Bhagavatam study 101 1.18.31-36 Presuming that we know God’s will and are doing his work is presumptuous and dangerous

Bhagavatam, 1.18.31 एश किम निभृत आशेश करणो मिले तेक्षणः विशासमाधे आहो स्वीत किमनुस्याक्षत्रबंधभे एश किम निभृत एश अशेश Oh, he started thinking after coming back. Parikshit Maharaj is thinking now, is it that Nibhrut Aasheesha? Was he actually in meditation? करणो मिले तेक्षणः Or was he with his eyes closed? Was he actually in trance or was he विशासमाधे आहो स्वीत Or was he pretending to be in trance? आहो स्वीत किमनुस्याक्षत्रबंधभे किमनुस्याक्षत् And was it that he was simply trying to avoid seeing a चत्रबंधो receiving a लोवक्षत्रिय? So, it’s interesting. Now, we all have certain conceptions about others and especially about what others think of us and we perceive their actions through that filter.
किमनुस्याक्षत्रबंधभे So, he is thinking now that generally Kshatriyas are very highly honoured especially if somebody like Kshatriya is like a king but still the Kshatriyas are aware that they are in the world they are attached to the things of the world they are bound and they understand that renunciates may not want to mix with them may not want to talk with them sometimes because they may consider Kshatriyas are lower or they may consider Kshatriyas are materialistic We see that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also was quite conscientious about avoiding to meet Pratap Rudra. So, now he is thinking that Parikshit Maharaj is thinking that was it that this sage is simply wanting to avoid meeting a lower caste Kshatriya and although he is the king and although he is illustrious devoted, pious but he is thinking of himself as a not a king but as a Kshatriya but as a Kshatriya bandhu like we have Brahma bandhu that means people are born in the Brahmana family but they don’t have Brahmanical qualities Kshatriya bandhu means one who does not have Kshatriya qualities So, we all have our scripts in our minds and when he was neglected it was not just person A neglecting person B he thought of in terms of what does person A represent and what does person B represent So, person A represents the sages, the Brahmanas, the renunciates the topmost caste and person B represents the second caste the caste of those who are materially very involved materially entangled So, he thought that is this something which he is doing personally to me or is it that he as a representative of a particular class is doing to me as a representative of a particular class So, he thought that Oh, you think me to be to be unworthy of your attention and that’s why you don’t want to pay you don’t want to even open your eyes and give me your time So, he felt that yes I have come here and I have not come to disturb you I am myself disturbed, I am distressed I just need some water So, he had felt annoyed that way but then he started thinking maybe my annoyance was was unjustified, my anger was unjustified because generally when we are caught by our emotions our emotions distort our capacity for sound judgment because if we consider a current to be flowing in a particular direction then our emotions are like that current and they cause the water of our consciousness to flow in a particular direction Now, suppose if we are caught in a crowd and the whole crowd is moving in a particular direction then we get pushed in that direction and if we get pushed in that direction because we are being pushed so forcefully we are just trying to skip pace we may not notice anything on the other side So, like that when when our emotions start flowing in a particular way just like a person is pushed by a crowd in a particular direction then we can’t think of any other perspective apart from the perspective that those emotions are seeing So, later on when the emotions calm down then we say, oh, it could have been like this also I didn’t think that it could have been like this I was just so caught in my head so that I didn’t consider the reason for the outer reality So, he felt that maybe all that I saw was that his eyes were closed but why were the eyes closed? Was he pretending to be in a trance? Or was he actually in trance? What if he had actually been in trance? Then what I had done is very inappropriate What I had done is actually very disrespectful I thought that he is disrespectful to me but what may have happened is that I have turned out to be disrespectful to him So, he thinks like this So, let’s see, text 32 तस्यपुत्रो अतितेजस्वि विहरन्बालको अर्भकै राज्ञाँखं प्रापितं तातं शुत्वातत्रेदमब्रवेद तस्यपुत्रो अतितेजस्वि Now, the scene shift This is just a thought that Parikshit had Maybe I made a mistake Now, an event has happened That event has triggers different thoughts and different actions in different places So, one thought that Parikshit had, second thought So, maybe what I did was not right तस्यपुत्रो अतितेजस्वि Now, his child was extremely powerful तेजस्वि, effulgent Here, तेज refers not just to the appearance but primarily to the brahminical prowess तस्यपुत्रो अतितेजस्वि विहरन् बालको अर्भकै विहरन्, he was playing with he is this boy and he was playing with other अर्भकै with others who were boys, just childish like him राज्या घं प्रापितं So, राज्या, राज्या means the king he heard that because of the king his प्रापितं तातं ताता refers to his father he saw by his mystic prowess that his father has been has been distressed, caused distress by the king शुत्वा तत्रेदम अब्रवीत on hearing this, तत्रेदम अब्रवीत he became disturbed So, what happened in this case is that now there are various points in this verse So, an event happens so now afterwards there are various ways in which he could have come to know sometimes brahmanas have mystic powers obviously, we will see this is the brahmana boy, Shringi Swami Krishna’s son and he had mystic powers by which he could curse, so particularly this शुत्वा when he heard so maybe some other people were passing by, some kids were passing by the hermitage and they saw a snake, they saw somebody saw the whole incident happening and reported or maybe he saw by mystic vision and he heard, basically he heard means he came to know about it, so on hearing this this brahmana boy who was at one level, so there are two distinct characteristics of his described he was अतितेजस् normally children are not considered very powerful, children are children they play, they have fun but here this child was extremely powerful and विहरण बालको अरबके so on one side he was very powerful, on other side he was just playing like a child with other children so that means there was this playfulness in him which was typical of a child and there was also a powerfulness about him which was atypical for a child so this combination of playfulness and powerfulness could turn out to be would turn out to be lethal it turns out to be a very dangerous combination, let’s see how it turns out to be dangerous text 33 अहो धर्म पालानाम पिवनाम बलिभुजामिव स्वामिन्य अघम्य दासानाम द्वारपानाम शुनामिव अहो अधर्म पालानाम so just पालानाम, these are the rulers but just see how adharmic they have become how religious they have become पिवनाम बलिभुजामिव पिवनाम बलिभुजामिव they are actually actually meant to be बलिभुजामिव, they are like to be the cows or other animals are meant to be kept at the door शुनामिव द्वारपानाम, those who are the watchdogs of the door, like the dogs, they are meant to be at the door, door protectors स्वामिन्य अघम्य दासानाम but just see what sin they have committed against their masters although they are meant to be like the cows or the dogs so actually here the Shringi reflects, expresses quite a polarizing perception of his own of the position of the Brahmanas and the nature of their relationship with the Kshatriyas Kshatriyas are meant to protect protect all citizens from injury, they are the martial protectors of society and of course Brahmanas are the spiritual leaders of society and they are definitely worthy of protection so they should be treated with due respect even those who are the protectors but here he is acknowledging that they are protectors but he is reducing them to the position of they are protectors but what kind of protectors they are simply they are like watchdogs so a cow gives milk and similarly the Brahmanas are provided charity facilities and things by the Kshatriyas but he is seeing that their position is, their function is acknowledging but their position is considering to be much lower and he is saying what is their position they are simply actually nothing more than watchdogs so now if a dog, a dog is meant to know its position and stay in that position but if a dog starts if a dog bites a master a dog is meant to bark at the thieves and maybe bite the thieves a dog is never meant to bite the master so he is saying that just see agham, the sin committed by these kings that those whom they are meant to protect those who are their masters just see what have they done to them and ideally speaking the four Varanas are meant to work cooperatively with every, there is definitely a hierarchy among the Varanas but every Varana has to respect every other Varana but here that kind of mutual respect is missing and he is saying adharmapalanam so they are actually, they are not dharmapalanam adharmapalanam they are meant to protect us of dharma but they are themselves doing adharma, they are doing agham so just see what they have done so in this way he makes a very blanket judgment of the situation by and condemns the kings at large text 34 for text 34 text 34 for the brahmanas what are the shatrabandhus like text 34 they are text 34 designated designated to be like street to be like the protectors of the house, like the watchdogs text 34 so then how can they come inside the house text 34 and text 34 and in the same pot they can eat food so actually actually speaking now even if he acknowledges that actually Parikshit just wanted some water, but he is saying what right does Parikshit have to ask for water, he is a he is a kshatriya and kshatriyas they are like dogs, dogs are meant to be protected dogs are meant to be protectors and they are meant to be outside the home, they have no right to come inside the home, so he is saying that similarly Parikshit had no right to enter into into the house, my house the house of my father, the house of a great brahmana and for him to ask for water means he is thinking that this in the same pot that the brahmana can take food, he can also take food in that this is presumptuous, he has no right to ask like this so he is in a sense making what was simply a functional issue thirsty give me some water but he is taking what the functional issue and he is making it into a big big issue sometimes people make a mountain out of a mole hill, so like that here Shringi is making a big issue out of a small issue and he is using quite graphic and judgmental comparisons to describe this normally if somebody has a particular role to play they are meant to play that role but others are not meant to judge them somebody might be a servant but others are not come here, no it is not like that there has to be a respectful way of addressing in which it is courteous, it is not obsequious but at least that courtesy is offered in a context which is understandable and that means that people don’t just label others but he is graha paalo nirupita, you are a watchdog and that is where you are meant to stay you are not even meant to come inside this is quite a strong condemnatory stand that he is taking over here text 35 krishnegate bhagvati shastrya utpatha gaminam tad bhinna setun adhyaham shasmi pashyatme balam so krishnegate krishnegate bhagvati he is saying now krishna as that supreme personality of godhead has gone out of this world shastrya utpatha gaminam and therefore people are thinking that the supreme ruler has gone therefore utpatha gaminam and there are upstairs who think they can do whatever they want tad bhinna setun adhyaham bhinna setun so they think that they can do anything because now our protector has gone shasmi pashyatme balam, but i am there today i myself will show my power me balam, my power pashya, just see my power now so you think you are you think you can do anything now because krishna has gone because there is no protector and i am there and just see i can act as a protector, just see what power i have so here this boy actually didn’t think that he was doing anything wrong, infact he thought that a great wrong has happened and he is going to set it right he thought that krishna when there is adharma he comes to remove adharma, establish dharma so paritranaya sadhu naam vinasaya cha duskrtam dharma samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge so in 4.8 in the bhagavad gita krishna says that he comes primarily to establish dharma, so here he is saying that this sage, this person is thinking that there is no one to establish, no one to protect, but i am there to protect dharma, so he is thinking that if krishna is not there i can do the role of krishna and he was thinking that actually pariksit is adharmic and he is adharmic like this because he is thinking there is no protector of dharma pariksit himself was a great was dharmic and not only was he dharmic he was himself dharmagopi protector of dharma, but unfortunately based on his narrow perception of things based on his huge extrapolation made by making one observation this boy has come to a very tragically wrong conclusion and he is thinking that it is his responsibility to protect dharma and his responsibility to punish the adharmic and he thinks that pariksit is adharmic and then he is going to actually do the work of krishna by punishing this adharmic king so this is actually a very dangerous mentality when we think that we are doing the work of god and we assume that we know the will of god we assume that we know what exactly the work of god is going to be in the situation and then we take it upon ourselves to do it that sort of presumptuousness can make us rationalize a lot of wrong which normally we would not do but we will do because we think that we have the right of of god’s will of being the executor of god’s will with us text 36 so having spoken like this with his eyes being angry, furious tamraksha his eyes being red hot with anger tamra so actually on one side he was playful he has been playing with other rishi’s children but suddenly kaushikya upasrushya river kaushiki was nearby, he touched the water upasrushya vagavajram visasarjaha and he uttered a curse the curse was like vagavajra, it’s a beautiful word vaga is speech, vajra is like thunderbolt, sometimes some speech can be like a thunderbolt it can be speech can be like a thunderbolt, just like a thunderbolt can, when it falls on something it can break it apart similarly words can break the hearts of people, it can break the lives of people vagavajram visasarjaha just like Indra might throw a thunderbolt similarly this boy with his speech, he threw a thunderbolt and what was the thunderbolt that the thunderbolt was that he cursed Parichit Maharaj but the point of a thunderbolt is quite a sobering point that actually actually words can stones can break bones but words can break hearts so we could say that the vajra can break the body but the vag can break the heart, the spirit the confidence, the morale the inner damage that can happen because of harsh words is actually very very very distressing if somebody has suffered verbal abuse or psychological abuse then their morale breaks down so for all of us we have, now our words may not have the power to curse anyone we may not have the capacity that if we curse someone that curse will necessarily become actualized but still sometimes our words can also be like a vagavajram that means we may speak some words of criticism or condemnation to someone and we might just pass it off as a comment but for that person it might turn out to be devastating those very words so they may break our hearts, you see this happens to Lakshman when Sita accuses him that you have an evil eye on me and that’s why you are not going to Ram’s aid so what had happened was at that time Lakshman no demon had come and demon had tried to fight and force Lakshman to go away and try to drag Lakshman away from there Lakshman would have stood like a rock over there unmoving nothing would have made him leave Sita’s side and leave Sita unprotected so what a demon’s forceful dragging or a demon’s forceful attacking could not have done that was done by Sita’s words Sita’s words were at that time like a vagavajra so Sita of course did not curse Lakshman but you see she spoke so hurtingly and those words cut Lakshman deeper than the sharpest arrows that any enemy might have hurled in any of the fiercest battle that he may have fought so knowing that our words can also have effects like thunderbolts we need to carefully consider think carefully and analyze and then decide whether we want to throw thunderbolts at people and if at all we want to throw thunderbolt what kind of thunderbolt is it that we should throw we want to make sure that our words they do throwing a thunderbolt of Krishna wisdom at someone means making them spiritually awakened making them spiritually aware so in that sense sadhus words have to cut and enlighten they are like a scalpel of a surgeon but at the same time that cutting also has to be done in a measured methodical way so that there is healing without excessive wounding so sometimes we may have to speak strongly and sometimes it may have a positive effect also but those situations may not be very common and that’s why we have to be extremely cautious when we deal with such situations we will continue in our next session