In the Vamanadeva pastime, how is adharma called dharma and dharma called dharma

In Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakur’s commentary on the Bali Maharaj pastime, he analyzes the episode and explains that when Vamanadeva is speaking to Bali Maharaj, he does so in a humorous and playful way.

Vamanadeva presents dharma as adharma and adharma as dharma. How is this so? Let’s look at the broader context to understand what is happening.

Vamanadeva approaches Bali Maharaj to ask for charity. As is customary in Vedic culture, both the giver and the receiver of charity glorify each other. So let’s see how that unfolds here.

Initially, when Bali Maharaj is approached for charity, Vamanadeva tells him, “In your dynasty, no one has ever refused charity. Therefore, you are glorious.” But is this really true?

We know that Hiranyakashipu was a brutal figure in Bali’s dynasty. He killed the devas, disrupted Brahminical sacrifices, and even persecuted Brahmanas. Clearly, he was not someone known for giving charity—rather, he was known for destroying the very people who perform and sustain Vedic culture.

So when Vamanadeva glorifies the dynasty as charitable, he is, in effect, presenting adharma as if it were dharma. Why does he do this?

Often, when something is spoken in a context of mutual glorification, we have to assess whether it is an absolute truth or a relative expression meant for a particular situation. For instance, even Hiranyakashipu, while praying to Brahma, refers to him as the Supreme—though we know this is not the ultimate siddhanta.

So, there is a mood of divine playfulness in Vamanadeva’s words. This is an example of adharma being portrayed as dharma.

Now let’s look at how dharma is portrayed as adharma.

Later in the pastime, Vamanadeva tells Bali, “You promised me three steps of land, but you have only given two. You have now become a liar and deserve to be punished.”

But is that really true?

Bali Maharaj did attempt to give all three steps. However, Vamanadeva expanded himself to such an enormous size that he covered the entire universe in just two steps. There was simply no physical space left for the third. The inability to fulfill the promise wasn’t due to deceit on Bali’s part but due to Vamanadeva’s own divine expansion.

In that sense, it could even be said that Vamanadeva “cheated” by expanding himself beyond all proportions. To use an analogy: if someone asks for a handful of grains, and after you agree, they expand their hand so large that even all the grains in your entire storage aren’t enough—and then accuse you of breaking your promise—most would call that unfair.

But Vamanadeva did this with a deeper purpose. He is the well-wisher of all living beings, and his actions are always ultimately for their benefit. In this case, although he seemingly “cheated,” it was for Bali Maharaj’s ultimate good—he accepted his surrender, glorified his devotion, and gave him the kingdom of Sutala.

So, while from a surface or contextual perspective, it may appear that the Lord acted questionably, from a higher spiritual perspective, everything he did was ultimately righteous and benevolent.

This pastime illustrates an important theme in the Bhagavatam: how ordinary morality is sometimes subverted or transcended in bhakti. The Lord may act in ways that seem unconventional or even unjust by worldly standards, but his motives are always pure and his purpose is always divine.

The true glory of Bali Maharaj’s surrender lies in the fact that he didn’t judge the Lord by his immediate actions, which appeared questionable, but recognized the Lord’s ultimate intention, which was supremely benevolent.

Thank you.