Satrājit Murdered, the Jewel Returned

The Lord was quite aware that the Pāṇḍavas had escaped the assassination plot of Duryodhana, although the world heard the false news that the Pāṇḍavas and their mother had perished in the fire.

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī points out that those who were involved in the assassination attempt were of course not at all sorry to hear of the Pāṇḍavas’ death. The persons specifically mentioned here, however — Bhīṣma, Kṛpa, Vidura, Gāndhārī and Droṇa — were actually unhappy to hear of the supposed tragedy.

Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā reasoned that since Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma were absent from Dvārakā, Satrājit could be killed and the jewel stolen. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī mentions that these two must have flattered Śatadhanvā telling him, “You are much braver than we are; so you kill him.”

Since Satrājit’s brother, Prasena, had been violently killed, the implication of “following his brother’s path” is obvious. What we have here is an assassination plot.

It is well known that both Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā are exalted, pure devotees of the Supreme Lord, so their unusual behavior requires some explanation. The ācāryas provide it as follows: Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that Akrūra, although a first-class, pure devotee of the Lord, was a victim of the anger directed against him by the residents of Gokula because he took Lord Kṛṣṇa away from Vṛndāvana. The gosvāmī further states that Kṛtavarmā had associated with Kaṁsa — both of them being members of the Bhoja dynasty — and thus Kṛtavarmā was now suffering from this undesirable association.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī offers an alternative explanation: Both Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā were furious with Satrājit because he had insulted Lord Kṛṣṇa and spread false rumors about Him in Dvārakā. Under normal circumstances Akrūra and Kṛtavarmā would have been most pleased that Lord Kṛṣṇa married the beautiful Satyabhāmā. Being pure devotees, they could not actually be unhappy about this match, nor could they become jealous rivals of the Lord. Therefore they had an ulterior motive in behaving like His rivals.

According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī, the word asattamaḥ indicates that Śatadhanvā was basically evil-minded and a firm hater of Satrājit.

According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Satyabhāmā’s anguished feelings and words at the death of her father were prompted by Lord Kṛṣṇa’s pastime potency (līlā-śakti), to prepare for the Lord’s violent reaction against Śatadhanvā.

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī explains that the word helanam indicates acting against the Lords’ will, and that vṛjinam indicates an offense against the Lords.

The use of the singular yaḥ, “He who,” indicates that the frequent references to “the two Lords, Kṛṣṇa and Rāma,” do not compromise the firm principle of monotheism expressed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. As explained in many Vedic literatures, the one Supreme Lord expands Himself into innumerable forms, yet He remains the one and almighty God. For example, we have this statement in the Brahma-saṁhitā (5.33): advaitam acyutam anādir ananta-rūpam. “The one Supreme Lord is infallible and beginningless, and He expands Himself into innumerable manifest forms.” Out of regard for the spirit of the Lord’s pastimes, in which He expands Himself and appears as His own older brother, Balarāma, the Bhāgavatam here refers to “the two Lords.” But the “bottom line” is that there is one Supreme Godhead, one Absolute Truth, who appears in His original form as Kṛṣṇa.

The term nyasya, “leaving in the care of,” implies Śatadhanvā now believed the jewel was his; thus he was leaving it in the care of a friend. In blunt terms, this is a thief’s mentality.

Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma had finally caught up with Śatadhanvā on the outskirts of Mithilā. Since the king of this city was a dear friend of Balarāma’s, the Lord decided to enter the city and spend some time there.

Naturally Queen Satyabhāmā was pleased to hear that her father’s murderer had been brought to justice. But her father’s Syamantaka jewel still had to be recovered, and thus she was also pleased to hear of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s determination to recover it.

The word daivika here refers to disturbances caused by supernatural beings. These disturbances often manifest as natural calamities like earthquakes, tidal waves or extreme weather. Nowadays materialistic people attribute these disturbances to earthly causes, not realizing that they constitute punishment at the hands of superior beings. The word bhautikāḥ refers to trouble caused by fellow creatures of the earth, such as human beings, animals and insects.

According to Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, Akrūra took the Syamantaka jewel and went to reside in the city of Benares, where he became known as Dānapati, “the master of charity.” There he executed fire sacrifices on gold altars with elaborate assemblies of qualified priests.

Some residents of Dvārakā felt that the unusual calamities were due to Akrūra’s absence, forgetting (as described in the next verse) that the Supreme Lord’s personal presence in Dvārakā precluded that possibility. Because when the Lord comes to earth His pastimes resemble those of human beings, the principle of “familiarity breeds contempt” comes into play. It appears that during the lives of many saintly persons and incarnations of God there always exists a class of people who fail to appreciate, or who only occasionally appreciate, the position of the great souls among them. On the other hand, the fortunate and enlightened souls who recognize the true position of the Lord and His associates are supremely blessed.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī provides the following insight on this verse: In Benares Akrūra became famous for performing sacrifices on golden altars and for his abundant charity to the brāhmaṇas. When the citizens of Dvārakā heard about this, some of them gossiped that Kṛṣṇa, considering Akrūra a rival, had sent him into exile. To dispel this new and incredible stain on His reputation, Lord Kṛṣṇa created various calamities in Dvārakā, thus inducing the citizens to call for Akrūra’s return, which the Lord then ordered.

Śvaphalka was Akrūra’s father, and the citizens felt that the son must have the same power as the father. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī points out that because of Akrūra’s relationship with his maternal grandfather, the King of Kāśī, in a time of difficulty Akrūra went to that city.

Since Lord Kṛṣṇa is the supreme controller, it was obviously by His will that certain troubles appeared in the city of Dvārakā. Superficially these evils may have been caused by Akrūra’s absence, and also by the absence of the auspicious Syamantaka jewel. But we should recall that Dvārakā is the eternal abode of Lord Kṛṣṇa; it is a city of divine bliss because the Lord resides there. Still, to execute His pastimes as a prince of this world, Lord Kṛṣṇa did the needful and summoned Akrūra.

Lord Kṛṣṇa’s treatment of Akrūra here confirms that he is actually a great devotee of the Lord.

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī quotes the following smṛti injunction regarding inheritance: patnī duhitaraś caiva pitaro bhrātaras tathā/tat-sutā gotra-jā bandhuḥ śiṣyāḥ sa-brahmacāriṇaḥ. “The inheritance goes first to the wife, then [if the wife has passed away] to the daughters, then to the parents, then to the brothers, then to the brothers’ sons, then to family members of the same gotra as the deceased, and then to his disciples, including brahmacārīs.”

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī adds that since Satrājit had no sons, since his wives were killed together with him, and since his daughter Satyabhāmā was not interested in the Syamantaka jewel, which constituted the inheritance, it rightfully belonged to her sons.

In Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “Lord Kṛṣṇa indicated by this statement that Satyabhāmā was already pregnant and that her son would be the real claimant of the jewel and would certainly take the jewel from Akrūra.”

Although technically Satyabhāmā’s sons had a right to the jewel, Lord Kṛṣṇa decided to leave the jewel in the care of Akrūra, who was using the jewel’s wealth to continually perform religious sacrifices. Indeed, Akrūra’s ability to perform such rituals on altars of gold was an indication of the jewel’s potency.

We can see in this chapter how a valuable jewel caused so much intrigue, violence and suffering. This is certainly a good lesson for those who desire a trouble-free spiritual life.

For the second time, doubts about the Lord’s reputation occasioned by the Syamantaka jewel are dispelled by the jewel itself. Indeed, for the second time the Lord brought the jewel to Dvārakā to establish His integrity there. This amazing series of incidents demonstrates that even when Lord Kṛṣṇa descends to this world there is a tendency for His “peers” to criticize Him. The whole material world is infected by the faultfinding propensity, and in this chapter the Supreme Lord demonstrates the nature of this undesirable quality.