Kṛṣṇa Rescues His Teacher’s Son

If Vasudeva and Devakī would have seen Kṛṣṇa as almighty God, their intense love for Him as their son would have been spoiled. Lord Kṛṣṇa did not want this. Rather, the Lord wanted to enjoy with them the ecstatic love of vātsalya-rasa, the relationship between parents and children. As Śrīla Prabhupāda often pointed out, although we normally think of God as the supreme father, in Kṛṣṇa consciousness we can enter into the Lord’s pastimes and play the part of His parents, thus intensifying our love for Him.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura points out that the word jana may be translated here as “devotees,” as in the verse dīyamānaṁ na gṛhṇanti vinā mat-sevanaṁ janaḥ (Bhāg. 3.29.13). He further explains that jana may also be translated as “parents,” since jana is derived from the verb jan, which in the causative form (janayate) means “to generate or to give birth to.” In this sense of the word (as in jananī or janakau), the term jana-mohinī indicates that the Lord was about to expand His internal illusory potency so that Vasudeva and Devakī would again love Him as their dear child.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī discusses this verse as follows: “One may object that at this point Lord Kṛṣṇa had not actually passed the kaiśora stage [age ten to fifteen], since the women of Mathurā had stated, kva cāti-sukumārāṅgau kiśorau nāpta-yauvanau: ‘Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma have very tender limbs, being still at the kiśora stage, not having reached adolescence.’ (Bhāg. 10.44.8) The definition of the different stages of growing up is given as follows:

‘The kaumāra stage lasts until the age of five, paugaṇḍa up to age ten and kaiśora to age fifteen. From then on, one is known as yauvana.’ According to this statement, the kaiśora period ends at the age of fifteen. Kṛṣṇa was only eleven years old when He killed Kaṁsa, according to Uddhava’s words: ekādaśa-samās tatra gūḍhārciḥ sa-balo ’vasat. ‘Like a covered flame, Lord Kṛṣṇa remained there incognito with Balarāma for eleven years.’ (Bhāg. 3.2.26) And since Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma never took brahminical initiation in Vraja-bhūmi, it was at the time [of Their going to Mathurā] that Their kaiśora stage began rather than ended.

“This objection to Lord Kṛṣṇa’s statement in the present verse — that His parents could not enjoy His kaiśora stage — is based on ordinary measurement of age. Yet we should consider the following statement:

‘O King Parīkṣit, within a short time Rāma and Kṛṣṇa began to walk very easily in Gokula on Their legs, by Their own strength, without the need to crawl.’ Sometimes we see that the son of a king, even while in his paugaṇḍa stage of life, undergoes exceptional physical growth and exhibits activities appropriate to a kaiśora. Then what to speak of Lord Kṛṣṇa, whose exceptional growth is established in the Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī, Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu, Ānanda-vṛndavana-campū and other works?

“The three years and four months that Lord Kṛṣṇa stayed in Mahāvana were the equivalent of five years for an ordinary child, and thus in that period He completed His kaumāra stage of childhood. The period from then to the age of six years and eight months, during which He lived in Vṛndāvana, constitutes His paugaṇḍa stage. And the period from the age of six years and eight months through His tenth year, during which time He lived in Nandīśvara [Nandagrāma], constitutes His kaiśora stage. Then, at the age of ten years and seven months, on the eleventh lunar day of the dark fortnight of the month of Caitra, He went to Mathurā, and on the fourteenth day thereafter He killed Kaṁsa. Thus He completed His kaiśora period at age ten, and He eternally remains at that age. In other words, we should understand that from this point on the Lord remains forever a kiśora.”

Thus Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī analyzes the intricacies of this verse.

Here Lord Kṛṣṇa points out that not only did His parents suffer in separation from Him and Balarāma, but the two boys also suffered in separation from Their parents.

Having stated, “Both you, Our parents, and We have suffered because of Our separation,” Kṛṣṇa now states that His and Balarāma’s religious principles have been spoiled by Their failure to satisfy Their parents.

Lord Kṛṣṇa continues to bring Vasudeva and Devakī back to their normal parental feelings toward Him and Balarāma. An ordinary child would be afraid of a cruel, tyrannical king like Kaṁsa, and Lord Kṛṣṇa here plays the part of such a child, thus evoking the parental sympathy of Vasudeva and Devakī.

According to Sanskrit grammar, the words para-tantrayoḥ and kliṣṭayoḥ may also refer to Vasudeva and Devakī. Actually, Vasudeva and Devakī were under the control of Providence and were disturbed by the activities of Kaṁsa, whereas Śrī Kṛṣṇa is always the absolute Personality of Godhead.

Ugrasena might have told the Lord, “My dear Lord, it is actually You who should sit on the throne.” Anticipating this statement, Lord Kṛṣṇa told Ugrasena that because of Yayāti’s ancient curse, princes in the Yadu dynasty could technically not sit on the royal throne, and therefore Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma were disqualified. Of course, Ugrasena also could be considered part of the Yadu dynasty, but by the order of the Lord he could sit on the royal throne. In conclusion, these were all pastimes the Supreme Lord enjoyed as He played the part of a human being.

Lord Kṛṣṇa again assures Ugrasena that he should confidently take the throne.

The Lord here indicates His desire to satisfy His dear devotees in Mathurā — Vasudeva, Devakī and other members of the Yadu dynasty — who for so long had been separated from Him during His stay in Vṛndāvana.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī has written an extensive purport to this verse, elaborately analyzing this portion of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes. Just as a man places his valuable gold within fire to reveal its purity, the Lord placed His most beloved devotees, the residents of Vṛndāvana, in the fire of separation from Him in order to manifest their supreme love. This is the essence of Ācārya Viśvanātha’s comments.

At the time of Kṛṣṇa’s appearance, Vasudeva had been imprisoned by Kaṁsa, who had stolen all his cows. Still, Vasudeva had been so jubilant at the birth of the Lord that he had mentally donated ten thousand of his cows to the brāhmaṇas.

Now, upon Kaṁsa’s death, Vasudeva took back all his cows from the late King’s herd and gave ten thousand of them, according to religious principles, to the worthy brāhmaṇas.

Both Śrīdhara Svāmī and Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura explain the term gāyatraṁ vratam as the vow of brahmacarya, or celibacy in student life. Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma were playing the part of perfect students on the path of self-realization. Of course, in the modern, degraded age, student life has become a wild, animalistic affair filled with illicit sex and drugs.

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī explains that the confidential portion of the Dhanur-veda, military science, includes knowledge of the appropriate mantras and presiding deities of warfare. Dharmān refers to the Manu-saṁhitā and other standard lawbooks (dharma-śāstras). Nyāya-pathān refers to the doctrine of Karma-mīmāṁsā and other such theories. Ānvīkṣikīm is knowledge of the techniques of logical argument (tarka). The sixfold political science is quite pragmatic and includes (1) sandhi, making peace; (2) vigraha, war; (3) yāna, marching; (4) āsana, sitting tight; (5) dvaidha, dividing one’s forces; and (6) saṁśaya, seeking the protection of a more powerful ruler.

The following list comprises the sixty-four subjects mastered by Lord Kṛṣṇa and Lord Balarāma in sixty-four days. Additional information may be found in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Lords learned (1) gītam, singing; (2) vādyam, playing on musical instruments; (3) nṛtyam, dancing; (4) nāṭyam, drama; (5) ālekhyam, painting; (6) viśeṣaka-cchedyam, painting the face and body with colored unguents and cosmetics; (7) taṇḍula-kusuma-bali-vikārāḥ, preparing auspicious designs on the floor with rice and flowers; (8) puṣpāstaraṇam, making a bed of flowers; (9) daśana-vasanāṅga-rāgāḥ, coloring one’s teeth, clothes and limbs; (10) maṇi-bhūmikā-karma, inlaying a floor with jewels; (11) śayyā-racanam, covering a bed; (12) udaka-vādyam, ringing waterpots; (13) udaka-ghātaḥ, splashing with water; (14) citra-yogāḥ, mixing colors; (15) mālya-grathana-vikalpāḥ, preparing wreaths; (16) śekharāpīḍa-yojanam, setting a helmet on the head; (17) nepathya-yogāḥ, putting on apparel in a dressing room; (18) karṇa-patra-bhaṅgāḥ, decorating the earlobe; (19) sugandha-yuktiḥ, applying aromatics; (20) bhūṣaṇa-yojanam, decorating with jewelry; (21) aindrajālam, jugglery; (22) kaucumāra-yogaḥ, the art of disguise; (23) hasta-lāghavam, sleight of hand; (24) citra-śākāpūpa-bhakṣya-vikāra-kriyaḥ, preparing varieties of salad, bread, cake and other delicious food; (25) pānaka-rasa-rāgāsava-yojanam, preparing palatable drinks and tinging draughts with red color; (26) sūcī-vāya-karma, needlework and weaving; (27) sūtra-krīḍā, making puppets dance by manipulating thin threads; (28) vīṇā-ḍamarukavādyāni, playing on a lute and a small x-shaped drum; (29) prahelikā, making and solving riddles; (29a) pratimālā, capping verses, or reciting poems verse for verse as a trial of memory or skill; (30) durvacaka-yogāḥ, uttering statements difficult for others to answer; (31) pustaka-vācanam, reciting books; and (32) nāṭikākhyāyikā-darśanam, enacting short plays and writing anecdotes.

Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma also learned (33) kāvya-samasyā-pūraṇam, solving enigmatic verses; (34) paṭṭikā-vetra-bāṇa-vikalpāḥ, making a bow from a strip of cloth and a stick; (35) tarku-karma, spinning with a spindle; (36) takṣaṇam, carpentry; (37) vāstu-vidyā, architecture; (38) raupya-ratna-parīkṣā, testing silver and jewels; (39) dhātu-vādaḥ, metallurgy; (40) maṇi-rāga-jñānam, tinging jewels with various colors; (41) ākara-jñānam, mineralogy; (42) vṛkṣāyur-veda-yogāḥ, herbal medicine; (43) meṣa-kukkuṭa-lāvaka-yuddha-vidhiḥ, the art of training and engaging rams, cocks and quails in fighting; (44) śuka-śārikā-pralāpanam, knowledge of how to train male and female parrots to speak and to answer the questions of human beings; (45) utsādanam, healing a person with ointments; (46) keśa-mārjana-kauśalam, hairdressing; (47) akṣara-muṣṭikā-kathanam, telling what is written in a book without seeing it, and telling what is hidden in another’s fist; (48) mlecchita-kutarka-vikalpāḥ, fabricating barbarous or foreign sophistry; (49) deśa-bhāṣā-jñānam, knowledge of provincial dialects; (50) puṣpa-śakaṭikā-nirmiti-jñānam, knowledge of how to build toy carts with flowers; (51) yantra-mātṛkā, composing magic squares, arrangements of numbers adding up to the same total in all directions; (52) dhāraṇa-mātṛkā, the use of amulets; (53) saṁvācyam, conversation; (54) mānasī-kāvya-kriyā, composing verses mentally; (55) kriyā-vikalpāḥ, designing a literary work or a medical remedy; (56) chalitaka-yogāḥ, building shrines; (57) abhidhāna-koṣa-cchando-jñānam, lexicography and the knowledge of poetic meters; (58) vastra-gopanam, disguising one kind of cloth to look like another; (59) dyūta-viśeṣam, knowledge of various forms of gambling; (so) ākarṣa-krīḍa, playing dice; (61) bālaka-krīḍanakam, playing with children’s toys; (62) vaināyikī vidyā, enforcing discipline by mystic power; (63) vaijayikī vidyā, gaining victory; and (64) vaitālikī vidyā, awakening one’s master with music at dawn.

According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī, the child was captured by the conchshell demon while playing at the Mahā-śiva-kṣetra.

Western scholars sometimes think that references in ancient books of wisdom to the deity of the ocean, the deity of the sun and so on reveal a primitive, mythical way of thinking. They sometimes say that primitive men think that the ocean is a god or that the sun and moon are gods. In fact, references such as the word sindhu in this verse, meaning “the ocean,” indicate the person who governs that aspect of physical nature.

We can give several modern examples. In the United Nations we may say, “The United States votes ‘Yes,’ the Soviet Union votes ‘No.’” We hardly mean that the physical countries or the buildings in them have voted. We mean that a particular person, representing that political and geographical entity, has voted. Yet the newspapers will simply say, “The United States voted, decided, etc.” and everyone knows what that means.

Similarly, in business we may say, “A large conglomerate has swallowed up a smaller firm.” We hardly mean that the buildings, office equipment and the like have physically swallowed another building full of workers and office equipment. We mean that the empowered authorities have engaged in a particular act on behalf of their respective corporate entities.

Unfortunately, modern scholars are eager to confirm their pet theories that ancient spiritual wisdom is primitive, mythic and largely supplanted by more modern ways of thinking, exemplified by their own eloquent remarks. However, much in modern scholarship must be rethought in the light of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Clearly the demon Pañcajana was too powerful for the ocean to control; otherwise the ocean would have prevented such an unlawful act.

The conchshell the Lord took from Pañcajana, which is called Pāñcajanya, is the same one He sounded at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā. According to the ācāryas, Pañcajana had become a demon in a way similar to that of Jaya and Vijaya. In other words, though appearing in the form of a demon, he was actually a devotee of the Lord. The Skanda Purāṇa, Avanti-khaṇḍa, describes the wonderful things that happened when Lord Kṛṣṇa sounded His conchshell:

“The hell known as Asipatra-vana lost the sharp, swordlike leaves on its trees, and the hell named Raurava became free of its ruru beasts. The Bhairava hell lost its fearfulness, and all cooking stopped in the Kumbhīpāka hell.”

The Skanda Purāṇa further states:

“Their sinful reactions eradicated, all the inhabitants of hell attained liberation and approached the spiritual world.”