The nine tensions in the Bhagavatam
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
So I seek the blessings of all the devotees so that I can speak something worthwhile on the Srimad Bhagavatam. So today we're discussing about the discussions between Uddhava and Nanda. So now here what has happened is, Uddhava has been sent as a messenger by Krishna to Vrindavan.
So this incident is one of the most important incidents in the Bhagavatam for illustrating its conclusive message. So the topic I will speak on is today, the nine tensions in the Bhagavatam. So, tensions.
Every book, every story, every narrative has to have some action for moving forward. And that action is based on some tension. Tension means there are two opposing forces and there is a conflict between them.
And now in every substantial book, there is a surface tension and there is a substance tension. So for example, now if you start looking at the Bhagavad Gita, the surface tension is, should Arjuna fight or should Arjuna not fight? Now that itself can be very interesting. Now for example, there are some movies.
So they are full of action. So the idea is, people, many people just watch the movie for the action. But if you ask the director or if you ask the author, the author often usually has a deeper message somewhere, something.
So for example, in the Bhagavad Gita, the surface tension is whether Arjuna should fight or not fight. And if we just stay at the level of the surface, then it will appear as if the Bhagavad Gita is a message of violence. As it is calling upon people to fight and it will seem very contradictory.
Why is God causing violence? But that is only the surface. The fundamental conflict or the fundamental tension in the Bhagavad Gita is, on what basis should we make our decisions about our actions? Now how should we choose to live? Who am I? What is the purpose of my life? And on what basis is purpose to be decided? So the Bhagavad Gita is not a book of violence or of silence. It is a book of transcendence.
In the case of Arjuna, that specific situation was such that Arjuna had to choose to do his duty by fighting. So if we stay only at the level of surface, there can be some entertainment. Okay, this hero was there, this villain was there and there was a big fight between the two.
And then the hero won. Okay, that will just set the level of entertainment. But if we look at what is the substance, okay, this hero now represents a particular way of living.
For example, the Ramayana. At a level of action, yes, there is Ram and Ravana and they have a very exciting fight. But then at a deeper level, what is substance tension? Substance tension is dharma versus adharma.
This is relatively easy to understand, but not always the substance tension is easy to discern. Now, in the Puranas, it becomes even more difficult because the Itihasas and Puranas are both based on historical narratives. But the defining difference between the Itihasa and the Purana is that the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the Itihasas.
The Puranas are the 18 Puranas among which the Bhagavatam is the highest. So, the Itihasas focus primarily on one dynasty, not even on one dynasty, practically one generation of one dynasty. So, the Mahabharata focuses on the Pandavas, one dynasty in the Kuru dynasty.
And the Ramayana focuses on Raghuvamsha and within that also Lord Ramachandra, Raghuvamsha Pradeepaha as he is called. So, the Itihasas are relatively easier to assimilate in a coherent way. The Puranas have not just one dynasty or one generation, they have many stories from not just different dynasties of different generations, but even from different millennia and even different universes.
So, understanding the substance theme of the Bhagavatam can be quite difficult. The substance conflict and the substance theme. So now, the Bhagavatam, if we see, I won't go into that subject right now.
Jiva Goswami in the Satsang Darbhas talks about Tatparya Linga. Tatparya Linga is the five ways by which one can know what is the essential meaning of a book. So, basically he concludes that it is pure devotional service to Krishna, that is the conclusion of the Bhagavatam.
And this conclusion is developed through various conflicts. So, the tensions which are there in the various incidents are there in the Bhagavatam, they serve a purpose. And that purpose is to illustrate the supremacy of Bhakti as compared to everything else.
That may be considered important in social material hierarchies or even within spiritual hierarchies. So, what are these nine tensions? So, these are illustrated through different incidents in the Bhagavatam. So, let's first start with the Varna.
Normally, a person who is born in a higher Varna, like say a Brahmana, is considered to be superior to a person who is born in a lower Varna. Somebody is born a Shudra or somebody is born a Vaishya or something like that. So, Varna is quite a defining character, significant defining character in the Vedic tradition.
And if we look at the Bhagavatam, we will see that the Bhagavatam acknowledges that yes, Varna is important. It gives acknowledgement for that, but then it doesn't give undue importance to that. And that is seen right in the beginning itself.
We see Suta Goswami is the speaker. And who is he? He is not exactly a high-born Brahmana. We know that he is born from Pratiloma.
So, it's a cross between different Varna. This is often considered to be a contamination. But Suta Goswami is selected as the speaker among a learned assembly of sages.
Why? Because what the Bhagavatam illustrates is, in this world, hierarchies are inevitable. Now, wherever we go, there has to be some hierarchy. You know, even in today, people say democracy and everybody is equal.
But we cannot have a government if everybody is equal. Somebody has to be the head of the state. Somebody has to be in the cabinet of ministers.
Somebody has to take up the execution part. So, hierarchy has to be there. That's inevitable.
The question comes up, on what basis should the hierarchy be decided? So, the Bhagavatam's point is that the ultimate basis for hierarchy is one's disposition of the heart. One's devotion to the Supreme Lord. So, now prevalent in those times, there were other criterias for hierarchy.
And the Bhagavatam acknowledges them, but does not acclaim them as supreme. It acknowledges them and it says that actually bhakti trumps all of them. In fact, bhakti can reverse the normal hierarchies.
So, with respect to Varna, we see that here a person whose birth is not ideal, that person is considered to be superior to well-born brahmanas. So, how is that? Because Suta Goswami has great devotion. And this same point, not exactly related to Varna, but similar, is with respect to one's race.
Now, we see that the devatas are normally considered higher than the asuras. No doubt, devatas are considered to be good, the asuras are considered to be bad. But in the Bhagavatam, we will see, all the Bhagavatam acknowledges this.
But then, it also points out that if the asura has bhakti, then the asura becomes far greater than devata. What are the examples of this in the Bhagavatam? Yes, Vritrasura. Then, Vritrasura we see, in fact there are three instances of this.
There can be many more, but three prominent. Vritrasura is one, Prahlad Maharaj is second, and then Bali Maharaj. Now, each of them is in their own way unique.
Now, Vritrasura, the difference between Vritrasura and Bali on one side, and Prahlad on the other side is that Prahlad never acts in a demoniac way. Right from the birth itself, he says, He is constantly devoted to the Lord. But, with respect to Vritrasura and Bali Maharaj, it is, the Bhagavatam goes in such a way that they are acting as if they are demons.
In fact, Vritrasura fights against the devatas, attacks the devatas. Bali Maharaj attacks the devatas. Actually, the Bali Maharaj pastime starts from the 5th chapter of the 8th canto.
And, till the 10th chapter, there is no indication of any devotional characteristic in Bali Maharaj. In the 11th chapter, the first hint comes, when Indra is saying, now I am going to kill you. So, Bali Maharaj at that time speaks philosophy.
Ultimately, victory and defeat are determined by the will of the Supreme Lord. So, those who have won today may be defeated tomorrow, and those who have been defeated today may win tomorrow. Don't be so proud of winning.
But, that's all. And again, after that, he is killed and he is revived by Shukracharya. And then, actually, only the 20th chapter, when he surrenders everything, when Vamandev appears and surrenders everything, that time his devotion becomes manifest.
Same way, Dhritarasura is fighting and killing, and destroying the devatas, and suddenly, he starts making profound prayers. So, what does this indicate? So, actually, of course, for each of these pastimes, the Acharyas give explanations, why at particular times these asuras, or these individuals, they are not exactly asuras, they are asura bodies, why they suddenly start manifesting that devotion. But, the point is, as Vishwanath Chakrathakur explains, in his Raghavatma Chandrika, that actually, bhakti is not necessarily manifest right from the time the body is manifest.
We say that bhakti is never lost. If we are not able to complete our bhakti in this life, in the next life, it will go on. But, it will go on, but it is not that right from birth, it's not that when the baby is born, the baby will be worn a bead bag in hands, or tilak on the forehead, nothing like that happens.
The baby is born normally, and it may not appear also as if the child is having any devotion. But, by the arrangement of the Lord, when the right time comes, then, purvabhyasena tenaiva riyateya vashopisa So, riyateya vashopisa, helplessly one's heart gets attracted to Krishna. So, when that will happen, we can't say.
But the point is, once that happens, what the Bhagavatam demonstrates is, that Indra is considered to be the best of the gods, and the Mahabharata depicts Indra in a very respectful way. In fact, for Arjuna, it's considered to be a great honor that Indra invites him to heaven in his own chariot, and then, praptamahendra bhavane mahadasanartham he gets to sit on the same throne as Indra. Indra invites him as a son, and he sits on half of the throne.
It's a great honor. But, when you compare it with bhakti, so what happens is, Indra is trumped by Prithirasura, and similarly, he is trumped by Vali Maharaj. So, here what we see is, within the varna itself, now, which varna do the devatas and asuras belong to? I kept it as slightly separate, because both actually belong, if you look at the varnasana point of view, they belong to the Kshatriya varna.
Sometimes some people say, Ravana's father was a Phulasthi Rishi, he was a brahmana, so Ravana was a brahmana. That's not a very valid logic, because actually, if we go back dynastically, you know, everybody's father is a brahmana. Isn't it? All of us have come from Brahmaji, who is a brahmana, and all of us have come from the Saptarishis, the seven gotras are there, they are also the founders of brahmanas.
But then, we have to look at the qualities. So, among the devatas, Brahmaji is considered to be a brahmana. It's interesting that although the name Brahmastra is there, Brahmastra is not the astra of Brahma.
Brahmastra refers, that the Brahma refers to the power of the Supreme Brahman, of the spiritual reality. Brahmaji practically never fights. Brahmaji is the advisor to the fighters.
He is not a fighter. So, Brahmaji is a brahmana, but the devatas, Indra, Chandra, Vayu, Surya, Agni, Kuvera, they are all kshatriyas. Similarly, the asuras, the rakshasas are also kshatriyas.
Ravana, if you read in the Mahabharata, he is a king and he patronizes brahmanas. Of course, not the brahmanas who are sattvic, he patronizes brahmanas who are tamasic. They are called yathudhanas.
And they do rites invoking auspiciousness for him. So, the point is, that the bhagavatam demonstrates a person may be a devata also, but if somebody has devotion, then what happens is, the person with devotion, even if that person is demoniac, is far greater than a person with, who is divine in the sense of being a devata, but not having devotional qualities so much. Now, along with race, there is also, when we come to varna, there is gender.
Normally, the females are considered to be low-born. Even Krishna seems to support that, when he says in 9.33 that, He says that among the low-born, there are striya, vaisya and shudra. The women, the vaisyas and the shudras.
So, now it's interesting. Now, what does this statement imply? Is this a statement that supports gender discrimination against women? Is this a sexist put-down of women? Actually, not at all. What the Bhagavad Gita is stating is, at that time, in that social convention, women were considered low-born.
But what is Krishna's emphasis when he is talking about this? māṁ hi pārtha vyāpāśhritya ye'pi śyūpāpa yo naihās striya vaisya sadā shudras te piyānti parāṁ gatem So, Krishna is saying, even if somebody is considered low-born, it doesn't matter. Yes, so it's like, there is a saying, do in Rome as Romans do. So, Krishna acknowledges nominally the truth, yes, women are considered low-born, but that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter. The path of bhakti is so wonderful, so wonderfully speedy, so wonderfully potent, that once we start off, the starting point doesn't matter. Once we start off, the starting point doesn't matter.
It is a simple fact that all of us are of different natures. So, now, the nature that we have is our starting point. So, it's simply utopian to imagine that all of us are identical because we are not.
Different people have different intellectual capacities, different people have different physical capacities, different people have different levels of social intelligence. It's different. So, the starting points which all of us get are different.
But, these starting points don't matter once we start off because bhakti takes us off so fast that it doesn't matter. So, what Bhagavad Gita says is that anybody can attain perfection. The Bhagavatam demonstrates in its 23rd chapter of the 10th Canto.
There we see the conflict between the genders, the brahmanas, the yagic brahmanas and their wives. The yagic brahmanas, the husband is considered within the Vedic tradition to be the guru of the wife. And, the wife should always follow the husband.
But, what does the Bhagavatam illustrate? That, actually, if the wife has devotion, now, if we see, in this case, the contrast is very striking because the husbands of these yagic brahmanas, of these yagic brahmanas' wives, they are in no way demoniac. They are pious. They are religious.
They are virtuous. But, in spite of all that, the Bhagavatam demonstrates that even if one may be sattva guna, even if one may be doing brahmanical duties, but if one does not practice bhakti, then, one is considered to be unfortunate. And, the brahmanas themselves acknowledge that.
Diktha. Diktha, they say. How unfortunate are we that we did not realize the glory of the opportunity that we had to serve Lord Krishna.
Now, what happens with those brahmanas, initially, when their wives were going, they were opposing them. And, later, when the wives come back, they welcome them. So, our Acharyas explain that in the intermediate, when they did the yajna, the devatas came.
They accepted the sacrifices. But, the devatas told them, they said, you have done the sacrifice, but Yageshwar, he had come to ask you for some offerings, and you refused him. What is the use of your yajna? So, then, from their perspective, they had to understand it.
And, then, they learned the lesson. So, we discussed about Varana. We discussed about race, race in terms of demigods and demons.
Then, we discussed about gender. Then, the Bhagavatam also talks about ashram. Ashram in terms of position, position in Varana ashram.
So, normally, a sannyasi is considered to be far higher than a grahastha. But, we see in the 9th cant of Shrimad Bhagavatam, there is a tension between Durvasa Muni and Parikshit Maharaj. And, actually, this tension is both from Varana and ashrama point of view.
Now, Parikshit Maharaj is a grahastha and a Kshatriya. Durvasa Muni is a brahmana and a sannyasi. But, what happens? It's like, Durvasa Muni, initially, now, see, it illustrates such a big difference.
A Kshatriya is supposed to raise weapons. And, a brahmana is not supposed to raise weapons. No matter what the provocation.
But, what the Bhagavatam illustrates is when the Kshatriya has devotion, the natural disposition that might be there to raise weapons, whenever one is challenged, Durvasa Muni, Ambarish Maharaj does not do that. He, now, he as a Kshatriya, he could have used weapons and as a Vaishnava, he could have invoked the power of the Lord to counter the curse, to counter that demon who was attacking him and to counter curse. Durvasa, but he did neither.
But, eventually, what happened? Durvasa Muni was overpowered by the power of the Supreme Lord. So, what the Bhagavatam is illustrating over here is that as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, we see that he says that I am not belonging to any Varana, I am not belonging to any ashram. I am simply the servant of the Lord.
That I am the servant of the servant of the Gopis. Servant of the servant of the Lord of the Gopis. So, now, it's interesting, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu rejects that I am not a sannyasi.
But, we see in his life, he acts as a strict sannyasi. Why is that? When he is saying I am not, I am not a sannyasi, what does it mean? He says that he doesn't reject the existing social order. But, he doesn't let himself be absorbed in it.
The social order is there, he accepts that. But, he doesn't let that sort of put him in a tunnel vision. Recognize that's why he goes to Ramanandaraya and he wants to demonstrate to the world.
It's very interesting, when Ramanandaraya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu meet, Ramanandaraya acts as the, in one sense, the teacher of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu asks questions and Ramanandaraya answers. But still, when they look at it, what is it? It is Ramanandaraya who offers obeisances to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu doesn't offer obeisances to Ramanandaraya. Why is that? Because from the social point of view, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is a sannyasi, Ramanandaraya is a grahastha.