home
Shri Datta Swami

Posted on: 23 Nov 2021

               

Trailokya Gita: Trayodashaadhyaayah - Thirteenth Chapter


Chapter-1     Chapter-2a     Chapter-2b     Chapter-3     Chapter-4     Chapter-5     Chapter-6     Chapter-7     Chapter-8     Chapter-9     Chapter-10     Chapter-11     Chapter-12     Chapter-13     Chapter-14


Trayodaśādhyāyaḥ—Thirteenth chapter

Trailokyā Uvāca:-

1) Kāme prema katham? Kṛṣṇaḥ, Kṣtriyo yādavo'thavā |
Brūhi Datta Buddhi tejāḥ, Veṇu Gopāla Kṛṣṇa mām ||

[Ms. Trailokya asked:- O God Datta, incarnated as Veṇu Gopāla Kṛṣṇa, having lot of power of intelligence! Please tell me about the place of love in lust and also explain whether God Kṛṣṇa belongs to the caste of Kṣatriyas or to the caste of Yādavas.]

 

Dattasvāmī Uvāca:-

2) Tejā nāmnā ca vikhyāte, Trailokye buddhi tejasā |
Prema kāmau bhāva karma—rūpā vanyo'nya saṃśrayau ||

[Shri Dattaswami spoke:- O Trailokya! You are also familiar by another name called ‘Tejā’ due to your immense intellectual power. Prema or love is theoretical and kāma or lust is practical. These two are mutually existing sharing each other.]

 

3) Dharmādharma mukhau prema, kāmau prakṛti kevalau |
Tattat phalā vubhau dharmyā, vadharmyau vā na miṣramau ||

[Prema or theoretical love means mental liking or desire, which may be towards justice or towards injustice. Kāma or practical lust is the action of sex following prema. If prema is towards justice, its subsequent kāma is also justified called as merit leads to heaven. If prema is towards injustice, its subsequent kāma is also not justified, called as sin leads to hell. In this way, both are always associated and will have the same nature of merit or sin in both stages. The first set is justified love followed by justified lust and the second set is unjust love followed by unjust lust. This means that you cannot have the following two types of sets:- 1. Justified love followed by unjust lust and 2. Unjust love followed by justified lust. This means that in any set, there is homogeneity and no heterogeneity.]

 

4) Ubhayor bhāva rūpārthaḥ, kāmaḥ karmaṇi ca smṛtaḥ |
Yatheṣṭaṃ bhidyate rūḍhiḥ, Kṛṣṇa Gopyor na miśramaḥ ||

[Generally people appreciate love and look down while using the word ‘kāma’. Since the word kāma also means desire, in such case, kāma becomes alternative word for prema. But, the word kāma can be used in the practical action of sex also. When we say kāma among the four puruṣārthas, kāma means the practical sex only. In the Gītā also, the word kāma is also used in the sense of practical sex (Dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu, kāmo'smi…). The usage of the word in a specific meaning differs from one context to the other based on freedom of user. In the case of the affair between Kṛṣṇa and Gopikas some think that the mixed set is resulting because theoretical love to God is justified, but, the subsequent lust or practical sex with God is not justified. But, since mixed set doesn’t exist this opinion of some people is not correct.]

 

5) Na miśramo'pi sarvatra, priyabhāvo niṣidhyate |
Bhartā dharmyaḥ priyo'dharmyaḥ, Vaidarbhīva na Rādhikā ||

[Some feel that mixed set shall not be shown by any devotee to God. They feel that the homogenous set, which is justified love followed by justified action like practical service to God is accepted whereas, the same homogenous set having theoretical love for sex followed by practical lust shall not be applied to the case of God. It means that a soul can love God as father or brother or master or husband but not as illegal darling because this type of illegal bond is unjust and sinful leading to hell. Same type of bond, which is treating God as darling before marriage with Him is acceptable as in the case of Sītā, Rukmiṇī etc. But, the bond of Rādhā is not acceptable since she was married to Ayanaghoṣa, but, loved Kṛṣṇa as darling and participated in practical lust, which was secret sex even though her bond with Kṛṣṇa is homogenous (unjust love-unjust lust).]

 

6) Pravṛttau sarva mādeyaṃ, Nivṛttir Daiva jīvayoḥ |
Daiva Daive ca Daṇḍo'stu, jīve Daive kathaṃ nu saḥ? ||

[The point here is that we are not opposing the above justified argument as far as the pravṛtti or worldly life is concerned. If Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa are human beings, what all said above is perfectly correct. But, here, even though Rādhā is incarnation of God, other Gopikas are ordinary human beings. Kṛṣṇa is undoubtedly the ultimate God. This affair of Kṛṣṇa with Rādhā or with Gopikas is Nivṛtti or spiritual affair, which is God-God or God-soul relationship and this is certainly not pravṛutti or soul-soul relationship. If you apply the rule of pravṛtti to Nivṛtti also, then, Nivṛtti shall be removed and only pravṛtti shall be maintained with its rules everywhere. The main question put by us to the above opposing people is:- you have framed a rule and everybody shall follow it. Here is an example violating your rule. If you decide to punish the violating souls, that is also acceptable to us. But, the case of violation involves God. Will you punish God also?]

 

7) Dharmo mārgaḥ sa gamyo hi, dharmo Dattāśrayo hi gauḥ |
Asmākaṃ rakṣako dharmaḥ, sa Kṛṣṇo dharma rakṣakaḥ ||

[Scriptures and scholars say that by following the path of justice, God is pleased. Justice is path and God is the goal. Can you bind the goal with path? The deity of justice has taken God Datta (Kṛṣṇa is incarnation of God Datta) as its shelter by standing at His back in the form of a cow. As per this, Datta is protector and justice-cow is protected, but, as per your theory, it seems that the justice-cow is protector and Datta is protected! There is a saying that if we protect justice, justice will protect us (Dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ). This is correct as far as the souls are concerned. Scriptures say that God is the protector or Lord of justice (Dharmasya prabhuracyutaḥ). Kṛṣṇa, the incarnation of Datta or Viṣṇu said that He comes down to earth to establish and protect justice (Dharma saṃsthāpanārthāya – Gītā).]

 

8) Proktaḥ samanvayo gūḍhaḥ, bodhyassarvaiḥ subuddhibhiḥ |
Pravṛtti dharma sūtreṇa, Śukena ca nṛṇāṃ hite ||

[We have already explained this previously in the light of total salvation from all the three strongest worldly bonds (Eṣaṇas) due to attachment to God, which is deep, but, can be understood by any theist through paying some concentrated attention. Even in the Pravṛtti-scripture, it is clearly told that the weak souls shall not imitate omnipotent incarnations of God because by such imitation, the souls get destroyed (Avara daurbalyāt - Dharmasūtram). Even sage Śuka told just this point only to King Parīkṣit without giving deep analysis because the ultimate aim is only to prevent the exploitation of this concept applicable to God only by the ordinary souls since such exploitation will destroy the imitating souls.]

 

9) Dharmyo Vāli vadho'pyasya, daṇḍabhogaḥ purākṛtaḥ |
Bhavadbhyo'pi jagatpālaḥ, prāgvetti lokasaṅgraham ||

[God is the administrator of this world and knows the solution for the welfare of the creation better than all of you. He has already proved this by an example in the past, which is that He killed Vāli by hiding Himself behind a tree. This looks as injustice, but, on deep analysis, it can be understood to be justified. Vāli is a sinner and has a divine boon that he will get half of the strength of any opposing fighter so that finally Vāli will certainly win. In such case, there is no other way than to kill him in this crooked way. But, Rāma treated this as sin so that nobody else will repeat this by exploitation. This means that anybody can kill other person from backside blaming the other person as bad. In order to avoid such misuse, Rāma treated this justified deed as sinful deed and underwent punishment when He was born as Kṛṣṇa. A hunter also killed Kṛṣṇa by shooting His foot with arrow. By this, the world is protected from misusing this concept.]

 

10) Daivatvāt sarvamokṣāt ca, na pāpamapi pāpavat |
Daṇḍaṃ bhuṅkte tataḥ śāntiḥ, rakṣito loka saṅgrahaḥ ||

[Even though the love-lust affair of Kṛṣṇa and Gopikas is not a sin because:- 1) Kṛṣṇa is God with special power not touched by the worldly rules and 2) Sages wanted full salvation by sacrificing all the worldly bonds including the weakest life-partner bond, Kṛṣṇa treated this as a sin and underwent the punishments in hell so that you shall be satisfied based on the assumed correctness of your argument that Kṛṣṇa is a sinner. Hence, there is no slightest opportunity for you to blame Kṛṣṇa. You are blaming Kṛṣṇa saying that this world will be spoiled in Pravṛtti and for the same doubt, Kṛṣṇa accepted this as sin and underwent the punishment. The world is protected by Kṛṣṇa by accepting punishment for the assumed sin and underwent the punishment so that He Himself is giving a picture to the world that this is a sin and hence, none shall repeat this imitating Him. Here, ends the whole case and a full stop is necessary.]

 

11) Kartuṃ pāpa mapāpaṃ nā, viparītaṃ tato vibhuḥ |
Svārthāya jagate caivaṃ, bhedo jīveśayorayam ||

[The difference between God and soul is very clear here:- The soul tries to interpret its sin as sinless action involving in selfishness by harming others. God is trying to make His sinless action as sinful action so that others will not be damaged by blindly imitating Him to exploit God for their selfish enjoyment!]

 

12) Rājyaṃ bhraṣṭaṃ Yadośśāpāt, akṣatriyā hi Yādavāḥ |
Yadu yācanayā Dattaḥ, tadvaṃśe Kṛṣṇa sambhavaḥ ||

[The name of the forefather of the dynasty of Kṛṣṇa was Yadu whose race was called as Yādavas and this name has nothing to do with the caste system. Just like the race of Raghu is called as Rāghavas, this name is also similar. Yadu was cursed by his father not to have the ruling power of Kṣatriyas and hence, the descendants of Yadu called Yādavas did not have the ruling power of kingdom. Yadu prayed God Datta in a forest to bless his race. God Datta incarnated as Kṛṣṇa in the dynasty of Yādavas.]

 

13) Kṛṣṇo rājyakaro bhūyaḥ, kṣatriyo'bhūt tataḥ kulam |
Guṇa karmānugaṃ gītaṃ, tenaivaṃ svānubhūtimān ||

[Kṛṣṇa established own kingdom by neutralizing the curse given to Yadu. By doing so, Kṛṣṇa became Kṣatriya again. This means that the forefathers of Yadu were Kṣatriyas since they had the power to rule the kingdom and were also ruling the kingdom. Starting from Yadu up to Kṛṣṇa the Yādavas were not Kṣatriyas since none ruled the kingdom. When Kṛṣṇa started again ruling the kingdom, Yādavas became again Kṣatriyas. This clearly indicates that the caste is based on the quality (power of ruling kingdom) and subsequent deed (action of actual ruling the kingdom). Based on this personal experience of this concept, Kṛṣṇa said in the Gītā that God made the caste system based on the concept that caste is always decided by the qualities and deeds (Cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭaṃ, guṇa karma vibhāgaśaḥ).]

 

14) Puro'pi sthāpita ssorthaḥ, Janmanā kṣatriyo Yaduḥ |
Tat putrāḥ kshatriyā eva, Yādavāḥ kathamanvayāt? ||

[This concept of the caste depending on qualities and deeds was already proved even before Kṛṣṇa established the kingdom to become Kṣatriya. Even before this incident, Yadu born as Kṣatriya lost his caste and hence, his issues became Yādavas and were not called as Kṣatriyas. When Kṣatriyas became Yādavas, this concept of dependence of caste on qualities and deeds was proved practically. Moreover, if you decide caste by birth, Yadu was a Kṣatriya since his father was a Kṣatriya. The issues of Yadu must be also Kṣatriyas since Yadu was a Kṣatriya. When the issues of Yadu were not Kṣatriyas, this means that caste is not decided by birth, but, is decided by qualities and deeds only.]

 

15) Yādavānāṃ navo varṇaḥ, rājyapālana vicyuteḥ |
Navo gopālanādvarṇo, Rāghavānāṃ puraḥ kulam ||

[Yādavas (meaning the descendants of King Yadu) were originally Kṣatriyas by doing the work of ruling kingdom. The same Yādavas lost the work of ruling kingdom starting from Yadu and hence, lost the caste of Kṣatriyas. They became a new caste called Yādavas because they selected new work, which is ruling the cows. This means that the caste is based on the professional work (karma) along with its related qualities (guṇa). Based on the related work only, they ceased to be Kṣatriyas and also became Yādavas. Hence, the caste is not based on the birth, but is based on the professional work with corresponding qualities. Just like Yādavas, Rāghavas (the descendants of King Raghu) are also Kṣatriyas involved in ruling the kingdom and they did not lose this professional work and hence, continued to be Kṣatriyas only. All this clearly proves that the caste is based on the professional work and its related qualities (Guṇa karma) and not on the birth.]

 

16) Guṇānu karma guṇato, varṇo bhinnaḥ kṣaṇakṣaṇam |
Kāle'smin na purā vipro, nityaṃ Brahmarṣireva hi ||

[The caste depending upon the qualities and deeds need not be mentioned because the qualities will lead the soul to do actions as per their qualities and hence, caste decided by qualities alone can be mentioned. This means that you can decide the caste based on qualities even though deeds are not expressed. Hence, the caste depends upon the qualities possessed by the soul. Therefore, the caste changes every minute since the qualities differ from minute to minute. This is true but, the ratio of the three qualities changes from one context to other in the present times only. In the old ages, the ratio of the three qualities does not change from one context to the other context and hence, caste system was always permanent. For example, a Brāhmaṇa by caste always remained as the divine Sage preaching the Spiritual knowledge to the society.]

 

17) Sattvaṃ vipraḥ pare'pyanyaḥ, parau vaiśyascaturthataḥ |
Śūdro guṇānugo varṇo, na hi varṇānugo guṇaḥ ||

[The name of the caste always follows the qualities and qualities do not follow the name of the caste. Pure Sattvam (99% Sattvam and 1% Rajas and Tamas) is called Brāhmaṇa. Along with Sattvam if Rajas also exists predominantly, it is called Kṣatriya. If Rajas and Tamas exist predominantly, it is called Vaiśya. If Pure Tamas (99% Tamas and 1% Sattvam and Rajas) exists, it is called Śūdra. The person gets the name of the caste as per the above said qualities and the person born in a caste need not have the above said qualities.]

 

18) Santatiḥ sthiraniṣpattyoḥ, sthirā cet varṇa saṅkaraḥ |
Prabhāvāt sā sthirā pitroḥ, Guṇā raktānna vijñataḥ ||

[The ratio of the qualities shall be fixed in an approximate range and following such fixed ratio, the caste also gets fixed. If the ratio of the qualities is changing with lot of variation, the name of the caste of such a person also changes. If two such different (approximately) fixed ratios (persons) marry, such a marriage is called inter-caste marriage. A child born to such couple will have the influence of both the parents and based on the strength of the influence of one of the couple, the child gets an average fixed ratio and such child will be of mixed caste. However, one shall not think that the ratio of the qualities of child is not coming from the blood of the parents, but, comes from the influence of the parents. The genes carry only certain mannerisms, but not qualities to the child as per the science of genetics.]

 

19) Avijñānā dasṛgvarṇaḥ, sahavāsa prabhāva sat |
Adhyāsa bhrama siddhānto, rakte vāsa guṇopari ||

[Due to lack of the knowledge of genetics, older generations thought that the qualities are coming from the blood of parents. This misunderstanding lead to think that the qualities of a child can be expected to come from parents and this resulted in deciding the qualities based on birth, which means that the caste is by birth. This is a blunder. The actual fact is that the child is influenced by the qualities of the parents and grasps those qualities due to continuously living with them. On finding the same qualities of the parents in the grown-up child, people misunderstood that the qualities are from the blood of its parents, which generally leads to misunderstand that the caste is by birth. This theory of caste by birth resulted due to superimposition of blood based caste on quality based caste that depends upon continuous co-living with parents.]

 

20) Guṇa karmānugo varṇaḥ, prāgbhavādvā prabhāvataḥ |
Nānyo mārgo'sti janyādiḥ, kalau janmakulam na sat ||

[Hence, the qualities that exist in a soul leading to their corresponding deeds alone decide the caste and not the birth of a soul to a specific couple of parents. These qualities can come with the soul based on:- 1) previous births and 2) the association of other souls, which are influencing the soul in the present birth. Except these two ways, the qualities will not enter the soul by any other way like blood relationship etc. In this sinful Kali age, a false theory is developed, which is that the caste is decided by birth and this is not true.]

 

Iti Trailokya gītāyāṃ ‘Bhagavat varṇa vicāra’ yogo nāma Trayodaśādhyāyaḥ।।

(Like this, in Trailokya Gītā, the Thirteenth chapter called ‘Association with Knowledge of Caste of God is completed.)

 
 whatsnewContactSearch