Chapter 10 - Bharata’s Life: King Rahūgaṇa accepts discipleship

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Śrī Śuka said:

(The following incident took place when Rahūgaṇa, a King of Sindhu-Sauvīra, was going to the sage Kapila for instruction in philosophy).

1. One day, while Rahūgaṇa, the King of Sindhu-Sauvīra,^[1] was proceeding (to Kapila), the captain of the palanquin-bearers who was in search of a palanquin-bearer, providentially found this excellent Brāhmaṇa (viz. Bharata). (He thought that) this stout, young man of sturdy constitution was fit to carry any load like a bull or a donkey. Bharata was taken perforce along with others who were already so employed to carry on the forced labour without remuneration even though he (Bharata) did not deserve it, that exalted personage carried the palanquin.

2. The gait of the great Brāhmaṇa who (in order to avoid injury to others) walked after carefully looking the ground ahead to the length of arrow, did not conform to that of other men (bearing the palanquin) Rahūgaṇa felt the jolts of the irregular movement of the palanquin. He spoke to the men (palanquin-bearers), “On bearers, walk properly. Why is the vehicle (palanquin) borne so irregularly?”.

3. Hearing the taunting words of the master, they, afraid in their minds of the application of the fourth remedy^[2] (viz. corporal punishment) to them, humbly submitted to him.

4. “Oh Lord of men! We are not negligent. We are properly carrying (the palanquin) in complete obedience to your majesty’s commands. Though employed just afresh (just now), this (new) fellow does not walk quickly. Hence we are not able to carry the palanquin with him.”

5. He (King Ṛahūgaṇa) realized that the contagious fault (disease) even of one man certainly becomes the fault of all who come in contact with him. Though he had waited upon the elderly (wise) person, his original (Kṣatriya) nature overpowered him. His intelligence was clouded (lit. covered) with rajo-guṇa. Getting slightly enraged, he spoke (sarcastically to Bharata) whose Brāhmanic Justre remained unmanifested like fire (covered with ashes).

6. “Alas! What a pity, brother! You are obviously very much exhausted. Your honour alone has carried the palanquin to a great distance for a long time, and these other co-bearers are as good as non-existent. You are neither stout nor possessing a well built body. And you are overcome with old age, oh friend!” Though he was thus severely reproached in an insulting manner, he (Bharata)who had never superimposed the false notion of I-ness and mine-ness on his final body which was created by nescience (avīdyā [avidyā?]) as a combination of gross matter (five elements), attributes (ten sense organs), (effects of past) actions (merits and sins)and the mind—an unreal configuration of aggregates and who was on the verge of merging into Brahman^[3], silently carried the palanquin as before.

7. Later on, when the palanquin was borne irregularly again, Rahūgaṇa flared up in rage and said, “Oh! What does this mean? You are (as goṇd as) dead though alive. Disdaining me (who am your lord), you transgress the command of your lord. Like unto Yama, (the god with a rod) who metes out punishment to people, I shall administer the corrective remedy to you, a negligent fellow, so that you will come to your senses.”

8. The venerable Brāhmaṇa who was to be absorbed into the Supreme Spirit (Brahman) was the well-wisher of all beings (even those who offended him), the very self of them all. Totally free from pride, he spoke with a slight smile to Ṛahūgaṇa who indulged in a goṇd deal of irrelevant bragging. This way Ṛahūgaṇa who was puffed up with the pride of being the lord of men, who being inebriated with arrogance and infatuation born of rajas and tamas contemptuously disregarded the whole community of the votaries of the Lord (who are beloved of him) by insulting Bharata, who, though (in conceit wrongly) considered himself to be learned, had little knowledge of the modes of behaviour of masters of yoga.

The Brāhmaṇa said:

9.^[4] What you stated (about fatigue, bearing palanquin alone for a long distance, etc. in 6 above) is a fact. There is no sarcasm (therein) Oh warrior!^[5] If there be anything like a burden, and if it be borne by a body called bearer, and if the body has any relation with me, then the taunt would apply to me. (But that is not the case due to the unreality of the burden and the bearer and their non-relation to me—the self). So also if a station is to be reached by the goer, there would be (the existence of) the way^[6]. Only the fools and never the wise, apply the epithet ‘stout’ to the Soul. For this description is applicable to the (body which is) the conglomeration of bhūtas etc. (and not to the Soul).^[7]

10. Corpulence and emaciation, (bodily) pains and (mental) worries, hunger and thirst, fear, quarrelsomeness, desire, old age, sleep, attachment, anger, arrogance and griefs—all these apply to one who is born with a body, but not to me (who am the self and not the body).

11. (As for your words, “You are as good as dead though alive”, I say that): Simultaneousness of life and death is the law found applicable to everything that is a product (and hence subject to transformation, and not limited to me) for all products have a beginning and an end. (As for your charge of transgressing your orders), Oh praiseworthy king! If the relation as servant and master were real and permanent, then only would the relation between order and its execution be real. (But if you lose your kingdom and I become a king, the whole relation will be reversed).

12.^[8] (If you think that I am a servant so long as you are the king) we do not find the slightest ground for the notion of the difference as king and his servant, except conventional verbal usage. Who is then the ruler and what it is to be governed (servant)? However (if you still entertain the notion of being the ruler) please tell what we should do for you.

13.^[9] (Bharata presents a dilemma to show that the King’s threat of punishment is wide of mark. If I be a mukta—beyond bondage of saṃsāra what purpose and to what extent, can be served by your treatment (punishment) or lessons to me who am established in the self, though appearing like a lunatic, intoxicated or dull-witted person. (If I be not a mukta the proposed punishment or lesson to a person who is obstinate or insane is (as useless as) grinding flour, Oh warrior^[10].”

Śrī Śuka said:

14. In this way, Bharata replied (each and every) statement (of the king) after recapitulating them. The great sage was tranquil and self-controlled by nature. Nescience—the cause of false identification of the body with the Soul, had ceased in him. He wanted to exhaust by sufferance (the effect of) the karma that was bearing fruition, and (thence) he continued to bear the vehicle of the king.

15. By the force of his genuine right faith, the king of Sindhu-Sauvīra countries became eligible to enquire into the Truth. Having (carefully) listened to the speech of the Brāhmaṇa which was calculated to resolve the knot (of ignorance) at one’s heart and which was approved of (and supported by) many treatises on Yoga (self-knowledge), he got down (from the palanquin) in haste, and prostrated himself (before him) with his head at the sage’s feet. Beseeching forgiveness (for his rudeness), and completely free from the pride of his royalty, he said:

16. “Who are you of the great Brāhmaṇas who go about in disguise, as you wear the sacred thread? Who are you among the avadhūtas (like Dattātreya and others, if you be an avadhūta)? Whose son are you? What is your native place? Why have you come here? If you have come for our spiritual well-being, are you not the sage Kapila?

17. I am not afraid of the thunderbolt of the lord of gods (Indra), of the trident of the three-eyed god (Śiva), or of the rod of Yama (the god of death). I do not fear the missiles of (the fire-god), the Sun-god, the wind-god and the lord of wealth (Kubera). But I am terribly afraid of disrespecting the Brāhmaṇa race.

18. Hence please tell me. You are free from attachment. Though you possess infinite power, you conceal your superior wisdom and prowess, and roam about like a dull- witted person. Oh pious sage, your words are couched in yogic terms (or conveying the advice of great yogis) as such, are not capable of being comprehended by our minds. (Or—Even persons of keen intellect cannot grasp the significance of your speech couched in yogic terms).

19. “What is the true asylum in this Saṃsāra”? To ask this, I am now proceeding to Kapila who is master of yoga, and the supreme preceptor of sages who have realized the true nature of the Self; who is Hari incarnate and has incarnated in this world by his power of supreme knowledge.

20. It may be that perhaps your honour verily be Kapila himself, who is going about incognito, for observing the condition of the people. How can a person attached to house- (holder’s worldly) life, with intellect blinded (by infatuation), fathom the ways (of behaviour) of the masters of yoga?

21. (The king raises objections to Bharata’s speech given above^[11]).

I have experienced fatigue through activity (e.g. fighting in battle). By inference I presume that your honour must have felt the same when carrying a load while walking. The course of the phenomenal world must be real at the bottom; for, otherwise it is impossible to carry water etc. with a non-existent pitcher.

22. The heat of fire applied to the vessel is conducted to the water (in the pot); the heat of the water leads to the softening of the grains of rice from inside. Due to the contact with the body, sense-organs and the life-breath and the mind, the state of saṃsāra affects the jīva, as the states of environments affect each other.

23. (As to the impermanence of the master-servant relation mentioned by you:)

The king is (for that particular period at least) the (real) controller and protector of the subjects. He who is the servant of Acyuta does not grind the already ground material flour. (His performance of duties is not wasted). For by carrying out his righteous duties he propitiates Lord Acyuta and gets rid of his sins.

24. Oh friend of the distressed, be pleased, therefore, to cast a friendly glance at me who, out of my intoxicating pride of being the ruler of men, have treated with contempt the best of saints, so that I may be able to cross over the sin of showing disrespect to the the righteous people.

25. (The king refers to Bharata’s words that he was not insulted etc., and says)

There may not be any change (perturbation of mind) in you who are a well-wisher and friend of the universe and who, out of his sense of equality to all, are completely devoid of attachment (even to your body). But a person like me—even though he be Rudra, the bearer of trident, will certainly perish in near future as a result of his showing disrespect to the exalted.”

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sindhu-Suavīra.—Names of two adjacent countries, Sindhu and Sauvīra. Ancient Sauvīra was situated to the east of the lower Indus and included Multan on the nortḥ. According to Alberuni, Sauvīra included Multan and Jahrawar. Sindhu lay to the west and Sauvīra to the east of the lower Indus. D.G. Sircar GAMI 33 and 113. For other identification see N.L. De: GDAMI, p. 183.

[2]:

upāyāḥ sāma dānaṃ ca bhedo daṇḍas tathaiva ca /
saṃyak prayuktāḥ siddhyeyur daṇḍas tvagatikā gatiḥ //—Yājñavalkya Smṛti 1.346

Conciliation or negotiation (sāman), bribery (dāna), sowing dissension (bheda) and punishment (daṇḍa) are the stratagems or expedients to deal with enemies (in the case of Kings).

[3]:

Brahma-bhūta—(i) One whose mind is absorbed in Brahman—

(ii) One who has realized the identity of his self and Brahman by the cessation of avidyā—Bālaprabodhini

[4]:

(i) What you spoke is true from the popular point of view. But if there be a burden to the bearer, the consequent fatigue is possible; it however is not applicable to me as I am not carrying anything. If there be some station to be reached there would have been distance to be covered but such movement is obviously non-existent in my case. The epithet ‘fat’ may be applicable to the body which is a conglomeration of bhūtas and not to me in the language of those who have realized the Self (ātman) —Bhāgavata Candrikā

(ii) Padaratnāvalī endorses the same interpretation in different words.

[5]:

v.l. addha—directly, in the real sense of the term.

[6]:

Just as you concentrate in ruling your kingdom, pay similar attention to what I say—Bālaprabodhini

[7]:

I am by nature the Supreme Soul to which the epithet ‘stout’ is slanderous,—Sārārthadarśinī

[8]:

(i) Padaratnāvalī goes out of his way to prove the superiority of Hari to Rudra while explaining this verse:

Master-servant relation is reversable in the case of men but not so in the case of gods. This unchangeable lordship among gods is conferred on Rudra by Hari—the real Ruler. The ignorant subjects of Sindhu call you a ruler. But this is a conventional verbal usage. You are in no way superior to other jīvas. However granting that you are the ruler, please tell us what should be done for you.

(ii) Bālaprabodhini waxes eloquent to establish the Śudḍhāḍvaita thesis: The pure Brahman (unsoiled by Māyā etc.) is the reality and not the masterservant relation. He does not differ in the interpretation.

[9]:

Padaratnāvalī: Bharata explains to the king that despite his appearance like a mad person etc., he is totally immersed in Lord Hari; and as such, the punishment proposed is useless; for he has completely detached himself from his corporal body.

[10]:

Your prowess may have been effective elsewhere, but is vain against me.

[11]:

Bhāvāratha Dīpikā expounds the logic in the king’s speech by detailing the syllogisms as follows:

He who does work, feels exhausted.
e.g, I feel exhausted in fighting etc.
You have carried the burden of my palanquin. Therefore you must have been exhausted. Hence, your statement that you did not feel fatigue (verse 9) is illogical.