O brāhmaṇas, the circumstances having distressed him with extreme hunger and thirst, the King directed toward the sage his anger and envy, which he had never before directed toward a brāhmaṇa. (29)
While leaving, the King, being so insulted, picked up a lifeless snake with his bow and angrily placed it on the shoulder of the sage. Then he returned to his palace. (30)
Upon returning, he began to contemplate and argue within himself whether the sage had actually been in meditation, with senses concentrated and eyes closed, or whether he had just been feigning trance just to avoid receiving a lower kṣatriya. (31)
The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a brāhmaṇa’s son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father’s distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows. (32)
Śrīdharasvāmi's Bhāvārthadīpikā
Jealousy means inability to tolerate another's superiority. || 29 ||
Gatāsum means dead. With the point of his bow. || 30 ||
He states the king's intention regarding the serpent's shelter. "Is he one who has withdrawn all his senses, with eyes closed? Or would it be that he is pretending to be in a trance out of disrespect towards the Kshatriyas who have come or gone?" This is the meaning of his inquiry. || 31 ||
His son was named Shringi, extremely powerful, endowed with the strength of austerities. Agham means sorrow. In the midst of those children. || 32 ||
Śrī Vaṃśīdharakṛtā Bhāvārthadīpikāprakāśaḥ
"Unprecedented" - such was never manifested before. Inability to tolerate my superiority - "Even though I am the ruler of this kingdom, this person, being my subject, does not respect me" - this was the characteristic. || 29 ||
"Placing it" implies: O Brahmin, just as I have properly honored you as a guest, likewise I am honoring you with this delicate garland, while saying this - this is the sense. || 30 ||
At the time of leaving, the king reflects - "This one..." Completely withdrawn from all functions, with all senses restrained. Hence, was he truly in meditation or falsely pretending? What could be the reason for that? Here, the king's misdeed should not be considered arising from misfortune, but rather, the sages say that in order to quickly fulfill his own desire, by making him develop detachment through a brahmin's curse, bring about his association with Śukadeva, manifest himself in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavata to deliver the world, and also make even some devotees to be born in Kali-yuga experience his divine pastimes like the Rāsa-līlā - this very desire of the Lord. This will be described later on, in verses like "That very same cloud..." To reveal that even misdeeds of his pure devotee are only auspicious by the grace of God, as stated in Gītā: "Whenever there is a decline of dharma...then I manifest Myself." It was the Lord himself who inspired such a disposition in him. Even in dream, such a nature is impossible for him, since it is said "unprecedented." Nor can it be said that this temporary disposition arose from some special misfortune from the Lord, as that would make the great fortune of his association with Śukadeva inexplicable. Nor can it be argued that excessive thirst alone was the cause, since immediately after drinking water, he felt intense remorse, rushed home and instantly took rest. Thus, at birth, death, in the prime vigor of brahminical splendor, and subjugation of time itself, the extraordinary power of the Lord's grace upon that king alone must be recognized. || 31 ||
At that time, the son of that brahmarshi Śamīka was named Śṛṅgī, extremely powerful. Powerful meaning his body was imbued with spiritual vigor, though merely by age he was still a child, not by capability. While playing with other children, he spoke as follows: || 32 ||
Śrīmad Vīrarāghavavyākhyā
Afflicted by hunger and thirst, whose body was tormented - for that king, towards the brahmin sage, unprecedented - meaning that which had never occurred before, jealousy and anger arose, O Brahmin! Anger means rage, impatience means the intention to harm, etc. || 29 ||
Then that king, while leaving or about to depart, out of anger, placed a lifeless snake on the shoulder of the brahmarshi with the tip of his bow, and went to the city. || 30 ||
Why did he place it? Here he reveals the king's intention - "This..." Is this sage one who has withdrawn and restrained all the remaining senses, with eyes closed, being established in true meditation? Or rather, thinking "What business do we Kshatriyas have with him?", did he feign meditation with that intention and place it, is the meaning. || 31 ||
He was the extremely powerful son of that sage, endowed with brahminical splendor. As a child, while playing with other children, hearing that his father had been wronged by the king, he spoke the following right there. || 32 ||
Śrīmad Vijayadhvaja-tīrthakṛtā padaratnāvalī
His anger towards the brahmin arose, not mere anger but also envy - this is the connection. 'Anger itself, not favor' - this is the meaning of the words. And what kind of envy? Unprecedented, not arisen before, for one whose mind was tormented by hunger and thirst. (29)
He states the reason for the curse - 'that'. That king, having placed a dead snake on the shoulder of that brahmarshi with the tip of his bow, went to the city - this is the connection. (30)
He describes the manner of contemplation of the one going to the city, with 'this'. This sage, with his senses turned inward and completely withdrawn from objects, focused on the Supreme Reality, with eyes closed - 'Is he not feigning trance with closed eyes, thinking we kshatriyas would not matter?' - thus arguing in his mind, he went to the city - connected with the previous verse. (31)
The son of that brahmarshi, named Shringi, spoke there - this is the connection. By saying 'this', it is indicated what is going to be said next. Having heard that his father had incurred the terrible sin of being insulted by King Parikshit, or having reached an impure state, it is shown by 'very powerful' that he had the ability to curse. By the affix 'ka' in 'arbhakaih' (with young children) it is shown that he was a child in age, not in power, while playing with young boys. (32)
Śrīmad Viśvanātha Cakravartti kṛtā sārarthadarśinī
Matsara means inability to tolerate another's excellence. (29)
"Dhanushkotya" means with the tip of the bow. "O Brahman! Just as I have been properly honored by you as a guest, I too honor you with this delicate garland," - this is the intended sense. (30)
At the time of departure, the king reflects, "eshā" (this one). "Nibhṛtaśeṣa-karaṇaḥ" means having withdrawn all the senses inwards; hence he is in true samadhi. "Aho khinnā mṛṣā samādhiḥ?" - "Or is it a false samadhi?" And the reason given is "kim nu" - "what if...?" Here, this misdeed of the king should not be considered arising from misfortune, but rather the seers say that in order to quickly bring him to His side, making him averse through the curse of a brahmin, uniting him with Shukadeva, and then manifesting Himself in the form of Shri Bhagavata for the deliverance of the world, and also to relish some devotees to be born in Kali-yuga with His own pastimes like the rasa-lila - this was the Lord's own desire. This is indicated by the upcoming statement "tasyaiva me'ghasya" etc. To reveal that even the misdeeds of His pure devotee result in only auspiciousness, as stated in "yadā yadā hi dharmasya..." - the Lord Himself aroused such a state in him, giving an apparent cause for His manifestation in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. And it is said "abhūtapūrvam" - this nature was unprecedented for him, not even in a dream. Nor can this temporary state be attributed to a special ill-fate from the gods, as that would make the great fortune of meeting Śukadeva unjustified. It should be said that excessive thirst alone was the cause, since immediately after drinking water, he was overcome with intense remorse, went home and at once sat down to meditate. Thus, his subduing the power of Brahmā at birth, death and midlife, and of Time itself, should be considered a clear sign of the Lord's great grace and strength. (31)
His son was Śringi. (32)
Śukadeva kṛtaḥ Siddhantaprakāśaḥ
He whose body was tormented (ardita), was distressed (pīḍita ātmā). For him, that which had not occurred before was unprecedented (bhūtapūrvam). The opposite of that was abhūtapūrvam - a mental distortion in the form of inability to tolerate excellence (tad-utkarṣāsahātmakaś cittavikāraḥ), anger (manyuḥ), and rage (krodhaḥ) arose suddenly (sahasā abhūt sadyaiva babhūva). (29)
Verily, he, afflicted by that envy and anger, in a rage (ruṣā), with envy and anger, placed a lifeless snake (gatāsum uragam) on the venerable, faultless sage (brahmarṣeḥ) with the tip of his bow (dhanuṣo'greṇa nidhāya) and went to the city (puram āgataḥ prāptaḥ). The sense is that the origin and manifestation of anger etc. was most astonishing. (30)
"Is this one (kim ayam) having withdrawn all senses inwards (nibhṛtāni pratyāhṛtāny aśeṣāṇi karaṇāni yena), by which his eyes are closed (mīlite īkṣaṇe yena), in that state, in true samadhi (satya-samādhiḥ)? Or, due to disregard for us Kshatriyas (kṣatrabandhu-bhiḥ kim nu syāt), is it a false samadhi (mṛṣā-samādhiḥ)?" - Such was his intention in placing the snake. (31)
His son Shringi, having heard that his father (tātam pitaram) had incurred distress (agham duḥkham prāpitam), spoke thus (idamabravīt). (32)
Śrīmad-Vallabhācāryaviracītā Subodhinī Vyākhyā
Then he elucidates the other two defects that emerged within him, referring to them as "abhūtapūrvaṃ" (unprecedented). Such a defect, which was envy (matsaraḥ) towards the Brahmin, had never before manifested in him. "Sahasā" implies that the emergence of consideration was inhibited. He uses "kṣuttṛdbhyām" to indicate that the bodily tendencies had become so powerful. "The mind (ātmā), the internal organ (antaḥkaraṇam) of the one who, upon hearing of the transgression against the Brahmin, became agitated" - hence the address "brāhmaṇ" (O Brahmin!). Envy (matsaraḥ) and anger (manyuḥ) itself arose - matsara means the inability to tolerate another's excellence. Thus, the ten faults arose together, denoted by the plural verb "cakāra". (29)
As a conclusion to the faults, he states their consequence by saying "sa tu brahma ṛṣeḥ" (But he...). The word "tu" (but) sets aside the previous knowledge. Since the act had already happened, by giving a place for censure due to the transgression against the Brahmin, the authority of the object of knowledge and the means of knowledge is indicated by calling him a "brahma-ṛṣi" (Brahmin sage). This is not permanent. The snake ("aṃsa"), being led ("nīyamānaḥ"), indeed fell from his head itself because of its Brahminhood, or did not move from the tip of his hand. Having killed the snake, after death ("gatāsum"), rising up, he departed ("vinirgatya"), with the tip of the bow ("dhanuṣkoṭyā") picking it up, placing ("nidhāya") it, went to his city ("svapuram āgataḥ") - having gone hunting ("mṛgayām gataḥ"), doing what was to be done with his bow, and having returned. Even if he were to stand nearby or console a child. (30)
Now, what was the king's intention in doing so? This he states with "eṣa kim" (Is this one...). "One whose senses (karaṇāni) are all withdrawn inwards (nibhṛtāni)", in that state, "does he have closed eyes (mīlitekṣaṇaḥ)", and is thus in true samadhi (satya-samādhiḥ)? Or, to indicate ignorance, does his closed eyes signify false samadhi (mṛṣāsamādhiḥ)?" Now, what is the purpose of indicating thus? This he states with "kim nu syāt" (what if...) - the word "nu" indicates doubt or certainty. "What if it be for the Kshatriyas (kṣatrabandhu-bhiḥ), those who have come or gone?" Kshatriyas by virtue of their knowledge of yoga - even if something has to be done by indicating false samadhi, still this consideration arose only to satisfy the mind. That is the meaning. (31)
Thus, he states that his unconsidered action resulted in misery by saying "tasyaiva" (His...). "Putra" means one who delivers from hell. If he does not deliver us, he has lost his status as a son. "Extremely powerful" - this indicates his capability. He also states the cause of his lack of discrimination - a mere child, playing with other children at the outskirts of the ashram, having heard that the king had committed an offense, a sin - even touching a dead snake is a sin, death is indeed death or the destruction of the ashram. In the case of an offense, the offense committed by the king resulted in the sage's condemnation. Addressing him affectionately as "tāta" (father), right there where he had heard this, he spoke thus. (32)
Śrīmad Gosvāmi Śrī Puruṣottama caraṇa viracitaḥ subodhinī prakāśaḥ
Regarding "his son" here, anticipating the question "how did he incur sin?", they say "by touching the dead snake" etc. "By the slaying of the ashram-dweller" means: just as the snake was killed, he may kill another; in that case, death itself would befall. "Resulted in the sage's condemnation" means: just as carrying a skull is the mark of a brahmin-slayer, so too carrying a snake is for a snake-slayer - that is the intention. Regarding "alas" here, by "this much" is meant by not performing worship and obstructing samadhi. (32)
Śrī Giridharakṛtā bālaprabodhinī
He clarifies what was already stated: “abhūtapūrvaṃ” means unprecedented, what had never existed or arisen before. Such wrath (manyuḥ), anger (krodhaḥ), envy (matsaraḥ) in the form of inability to tolerate another’s excellence, towards the brahmin sage Shamika, indeed arose suddenly (sahasā) in the king, patience did not arise. He states the cause for this: “exhausted by hunger and thirst (kṣuttrīdbhyām), tormented was the mind (ātmā), the inner organ (antaḥkaraṇam) of the one”. (29)
That king, departing from there in anger (ruṣā), killed the snake with the tip of his bow, placed it on the shoulder of that brahma-sage, and went to his city - this is the sequence. (30)
Now, anticipating the question “what was the king’s intention in placing the snake thus?”, he states it with “eṣaḥ” (this one). “Does this sage, with all senses (karaṇāni) withdrawn inwards (nibhṛitāni), in that state with closed eyes (mīlitekṣaṇaḥ), have true samadhi? Or rather, does he pretend to have samadhi out of some interest from the Kshatriya kinsmen (kṣatrabandhu) who arrived, thinking ‘what purpose would it serve us?’” - this is the meaning, that the placing of the snake was to inquire thus. (31)
The son of that sage, a mere child extremely powerful (atitejasvī), playing with other children, upon hearing that the king had caused suffering (agham) to his father by placing the snake, spoke these words in the midst of those children, which will be stated - this is the sequence. (32)
Hindi translation
He clarifies what was already stated: Śaunaka! They were restless from hunger and thirst (kṣuttrīdbhyām), therefore suddenly envy (matsaraḥ) and anger (krodhaḥ) towards the Brahmin arose in them. This was the first occasion of this kind in their life (abhūtapūrvaṃ). (29)
While returning from there, in a fit of rage (ruṣā), they picked up a dead snake with the tip of their bow, flung it around the sage’s neck, and went to their capital. (30)
The thought arose in his (the king's) mind - "Does this sage, with all his senses (karaṇāni) withdrawn inwards, being in that state with closed eyes (mīlitekṣaṇaḥ), have true samadhi? Or rather, thinking 'what interest would it serve us from these Kshatriya kinsmen (kṣatrabandhu) who arrived?', is he falsely pretending to be in samadhi?" (31)
That son of the sage Śamika was extremely powerful (atitejasvī). He was playing nearby with the other sage’s sons. When that child heard that the king had mistreated his father, he started speaking like this: (32)
SB 1.18.29-32
