Priti Sandarbha 7.9 : Further Instances of Pure Devotees Becoming Angry, Etc. (krodhābhāsa)





Priti Sandarbha 7.9 : Further Instances of Pure Devotees Becoming Angry, Etc. (krodhābhāsa)

tad evaṁ syamantakopākhyāna-mahā-kāla-puropakhyāna-mauṣalopākhyānādau śrī-baladevārjuna-nāradādīnāṁ krodhādy-āveśo’pi tad-ābhāsatva-leśenaiva saṅgamayitavyaḥ | tatra śrī-baladevārjunādīnāṁ śrī-bhagavan-matājñānena śrī-nāradādīnāṁ tu taj-jñāneneti vivekaḥ—"kopitā munayaḥ śepur bhagavan-mata-kovidāḥ" [bhā.pu. 3.3.24] iti tṛtīye śrīmad-uddhava-vākyāt |

Similarly Śrī Baladeva, Arjuna and Nārada's possession by anger in the episodes of the Syamantaka, the visit to Mahākālapura and the destruction of the Yadu dynasty respectively, should also be reconciled by considering them as only apparent anger (krodhābhāsa). In these cases, Śrī Baladeva and Arjuna's anger was due to their ignorance of Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa’s desire, and that of Śrī Nārada was due to knowledge of it – this is the difference.

puryāṁ kadācit krīḍadbhir yadu-bhoja-kumārakaiḥ |
kopitā munayaḥ śepur bhagavan-mata-kovidāḥ ||


[The latter] is known from the verse from the Third Canto where Śrī Uddhava said, "Being enraged by the Bhoja and Yadu princes who were playing, the sages [headed by Nārada] cursed them, knowing well the will of Bhagavān" (SB 3.3.24).

tasmāt yeṣāṁ liṅgāntareṇa niṣṇāta eva sākṣātkāro gamyate, teṣām asvacchāntaḥkaraṇatvaṁ pratīyamānam api tad-ābhāsa eva | yeṣāṁ tu na gamyate viṣayāveśādikaṁ ca dṛśyate, teṣāṁ sākṣāt-kārābhāsa eveti nirṇītam | tad evam asvaccha-citteṣu bahirmukhāḥ paśyanto’pi na paśyantīty uktam |

Therefore when realization of Bhagavān can be clearly recognized in someone by other signs, even if their heart may appear to be impure, it is the impurity that is not real. But in the case of those in whom such realization is not clearly recognizable and faults such as absorption in sense pleasures are seen in them, it is to be concluded that it is their realization that is only a semblance (sākṣātkārābhāsa). For this reason it has been said that even while looking at Him, those whose minds are turned away from Bhagavān (bahirmukha) do not see Him because of their unclean hearts.



Commentary by SND

Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī gives three more examples of such counterfeit anger. The first example is that of Baladeva, Kṛṣṇa's elder brother, in connection with the story of the Syamantaka gem, a story which appears in Hari-vaṁśa (1.38-39), Viṣṇu Purāṇa (4.13) and Bhāgavata Purāṇa (10.56-57). This gem originally belonged to Satrājit who had received it from Sūryadeva, the sun god Vivasvān. Because it had great powers in bringing great wealth and auspiciousness to the kingdom, Kṛṣṇa asked Satrājit to make a gift of it to King Ugrasena, but he did not comply with Kṛṣṇa’s request. One day, Satrājit's brother Prasenajit went to the forest on horseback, wearing the gem. A lion killed him along with his horse and took the gem. The lion in turn was killed by Jāmbavān, who took the gem and gave it as a plaything to his daughter.

When Prasenajit did not return from the forest, Satrājit spread the rumor that Kṛṣṇa had killed him out of greed for the gem. In order to clear His name of the criticism, Kṛṣṇa went to the forest, accompanied by some of His relatives, by following the horse's hoofprints. They found the dead bodies of Prasenajit and the horse, and then traced Jāmbavān to the latter’s cave. Kṛṣṇa left his relatives and friends at the entrance to the cave and went inside where Jāmbavān's daughter Jāmbavatī and her nurse were present. When the nurse saw the stranger, she screamed. Jāmbavān came in haste and angrily attacked Kṛṣṇa. Their duel went on without a break for 21 days until Jāmbāvān came to the realization that he was fighting none other than Bhagavān Himself, because no one else could give him such opposition. He surrendered to Kṛṣṇa and offered Him his daughter along with the gem.

Kṛṣṇa married Jāmbavati, and gave the gem back to Satrājit. Satrājit felt embarrassed for maligning Kṛṣṇa’s name. As an atonement he also offered his daughter Satyabhāmā to Kṛṣṇa in marriage along with the gem. Kṛṣṇa accepted the daughter but returned the gem.

Not long afterward, while Kṛṣṇa was visiting the Pāṇḍavas in Hastināpura along with Balarāma, Śatadhanvā was incited by Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā to kill Satrājit while he was asleep and steal the Syamantaka maṇi. When Kṛṣṇa and Baladeva got the news, they returned to Dvārakā. Śatadhanvā ran away, depositing the gem with Akrūra. Not knowing this, Kṛṣṇa and Baladeva chased Śatadhanvā and caught him near Mithila. Kṛṣṇa killed Śatadhanvā but could not find the gem.

At this point, the divine brothers parted ways: Balarāma went to see his friend Janaka, the king of Mithilā, while Kṛṣṇa returned to Dvārakā. In the meanwhile Akrūra had left Dvārakā and went to Kāśī. Since the beneficial effects of the gem had suddenly become absent from the kingdom, Kṛṣṇa could understand that he was the one who had the gem. He sent for him and Akrūra admitted everything. At that time Kṛṣṇa said that even His brother Baladeva did not trust Him in the matter of the Syamantaka jewel (10.57.38). Akrūra then turned it over to Kṛṣṇa who asked him to give it to Ugrasena.

There is no mention of Baladeva’s anger in the Bhāgavata version of the story, only the hint given above. But both Hari-vaṁśa (1.39.20-22) and Viṣṇu Purāṇa (4.13.100-102) indicate that Baladeva was upset thinking that Kṛṣṇa had the gem and was keeping it for Himself or to give to Satyabhāmā and that is why he went to Mithilā after the death of Śatadhanvā. 

vṛthaivāsmābhiḥ śatadhanur ghātito na prāptam akhila-jagat-sāra-bhūtaṁ tan mahā-ratnaṁ syamantakākhyam ity ākarṇyodbhūta-kopo baladevo vāsudevam āha ||100||
dhik tvāṁ yas tvam evam artha-lipsur etac ca te bhrātṛtvān mayā kṣāntaṁ tad ayaṁ panthāḥ svecchayā gamyatāṁ, na me dvārakayā na tvayā na cāśeṣa-bandhubhiḥ kāryam alam alam ebhir mamāgrato’līka-śapathair ity ākṣipya tat kathāṁ kathaṁcit prasādyamāno’pi na tasthau ||101||
sa videha-puraṁ praviveśa ||102||


Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī says, however, that such a behavior of Baladeva is not real. Baladeva cannot turn against Kṛṣṇa. He was playing a part in the story, which has the moral of showing that even a blameless person can be deserted by close friends and family when false accusations fly.

The second story is about Arjuna’s disrespect towards Kṛṣṇa and other Yādavas when they could not protect the newborn babies of a Brāhmaṇa in Dvārakā. This story was discussed in Kṛṣṇa Sandarbha (Anuccheda 29).

The third story is about the sages headed by Nārada cursing Kṛṣṇa's sons. This story is originally found in the Mausala-parva of the Mahābhārata, but is also told more briefly in the Bhāgavata, in the first chapter of the Eleventh Canto.

In all these stories the anger or adverse mood of Baladeva, Arjuna or Nārada arose under the influence of līlā-śakti for the sake of Kṛṣṇa's divine play. Baladeva is the first expansion of Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna is an intimate friend and devotee of Kṛṣṇa, and Nārada is a bhakti-āveśa-avatāra. There is no possibility of them having any adverse mood or behavior towards Kṛṣṇa, just as our own bodily limbs do not act to damage our body. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī gives a simple formula to detect such acts of līlā-śakti. He says that if one sees certain symptoms that ascertain the sākṣātkāra of Bhagavān in a person, then their impurity of heart in the form of anger or criticism should be seen as the action of līlā-śakti and not real. On the contrary if one sees that a person is absorbed in material pleasures and no symptoms manifest to infer the sākṣātkāra of Bhagavān, then even if they do experience some form of Bhagavān, it is not real but an ābhāsa. Thus purity of heart and sākṣātkāra of Bhagavān go hand in hand.




Comments

Dasanudasa said…
how to recognize the real sākṣātkāra in a devotee?

Popular posts from this blog

"RadhaKrishn" TV serial under fire

Getting to asana siddhi

What is sthayi-bhava?