can mean to the Lord who appears among men in his svarūpa (māyā). Śruti says
svarūpa-bhūtayā nitya-śaktyā māyākhyayā yutaḥ
ato māyā-mayaṁ viṣṇuṁ pravadanti sanātanam
They call the eternal Viṣṇu māyā-mayam, because he is endowed with his eternal śakti arising from his svarūpa, which is called māyā.
Those who are purified of their sin of criticizing the Lord attain sārūpya by meditation arising from enmity.
uktaṁ purastād etat te caidyaḥ siddhiṁ yathā gataḥ dviṣann api hṛṣīkeśaṁ kim utādhokṣaja-priyāḥ
This point was explained to you previously. Since even Śiśupāla, who hated Kṛṣṇa, achieved perfection, then what to speak of the Lord's dear gopīs. SB 10.29.13
If those who hate the Lord attain him, how much more those who have affection for him will attain! Tad-gatiṁ means ones cherished goal of prema, or liberation as the case may be.
My dear King Yudhiṣṭhira! The gopīs by their conjugal desires, Kaṁsa by his fear, Śiśupāla and other kings by envy, and the Yadus and you Pāṇòavas by your affectionate family relationships with Kṛṣṇa, and we, by our vaidhi-bhakti, have obtained the mercy of Kṛṣṇa.
The different persons holding these emotions are listed in this verse. As was previously explained the lust mentioned here is love arising from intense spiritual affection, not from material lust. That material term would apply to Kubjā and others. Fear means fear arising from a persons knowledge that Kṛṣṇa will kill that person. The Yādavas (vṛṣṇayaḥ)--you, the Pāṇòavas--achieved me by sambandhāt, by relationships of seeing me as a son, a brother, or cousin, which are full of affection. This excludes Satrājit, Prasena, Śatadhanva, Karṇa, Duryodhana and others, who did not have affection, though they may have had a family relationship. Sneha should not be taken as a separate type of sādhana, since later only five types of moods are mentioned. Vayam refers to Nārada. The verb is in the previous verse. Nārada and others achieved the goal by bhakti. The gopīs achieved the position of lovers of Kṛṣṇa filled with prema. Kāmsa achieved sāyujya. Śiśupāla, Dantavakra, and Pauṇòraka achieved sārūpya. Other enemies achieved sāyujya, sālokya or other goals suitable to them. The Yādavas and Pāṇòavas attained the position of associates of the Lord in friendship and other moods. Nārada and others (who performed vaidhi-bhakti) attains the position of associates with aiśvarya-jñāna (reverence). According to the sādhana, they achieved goals which can be understood by seeing the different statements concerning these persons.
Hari-vaṁśa says yādavānāṁ hitārthāya dhṛto girivaro māyā: I held up Govardhana for the benefit of the Yādavas. Thus Nanda and others of Vṛndāvana can be considered Vṛṣṇis also. However they had extreme affection unmixed with aiśvarya-jñāna. Thus their relationships of seeing Kṛṣṇa as their son or friend were even more intense than those of the Yādavas. Thus the Vṛṣṇis mentioned in the verse refers mainly to the inhabitants of Vṛndāvana.
Any of the five types of persons, but not King Vena, will attain their objectives in relation to the Lord. Therefore, one should somehow think of Kṛṣṇa, by one of the favorable methods.
But persons like Vena, who hated the Lord and criticized him like Śiśupāla went to hell. This verse explains. Some persons will not be counted among the five moods previously mentioned in relation to the Lord (puruṣam), because of not being suitable receptacles for those moods. Some persons are not like the gopīs with affectionate conjugal feelings; they are not like Kaṁsa with fear; they are not like Śiśupāla, filled with hatred, and absorbved in the Lord, thinking that the Lord would kill him; not like Vṛ;sṇis with some family relationship; and not like Nārada with vaidhi-bhakti. Persons not like Śiśupāla, for instance Vena, who simply nourish an unfavorable mood, go to hell. Therefore one should concentrate on Kṛṣna with a favorable method. The tense is in the potential as with verse 26, with the same meaning.
O Pāṇòava! Your two cousins Śiśupāla and Dantavakra, the sons of your maternal aunt, were formerly associates of Lord Viṣṇu, but because they were cursed by brāhmaṇas, they fell from Vaikuṇṭha to this material world.
Having come to a conclusion about the topic of Śiśupāla in terms of the path of bhāva, the cause of Śiśupālas hatred of Kṛṣṇa is now explained. Pada-cyutau means the two fell from Vaikuṇṭha.
Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira inquired: What kind of curse and whose curse could affect the two servants of the Lord? This is incredible. It appears that the devotees situated with the Lord can take birth in the material world.
What curse could affect (abhimarśaṇaḥ) the two devotees? It cannot be believed that they could be cursed. It is impossible.
The inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha are completely spiritual, having no material body, senses or life airs. Therefore, please tell the story of how they became bound with bodies in this world.
This elaborates why it is impossible that they fell. Inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha have no material body, senses or life air arising from material birth. They have śuddha-sattva bodies. Śrīdhara Svāmī says the sentence should mean Please tell the story (sambaddham) of how they took bodies.
Nārada said: Once, when the four sons of Lord Brahmā named Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana and Sanat-kumāra were wandering throughout the three worlds, they came by chance to Viṣṇuloka.
Although these four great sages were older than Brahmā's other sons like Marīci, they appeared like small naked children, only five or six years old. The two gatekeepers, thinking them ordinary children, forbad them to enter.
The Kumāras had the beauty (ābhāh) of five or six year old children, but were older than Marīci and others (pūrveṣām). The gate keepers considered them naked babies.
The four sages angrily cursed them. "O fools! You are unfit to live at the shelter of the Lord's lotus feet, which are free from tamas and rajas. Go immediately and take birth in a family of most sinful demons."
While Jaya and Vijaya, thus cursed by the sages, were falling to the material world, they were again addressed by the merciful sages. "After three births you will be able to return to your positions in Vaikuṇṭha."
You will be able to attain Vaikuṇṭha (lokāya kalpatām) after three births.
These two associates of the Lord took birth as the two sons of Diti, Hiraṇyakaśipu being the elder and Hiraṇyākṣa the younger, who were worshipped by the Daityas and Dānavas.
Appearing as Nṛsiṁhadeva, the Supreme Lord killed Hiraṇyakaśipu. The Lord, taking the form of Varāha and lifting up the earth, killed Hiraṇyākṣa.
While lifting the earth (dharoddhāre), Varāha killed Hiraṇyākṣa.
Desiring to kill his son Prahlāda, who was a great devotee of Lord Viṣṇu, Hiraṇyakaśipu tortured him in many ways to kill him.
In spite of his many attempts, Hiraṇyakaśipu was unable to kill Prahlāda, who was dear to all beings like ones own self, who was peaceful, who saw all others happiness and distress as his won, and who was imbued with the Lords power.
Prahlāda was dear like ones very self to all beings (sarva-bhūtātma-bhūtam). He was peaceful, because of having no hatred towards his father, who tried to kill him. He saw his and others happiness and distress equally.
Next, the two doorkeepers of Lord Viṣṇu, born as Rāvaṇa and Kumbhakarṇa, begotten by Viśravā in the womb of Keśinī, again afflicted the whole world.
O King! To relieve Jaya and Vijaya of the curse, Lord Rāmacandra appeared and killed Rāvaṇa and Kumbhakarṇa. You will hear of Rāmacandra's activities from Mārkaṇòeya.
In their third birth, the same Jaya and Vijaya appeared in a family of kṣatriyas as your cousins, the sons of your aunt. When their sins were destroyed by Kṛṣṇas cakra, they were free from the curse.
Their sin was destroyed by Kṛṣṇas cakra. Their offense was external only. They took the forms of Śiśupāla and Dantavakra, but they were not killed. This is Śrīdhara Svāmīs explanation. Just as the impurities of gold are destroyed by fire, but the gold is not destroyed, so the two were purified of the external covering of contamination, but were not destroyed. Jaya and Vijaya, in the form of two masses of effulgence entered Kṛṣṇa, as was seen by the public.
These two associates of Lord ViṣṇuJaya and Vijayaby meditation with intense, continuous hatred of the Lord, entered Kṛṣṇa, and then went to the side of the Lord as his two associates in Vaikuṇṭha.
Acyuta-sātmatām nitau means that they attained the state of their forms (ātmatām) being situated with Kṛṣṇa by intense meditation. After Kṛṣṇas disappearance pastime, they returned to the side of Nārāyaṇa, since Nārāyaṇa was also within Kṛṣṇas body up to the time of Kṛṣṇas disappearance.2 Thus Jaya and Vijaya also entered Kṛṣṇas body and remained there. That Śiśupāla and Dantavakra merged with Kṛṣṇa is a perception of the common people.
Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira said: O exalted sage Nārada! Why did Hiraṇyakaśipu hate his beloved son, a great devotee? Please explain how Prahlāda Mahārāja developed complete concentration on the Lord.
Please explain that by which Prahlāda developed complete concentration on Acyuta.
Thus ends the commentary on the First Chapter of the Seventh Canto of the Bhāgavatam for the pleasure of the devotees, in accordance with the previous ācāryas.
.
Offering respects to guru and Kṛṣṇa, the ocean of mercy, I take shelter of Śrī-śukadeva, the eye of the universe, and master of the worlds. I offer myself and everything I possess to he who is the life of the gopīs, the controller, for service to his dear devotees
Two types of ūti, inclination, are described in the Seventh Canto: inauspicious, arising from of anger of the demons, auspicious, arising from the mercy of the devotees. This Canto also glorifies devotees of three typesśuddha-bhaktas, persons having bhakti mixed with jñāna or karma (karma-miśra-bhaktas, jñāna-miśra-bhaktas), and persons having jñāna mixed with a little bhakti. The inclinations of Hiraṇyakaśipu, which were inauspicious, were inborn. The cause was the ancient anger of the Kumāras. The inclination for pure bhakti of Prahlāda, his son, which was very auspicious, arose from accepting mercy from Nāradas feet. That bhakti, which appears within the devotees, gave rise to the Lords mercy upon him and protected him from the king. That creeper of bhakti, growing in a great field composed of humility, respect and other qualities, is nourished by the devotee by watering it through hearing and chanting.
The topic of ten chapters is pure bhakti. Five chapters show how bhakti, attained through a guru of similar bhakti, is a minor element of karma or jñāna, or a major element with a mixture of karma or jñāna in order to attain ones respectively. These processes gradually become the states of prema, śānta-bhakti and liberation. These are the topics of the chapters of the Seventh Canto.
In the First Chapter Śukadeva dispels doubt about partiality in Viṣṇu and briefly relates the story of the three births of Jaya and Vijaya
In the previous canto it was said that Diti, whose two sons had been killed by Viṣṇu, who was instigated by Indra, burned with anger inflamed by lamentation. (SB 6.18.23) Parīkṣit, as if not tolerating partiality of Viṣṇu in favoring Indra, but actually understanding the truth, desired to relish the nectar of the conclusion from the mouth of Śukadeva. Therefore he asks this question in three verses. If the Lord is equal, how can he show partiality? If he is affectionate to all beings, why is the Lord not affectionate to the demons? If he is the friend of all beings, why is he not friendly to the demons?