Antya 9.13-26 Provoking powerful people over their peculiarities is perilous – Chaitanya Charitamrit

share both. Thank you. We’ll continue in the next session.
So one day, the people, the lokas, many people came to Lord Chaitanya with something unusual. Normally, Chaitanya’s life was filled with ecstatic immersion in Krishna and ecstatic inundation with Krishna, with other people. So that is the ecstatic life of Lord Chaitanya.
And one day, there was a disruption within that. So during this process, what did they say? That the eldest son of Gopinath, Vatanayaka, Changi Chadaila, that he was raised on a changa. Changa was a traditional device at that time, used to execute people.
Now, this is a great, great danger. Disaster is about to befall someone, and actually devotees are desperately seeking some relief from the one who is the source of all relief for them. That is Lord Chaitanya.
So they’re describing how deadly the situation is. So below there is he’s been placed on a platform where below an array of swords is there. And from there, he’ll be thrown down.
If you protect, O Lord, then he will be saved. Traditionally, there have been over the centuries, there have been different means of executing people and different cultures have different ethos. So some people might have, say, lopping off the heads.
In recent times, some Islamist terrorist organizations have publicly burnt or beheaded or shot people and made videos. And this is barbaric. Now, this might also seem barbaric to us that somebody is being thrown down an appraised force.
And the point is that two things. Firstly, there are some crimes that are so bad that execution is the only punishment to be given. And we cannot be tenderfoot and live on tiptoe about that.
There is violence, there is child abuse, there is serial child abuse, sexual abuse, or there is multiple serial killing or whatever. These are horrendous crimes. And they need to be punished.
Now, while certain crimes do deserve severe punishments, there can be wrongdoers who are also punished, and that has to be considered carefully. And this is an example of a person whose punishment was not proportionate to the crime. And as it is a matter of dismay and disaster that something like this has been done, at the same time, we can’t be all sentimental.
How people are executed, what purpose is being served? Is it just to give that person the consequences of their actions, or it’s also to send a message to society that actions have consequences and certain actions have serious consequences. So nowadays, in the age of political correctness, we recoil against capital punishment. And certainly, many people recoil against capital punishment being administered in graphic ways.
So for example, in America nowadays, it is that people are given poison pills but it’s done in a three-stage way. First, they are given a muscle relaxant so that when the poison is given to them and the poison starts acting, then it doesn’t create any sudden shock or sudden jolt in their body. So the whole idea is that the observers are to be anesthetized so it doesn’t become visually jolting, although it is.
And even at the level of physical manifestation, the person doesn’t suddenly have some violent fits or sudden collapses. The person gradually sinks into that. Now, does that serve as the best deterrent for a crime? That’s open to question.
Sometimes, having visually graphic and horrific ways of punishing, of giving the death sentence, they may serve as stronger deterrents for other wrongdoers. So in the French Revolution, even the king and courtiers were belittled. And that was also very, from today’s standards, far back.
But the point is that we can’t judge other cultures from our standards. Today, sensitivities and political correctness are given a very high premium. And that was not the case in the past.
Now, we could make a case of what is right and what is wrong and what helps in deterring crime more and what helps in deterring crime less. Those are discussions that can be had. But the key over here is that we need to understand the cultural reference, to understand the context for which particular actions are done.
So here, Gopinath Patnaika is about to be executed. And the devotees are begging that now, so the visually graphic description, the explicit description in Chaitanya Chaitantamrita serves to underscore the urgency of the situation that his death is imminent. Please intervene and intervene urgently.
If you don’t intervene, then he won’t be saved. And the devotees are also conveying that we have come to you out of desperation, because it’s so urgent and we don’t see any other alternative. That’s why we have come.
So this is not just for, the vividness of the description is not to convey horror, but to convey the urgency of the situation. So now, the question might come up, why should the Lord intervene? Why should the Lord protect? Because he, Tomarasiva, Bhavanandaraya is your servant and Savamshe, it’s interesting that says his family members are his amshas, are his associates and they all deserve to be, they all deserve your protection because they are your servants. So, specifically now, Bhavanandaraya’s son is in danger.
So, please protect him. Normally, whenever somebody is accused of some wrongdoing and they mean some punishment, Lord Chaitanya, the action itself might be graphic, horrifying, but you also have to look at the context why that action is being done. And based on the context alone, you can understand the action better.
He’s asking, why is this punishment being given? And then the audience starts, people start telling the full story. It’s interesting here that the people who come to ask Lord Chaitanya’s help in saving Gopinath Patnaik, Chaitanya Chatterjee has repeatedly described them as loka, not bhakta. So, the significance of this, of course, with those people also having some bhakti, because that’s why they have come to the Lord for protection.
They have that level of faith, at least, that the Lord can intervene, protect. But the mood we will see, as Lord Chaitanya will speak later, is that the mood here is to serve the Lord, not to demand from the Lord. And that’s what it is.
That’s the mood of Chaitanya Chaitanya Amrit. And in that consonance of that mood, we could say that here, at least, in this point at least, the word loka is used. So, devotees are those who want to serve the Lord.
And that’s the basis, that’s the center point of their relationship with the Lord. So, people in general may want, they may not never use that word, O Lord, you serve me, but that may be their mood. You, what are you doing for me? The devotee’s mood is, what am I doing for the Lord? Text 17, So, here, they continue the description of what’s happening.
So, Ropinatha, he’s telling that Ramananda Bhai, he’s the brother of Ramananda Raya, he is son of Bhavananda Raya, he is Rajya Vishay, he is the treasurer for the king, Sarvakaala, he’s been, he’s been, always been, he’s been for a long time. It’s not just a recent thing, but he has been in that course for a long, long time. That’s being said over here.
So, he has to collect the taxes and the resources from that is his jurisdiction, sadhipadi, of the soliciting and collecting, he’s meant to give it to the king. At the door of the king, he is to give that tax, that collected money, that revenue. So, it seems at these times, there is a system of governance, which is hierarchical with multiple levels in the hierarchy.
The king cannot directly administer and the king has hierarchies through which structures, through which administration is done. And essentially, the administration involves two main aspects. One is giving, collecting and giving.
So, the collection of revenues has to be done through infrastructure and then the offering of services from the state to the citizens has to be done through some infrastructure. So, he was in the, Gopinath Patnaik was in the tax collection infrastructure. And here it is said over here, So, what happened was, at one time, there was 200,000 kahanas, was less.
So, the currency here is in terms of coin shells. So, that is less. It was remaining and then the king demanded it, that you are expected to do this much, but this is what you have given.
So, the denominations are different based on culture, specific modes of how currency is transmitted, that varies from situation to situation. 620, So, he said that, I do not have any solid cash with me. I do not have any money to pay this to you.
Gradually, I will repay you. This is often a situation that comes up in financial transactions, that there is no liquid cash available. And therefore, some wiggling room is required for repaying certain debts.
He says, I will repay it gradually. And actually, I will sell some goods and I will fill your treasury by that week. 621.
Now, this was the arrangement that had been done and he had been given that space. But something happened thereafter. So, actually, he said that, I have got some horses.
I will sell my goods and I will repay you. So, one way I can pay you right now is, I have some horses. I have got 10-12 horses.
So, you evaluate them, you set a price for them. So, in this, he brought his horses to the royal door. So, now, the king often delegates.
The king does not do everything oneself. So, in the process of delegation, the king sent one of his sons, who knew how to evaluate the prices. While all kings, all royalty, especially all royal soldiers, everybody in royalty uses horses and other things.
Not everybody is equally expert. Just like we might say about cars or computers. Today, cars are the means we use for physical movement and computers or phones are what we use for digital movement.
So, everybody may use this, but when something is to be bought, not everybody is expert enough to understand the technicalities of the features. So, if somebody is expert in our community also, you know a lot about phones, then we may ask them, see, I am going to buy this phone. Are these features good enough? Or if somebody is going to give me this phone, what price is reasonable for it? So, similarly here, the king delegated the job of evaluating the horses and determining their prices to one of his sons and he called him for that purpose.
And he had his own associates and ministers and friends with whom he came. Say, it is at 23. Say, this prince gave a very low price.
This is how often bargaining in business happens, that sometimes the purchaser gives a very low price and the giver gives a very high price and then they bargain and then they come to a settlement. However, in some situations, especially if the person is in a big position of authority, like a king or a prince, and also if, say, a starting price is given, if the initial price that the purchaser offers is extremely low and especially if it is in a context where the giver is obligated to give then, say, when we pursue something as unfair, that is irritating. When we pursue something as unavoidable, that is also annoying.
But when you pursue something as both unfair and unavoidable, then that is infuriating. So, what happens is the emotion becomes much, much more. We can bear the unfair, we can bear the unavoidable, even when it is not as unpalatable.
But when something is unfair and unfavorable, unavoidable, then it becomes extremely difficult to bear. So, naturally, krodhahaila. So, Gopinath Acharya became furious on hearing this price which he felt was outrageously low and thus he reacted in a way that was counterproductive for him.
So, this prince had an idiosyncrasy. That idiosyncrasy was that he griva phirai, he would move his neck upward, urdhva mukhe, toward the sky. We all have certain quirks, idiosyncrasies.
Some people’s idiosyncrasies are more prominent, others are not that prominent. But whatever it is, we have these and especially if they are there in a person who is prominent, then those people are also sensitive about how they behave. So, that they are different in a particular way and that difference may make them hypersensitive.
Iti uttichai. So, he would move his head again and again upward toward the sky. He would look upward while he was talking.
And what is idiosyncratic about us can become the butt of jokes, can become the butt of taunts. And then he might be sensitive or even hypersensitive about those things. And we have to be very careful that we don’t goad others.
From our side, we need to ensure that we are not hypersensitive. From other side, they also have to be careful that they should be sensitive enough to not goad the other person, not even mention that, to overlook that. Just like suppose we see somebody who has got some scar on their face, which indicates leprosy or something like that.
Then politeness means we don’t stare at it. Politeness means we may not even mention it. And then we continue talking.
And if somebody mentions it, if you don’t mind my asking, can I ask you something personal? May we proceed talking about it with some polite, respectful, free face, which may act as a segue to that conversation, bringing up that subject. Now, just mentioning that can also be impolite. What to speak of deriding that? Unfortunately, that is what Gopinath Patnaik’s son does out of anger.
So, he criticised, Gopinath Patnaik criticised this prince with pride. Garvavachini, sagarva, words were filled with pride. Normally, somebody would be scared to criticise the king.
So, members of the royal dynasty do have a lot of power and ordinary citizens or even courtiers, they will be afraid to provoke someone who is in an influential position. But he was, but Gopinath was proud because raja krupa kare, I am very dear to the king. Therefore, I don’t have any fear of the prince because he felt that the king is more powerful naturally.
And thus, he did something foolish. Instead of being polite and avoiding reference to his idiosyncrasy, the prince’s idiosyncrasy, Gopinath spoke about it and criticised it. He said, my horses do not move their head upward into the sky.
And therefore, you should not decrease their price. So, this was Gopinath Patnaik and he did not just mention the idiosyncrasy of the prince, but also compared it with a horse. And not only compared it, he compared it in a devaluatory way.
He said that, if the horses had the idiosyncrasy, then your devaluing them would be justified. That was the implication, he didn’t say that. Because they don’t have the idiosyncrasy, so you shouldn’t devalue them.
That means, if they had that idiosyncrasy, then you might be justified in devaluing them. And what is happening here? He is doing multiple wrongs. First is, to mention people’s idiosyncrasy is impolite.
To mention that in a disrespectful, disruptive way is even more problematic. And to devalue people based on their idiosyncrasies is even more problematic. To compare a person to an animal is problematic.
To compare a person, compare a king to a horse and thereby devalue the king or a royal member of the royal family is even more problematic. So, there was provocation. And this provocation got him into a lot of trouble.
What that trouble was, we will discuss in our next sessions.