King Citraketu’s Lamentation

In this material world, everyone is obsessed with the modes of passion and ignorance. However, unless one conquers these modes and comes to the platform of goodness, there is no chance of one’s becoming a pure devotee. This is confirmed by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself in Bhagavad-gītā (7.28):

“Persons who have acted piously in previous lives and in this life, whose sinful actions are completely eradicated and who are freed from the duality of delusion, engage themselves in My service with determination.” Since Vṛtrāsura was among the demons, Mahārāja Parīkṣit wondered how it was possible for him to have become such an exalted devotee.

There are four classes of men, namely karmīs, jñānīs, yogīs and bhaktas. This statement pertains especially to karmīs and jñānīs. A karmī tries to he happy within this material world by changing from one body to another. His objective is bodily comfort, either in this planet or in another. When such a person becomes a jñānī, however, be aspires for liberation from material bondage. Among many such persons who aspire for liberation, one may actually be liberated during his life. Such a person gives up his attachment for society, friendship, love, country, family, wife and children. Among many such persons, who are in the vānaprastha stage, one may understand the value of becoming a sannyāsī, completely accepting the renounced order of life.

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura gives the following purport to this verse. Simply desiring mukti, or liberation, is insufficient; one must become factually liberated. When one understands the futility of the materialistic way of life, one becomes advanced in knowledge, and therefore he situates himself in the vānaprastha order, unattached to family, wife and children. One should then further progress to the platform of sannyāsa, the actual renounced order, never to fall again and be afflicted by materialistic life. Even though one desires to be liberated, this does not mean he is liberated. Only rarely is someone liberated. Indeed, although many men take sannyāsa to become liberated, because of their imperfections they again become attached to women, material activities, social welfare work and so on.

Jñānīs, yogīs and karmīs devoid of devotional service are called offenders. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu says, māyāvādī kṛṣṇe aparādhī: one who thinks that everything is māyā instead of thinking that everything is Kṛṣṇa is called an aparādhī, or offender. Although the Māyāvādīs, impersonalists, are offenders at the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa, they may nonetheless be counted among the siddhas, those who have realized the self. They may be considered nearer to spiritual perfection because at least they have realized what spiritual life is. If such a person becomes nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇa, a devotee of Lord Nārāyaṇa, he is better than a jīvan-mukta, one who is liberated or perfect. This requires higher intelligence.

There are two kinds of jñānīs. One is inclined to devotional service and the other to impersonal realization. Impersonalists generally undergo great endeavor for no tangible benefit, and therefore it is said that they are husking paddy that has no grain (sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinaḥ). The other class of jñānīs, whose jñāna is mixed with bhakti, are also of two kinds — those who are devoted to the so-called false form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and those who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead as sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha, the actual spiritual form. The Māyāvādī devotees worship Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu with the idea that Viṣṇu has accepted a form of māyā and that the ultimate truth is actually impersonal. The pure devotee, however, never thinks that Viṣṇu has accepted a body of māyā; instead, he knows perfectly well that the original Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person. Such a devotee is actually situated in knowledge. He never merges in the Brahman effulgence. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.2.32):

“O Lord, the intelligence of those who think themselves liberated but who have no devotion is impure. Even though they rise to the highest point of liberation by dint of severe penances and austerities, they are sure to fall down again into material existence, for they do not take shelter at Your lotus feet.” Evidence of this same point is also given in Bhagavad-gītā (9.11), wherein the Lord says:

“Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.” When rascals (mūḍhas) see that Kṛṣṇa acts exactly like a human being, they deride the transcendental form of the Lord because they do not know the paraṁ bhāvam, His transcendental form and activities. Such persons are further described in Bhagavad-gītā (9.12) as follows:

“Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demoniac and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.” Such persons do not know that Kṛṣṇa’s body is not material. There is no distinction between Kṛṣṇa’s body and His soul, but because less intelligent men see Kṛṣṇa as a human being, they deride Him. They cannot imagine how a person like Kṛṣṇa could be the origin of everything (govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi). Such persons are described as moghāśāḥ, baffled in their hopes. Whatever they desire for the future will be baffled. Even if they apparently engage in devotional service, they are described as moghāśāḥ because they ultimately desire to merge into the Brahman effulgence.

Those who aspire to be elevated to the heavenly planets by devotional service will also be frustrated, because this is not the result of devotional service. However, they are also given a chance to engage in devotional service and be purified. As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.2.17):

“Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Personality of Godhead, who is the Paramātmā [Supersoul] in everyone’s heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses desire for material enjoyment from the heart of the devotee who relishes His messages, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted.”

Unless the dirt within the core of one’s heart is cleansed away, one cannot become a pure devotee. Therefore the word su-durlabhaḥ (“very rarely found”) is used in this verse. Not only among hundreds and thousands, but among millions of perfectly liberated souls, a pure devotee is hardly ever found. Therefore the words koṭiṣv api are used herein. Śrīla Madhvācārya gives the following quotations from the Tantra Bhāgavata:

“There are ninety million demigods and seventy million sages, who are all called nārāyaṇāyana, devotees of Lord Nārāyaṇa. Among them, only a few are called nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇa.”

The difference between the siddhas and nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇas is that direct devotees are called nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇas whereas those who perform various types of mystic yoga are called siddhas.

It has been described that a nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇa, a pure devotee, is rarely found even among millions and millions of persons. Therefore Parīkṣit Mahārāja was surprised that Vṛtrāsura, whose purpose was to give trouble and anxiety to others, was one of these devotees, even on a battlefield. What was the reason for Vṛtrāsura’s advancement?

Here the most significant statement is that the earth completely produced all the necessities of life during the time of King Citraketu. As stated in the Īśopaniṣad:

“Everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is controlled and owned by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.” Kṛṣṇa, the supreme controller, has created the material world, which is completely perfect and free from scarcity. The Lord supplies the necessities of all living entities. These necessities come from the earth, and thus the earth is the source of supply. When there is a good ruler, that source produces the necessities of life abundantly. However, when there is not such a good ruler, there will be scarcity. This is the significance of the word kāmadhuk. Elsewhere in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.10.4) it is said, kāmaṁ vavarṣa parjanyaḥ sarva-kāma-dughā mahī: “During the reign of Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, the clouds showered all the water that people needed, and the earth produced all the necessities of men in profusion.” We have experience that in some seasons the rains produce abundance and in other seasons there is scarcity. We have no control over the earth’s productiveness, for it is naturally under the full control of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By His order, the Lord can make the earth produce sufficiently or insufficiently. If a pious king rules the earth according to the śāstric injunctions, there will naturally be regular rainfall and sufficient produce to provide for all men. There will be no question of exploitation, for everyone will have enough. Black-marketeering and other corrupt dealings will then automatically stop. Simply ruling the land cannot solve man’s problems unless the leader has spiritual capabilities. He must be like Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira, Parīkṣit Mahārāja or Rāmacandra. Then all the inhabitants of the land will be extremely happy.

It appears that the King first married one wife, but she could not bear a child. Then he married a second, a third, a fourth and so on, but none of the wives could bear children. In spite of the material assets of janmaiśvarya-śruta-śrī — birth in an aristocratic family with full opulence, wealth, education and beauty — he was very much aggrieved because in spite of having so many wives, he had no son. Certainly his grief was natural. Gṛhastha life does not mean having a wife and no children. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, putra-hīnaṁ gṛhaṁ śūnyam: if a family man has no son, his home is no better than a desert. The King was certainly most unhappy that he could not get a son, and this is why he had married so many times. Kṣatriyas especially are allowed to marry more than one wife, and this King did so. Nonetheless, he had no issue.

As it is quoted by Śrīdhara Svāmī in his Bhāgavatam commentary:

A king is not alone. He first has his spiritual master, the supreme guide. Then come his ministers, his kingdom, his fortifications, his treasury, his system of law and order, and his friends or allies. If these seven are properly maintained, the king is happy. Similarly, as explained in Bhagavad-gītā (dehino ’smin yathā dehe), the living entity, the soul, is within the material covering of the mahat-tattva, ego and pañca-tanmātrā, the five objects of sense gratification. When these seven are in proper order, the living entity is in a mood of pleasure. Generally when the associates of the king are quiet and obedient, the king can be happy. Therefore the great sage Aṅgirā Ṛṣi inquired about the King’s personal health and the good fortune of his seven associates. When we inquire from a friend whether everything is well, we are concerned not only with his personal self but also with his family, his source of income, and his assistants or servants. All of them must be well, and then a person can be happy.

The actual happiness of a king and his dependents is described in this verse. A king should not simply give orders to his dependents because he is supreme; sometimes he must follow their instructions. Similarly, the dependents should depend on the king. This mutual dependence will make everyone happy.

The master or king and his subordinates should be interdependent. Through cooperation, both of them can be happy.

Aṅgirā Ṛṣi asked the King whether his mind was also under control. This is most essential for happiness.

Since the face is the index to the mind, a saintly person can study the condition of one’s mind by seeing his face. When Aṅgirā Ṛṣi remarked about the King’s discolored face, King Citraketu explained the cause of his anxiety as follows.

According to Vedic civilization, one gets married simply to have a son, who is needed to offer oblations to his forefathers. King Citraketu responsibly desired to beget a child so that he and his forefathers might be delivered from the darkest regions. He was concerned with how to get piṇḍa, oblations, in the next life, not only for himself but also for his forefathers. Therefore he requested Aṅgirā Ṛṣi to favor him by doing something that could help him get a son.

The word harṣa means “jubilation,” and śoka means “lamentation.” The King was overwhelmed with joy when he understood that he would have a son. Because of his great jubilation, he could not actually understand the statement of the sage Aṅgirā. He accepted it to mean that there would certainly be jubilation because of the birth of his future son, but that he would be the King’s only son and, being very proud of his great wealth and empire, would not be very obedient to his father. Thus the King was satisfied, thinking, “Let there be a son. It does not matter if he is not very obedient.” In Bengal there is a proverb that instead of having no maternal uncle, it is better to have a maternal uncle who is blind. The King accepted this philosophy, thinking that a disobedient son would be better than no son at all. The great sage Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says:

“What is the use of a son who is neither a learned scholar nor a devotee? Such a son is like a blind, diseased eye, which always causes suffering.” Nevertheless, the material world is so polluted that one wants to have a son even though he is useless. This attitude was represented in the history of King Citraketu.

As stated by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita:

“A person who has no mother at home and whose wife does not speak sweetly should go to the forest. For such a person, living at home and living in the forest are equal.” Similarly, for a woman who has no son, who is not cared for by her husband and whose co-wives neglect her, treating her like a maidservant, to go to the forest is better than to remain at home.

This is the way a conditioned soul condemns the supreme creator when he meets reverses. Sometimes he accuses the Supreme Personality of Godhead of being crooked because some people are happy and some are not. Here the Queen blames supreme providence for her son’s death. Following the creative laws, a father should die first and then his son. If the creative laws are changed according to the whims of providence, then providence certainly should not be considered merciful, but must be considered inimical to the created being. Actually it is not the creator, but the conditioned soul who is inexperienced. He does not know how the subtle laws of fruitive activity work, and without knowledge of these laws of nature, he ignorantly criticizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

As stated in the Brahma-saṁhitā, karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām: one who has taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, devotional service, is not affected by the results of karma. In this verse, karma has been stressed on the basis of karma-mīmāṁsā philosophy, which says that one must act according to his karma and that a supreme controller must give the results of karma. The subtle laws of karma, which are controlled by the Supreme, cannot be understood by ordinary conditioned souls. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says that one who can understand Him and how He is acting, controlling everything by subtle laws, immediately becomes freed by His grace. That is the statement of Brahma-saṁhitā (karmāṇi nirdahati kintu ca bhakti-bhājām). One should take to devotional service without reservations and surrender everything to the supreme will of the Lord. That will make one happy in this life and the next.

According to the Vedic injunctions, one must accept a wife just to beget a son who can deliver one from the clutches of Yamarāja. Unless one has a son to offer oblations to the pitās, or forefathers, one must suffer in Yamarāja’s kingdom. King Citraketu was very much aggrieved, thinking that because his son was going away with Yamarāja he himself would again suffer. The subtle laws exist for the karmīs; if one becomes a devotee, he has no more obligations to the laws of karma.