The sage thus regretted the sin committed by his own son. He did not take the insult paid by the King very seriously. (49)
Generally the transcendentalists, even though engaged by others in the dualities of the material world, are not distressed. Nor do they take pleasure [in worldly things], for they are transcendentally engaged. (50)
Śrīdhara Svāmī's Bhāvārthadīpikā:
The offense committed against him (by his son), not self-originated. A sin, a transgression. (49) And this is appropriate, he says: "Generally..." In regard to the dualities like pleasure and pain. One who has taken shelter of the qualities (of material nature) does not experience pleasure, pain, etc. (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the commentary on the great Purāṇa Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the First Canto.
Śrī Vaṃśīdhara's Bhāvārthadīpikā Prakāśa:
That sin, that offense committed by that king. The descriptive term "great sage" is meaningful. Since he is the most omniscient, only for those identifying with the body does sorrow, etc., arise, along with anger. But not for one in the state of samādhi, since for him sins are like water on a lotus leaf, unattached. (49) He explains that this is indeed the nature of the saintly - "And this is appropriate..." Associated, joined. The saintly see things as they are. Why would there be absence of sorrow, etc., there? He says: "Since..." By the rejection and acceptance of the qualities, one does not become the shelter of the quality or the defect. Here, the word "not" is to be supplied. (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the Bhāvārthadīpikā Prakāśa commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the First Canto.
Śrī Rādhāramaṇa Dāsa Gosvāmī's Dīpanī Commentary:
The term "great sage" here is a compound meaning "one whose mind is absorbed in profound contemplation." (49-50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the Dīpanī commentary.
Śrī Vīrarāghava's Commentary:
In this way, that great sage, though distressed by the sin committed by his son, did not at all consider or dwell upon the sin, the offense committed against him by the king himself. (49) As to why he did not dwell on it, he says: "Generally..." In this world, even when associated by others with dualities like cold, heat, pleasure and pain, etc., the saintly ones generally do not lament nor rejoice - just as they do not rejoice when associated with joy, similarly they do not lament when associated with sorrow. Why? Because their mind, their self, takes shelter of the qualities, the virtues. Or, the reading can be "aguṇāśrayaḥ" - they do not take shelter of the products of the qualities like attachment, aversion, etc. (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the commentary Candracandrikā on the great Purāṇa Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the First Canto, composed by the revered Ācārya Śrī Vīrarāghava.
Śrī Vijayādhvaja Tīrtha's Padaratnāvalī:
That sin, that offense committed by that king. The term "great sage" is meaningful - since he is the most omniscient, only for those identifying with the body does sorrow etc. arise along with anger. But not for one in the state of samādhi, since for him sins are like water on a lotus leaf, unattached - this is the meaning, with other such distinctions. (49) He states that this is indeed the nature of the saintly: "The saintly ones..." Associated with the dualities of pleasure, pain, etc., the saintly ones see things as they are. Why is there absence of sorrow etc.? He says this: "Since..." In the phrase "the self takes shelter of the qualities", a separation should be made - "by the rejection and acceptance". The self, the individual, is itself the shelter of the quality or the defect - hence "tattvasmāt". (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the Ratnāvalī commentary by Śrī Vijayādhvaja Tīrtha on the great Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the First Canto.
Śrī Viśvanātha Cakravartī's Sārārthadarśinī:
He did not regard as significant the sin, the offense committed against him, who was blameless. (49) And this is appropriate, he says: "Generally..." In regard to the dualities like pleasure and pain, etc. One who has not taken shelter of material pleasure, pain, etc., does not experience them. (50)
Thus the eighteenth chapter, pleasing to the minds of the devotees, is concluded in the Sārārthadarśinī commentary on the Hari-kathā.
Śrī Śukadevā's Siddhāntadīpa:
Even though the king himself was blameless, he did not at all dwell upon his sin, his offense. (49) He gives the reason for not dwelling on it: "Generally..." One who has not taken shelter of attachment, aversion, etc., does not experience them. (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of Siddhāntadīpa by Śrī Śukadeva on the great Purāṇa Śrīmad-Bhāgavata, the First Canto.
Śrīmad Vallabhācārya Viracitā subodhinī commentary
By describing the remorse of the father, and establishing the blamelessness of the king, it removes the doubt that it would be proper to approve of the blameful one's blameful act. Though a sin was committed by another, he felt remorseful about it. The reason for this is [because] he is a sage. "Munir" means having the understanding of the Lord's heart. Moreover, he did not even mentally harbor that offense of his own doing in placing the serpent. Therefore, because of knowing the Lord's heart in a profound way, and because of his perception of faults, he is indeed a great sage. (49)
Equalizing both, it concludes generally. The virtuous ones—be it the king or the sage—when associated by others in this world, everywhere, with the dualities such as pleasure and pain etc., do not suffer distress when associated with misery, nor do they rejoice when associated with happiness. Therefore, the absence of agitation in these two later is quite reasonable. It states the justification for that: "The self has no basis in the gunas." The gunas etc. have their basis in the mind itself, not in the self. Therefore, due to the absence of superimposition of those [gunas] on the mind, the absence of agitation is proper. (50)
Thus ends the eighteenth chapter of the Śrībhāgavatasubodhinī composed by Śrīvallabhadīkṣita, son of Lakṣmaṇabhaṭṭa, in the first Skanda.
Śrīgiridhārakṛtā bālaprabodhini:
He, that sage, felt remorseful due to the offense committed by his son, and though he himself was insulted by the king's act of casting the serpent, he did not at all contemplate that sin or offense. The meaning is explained by stating the reason: "The great sage"—because he is discriminative by nature. (49)
Not only is this the nature of him alone, but of all virtuous ones, it says "generally." Those virtuous ones in this world, who are engaged by others in dualities like heat/cold, pleasure/pain etc., do not suffer in misery nor rejoice in happiness, because their self (ātman), the mind, is the abode of virtues like forbearance and contentment. Or, the division is "aguṇāśraya," meaning: not the abode of the products of the guṇas like attachment, aversion etc. (50)
This Bālaprabodhini commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata was composed by Śrīmad-Giridhara, who is authorized to serve at the feet of Śrīmad-Mukundarāyāṇāṃ, son in the lineage of Śrīvallabhācārya, for the purpose of attaining the bliss of devotion. (1)
This Bālaprabodhini commentary on the Śrīmad-Bhāgavata was composed by Śrīmad-Giridhara for the purpose of attaining the bliss of devotion. (2)
In the first Skanda, while describing the supreme authority, the eighteenth chapter was reached, which delineates the cursing of Pariksit. (3)
Hindi Anuvāda
The great sage Shameek felt intense remorse over the offense committed by his son. But he did not pay any attention to the insult inflicted on him by King Parikshit. || 49 ||
This is generally the nature of great souls that when other people in this world engage them in the dualities of pleasure and pain etc., they do not become elated or distressed, because the nature of the self is completely transcendental to the gunas (modes of material nature). || 50 ||
Thus the 18th Chapter is concluded.
SB 1.18.49-50
