Parīkṣit Subdues Kali

This chapter contains forty-five verses, out of which verses 1–4, 21, 28–30, 35, and 38–45 are all spoken by Sūta. In between, he relates the conversation between Parīkṣit and Dharma as well as the exchange between Parīkṣit and Kali. In this connection, verses 5–16 are spoken by Parīkṣit, verses 17–20 by Dharma, verses 22–27 and 31–34 by Parīkṣit, and verses 36–37 by Kali.

In this chapter, Sūta continues the discussion of Parīkṣit’s extraordinary deeds (karmāṇi), particularly in the matter of his dharmic rule, which Śaunaka had inquired about in SB 1.12.2–3. This topic was begun in the previous chapter, in which Sūta relates a conversation that took place between Dharma in the form of a bull and the Earth goddess in the form of a cow. By the introduction of the personified forms of dharma and the earth and the universal vision disclosed by them, the moral import of Parīkṣit’s imminent encounter with them is significantly amplified. The chapter ends with Parīkṣit arriving on the scene in the midst of their conversation.

The present chapter opens with Sūta describing the scene observed by Parīkṣit when he first came upon them. The king saw that a vile śūdra, dressed as a king with a staff in his hand, was beating the bull and the cow. The bull was terrified and passing urine out of fear. The cow, emaciated and weak, had tears in her eyes as she searched for grass to eat—implying in universal terms the absence of yajña and the cow’s intimate connection with the execution of dharma. Witnessing this, King Parīkṣit angrily questioned the assailant, who was Kali personified (verses 1–4).

Parīkṣit questioned in turn the identity of the śūdra and the bull, and then offered assurances of protection to the bull and the cow. He stated emphatically that it was the king’s duty to dispel the sufferings of the distressed. He then inquired from the bull as to the identity of the offender who had broken three of his legs. In doing so, he asserted once again his duty as a king and his readiness to punish those who inflict violence on innocent living beings (verses 5–16).

Dharma, in the guise of a bull, first praised the quality of the king’s speech, noting that it was perfectly appropriate for a descendant of the Pāṇḍavas. Although Dharma understood that Parīkṣit’s question was about the direct perpetrator of violence, he elevated the entire discussion by reference to the ultimate cause behind all events, whether of the nature of pain or pleasure. He thus answered as if unable to identify the cause, being confused by the multitude of conflicting philosophical views on the matter.

For Dharma to be confused in the matter of dharma is of course impossible. What this points to then is the confusion among the proponents of different views and the inconceivable nature of the Ultimate Cause being inquired into, which lies beyond the cognitive capacity of all living beings. The views indirectly referred to include Advaitavāda, astrology, Mīmāṁsā, and Cārvāka’s materialism or atheistic Sāṅkhya, holding respectively the self (ātmānam), destiny (daivam), conditional action (karma), and innate disposition (svabhāvam) as the ultimate cause for all conditions of happiness and distress. Beyond these, Dharma indirectly hints at the Vaiṣṇava view that everything stems from a cause that is both inconceivable and ineffable, implying that Parameśvara is the unseen impelling agent behind all action. Dharma then proposes that the king should deliberate for himself to ascertain the ultimate cause of suffering (verses 17–20).

From the subtlety and depth of the bull’s speech, which was perfectly in accord with universal moral truth, the king could understand that the bull was Dharma personified and that his three lost legs represented the dharmic principles of austerity, purity, and compassion. Dharma now stood on the one remaining leg of truth. Parīkṣit also recognized that the cow was the Earth personified, who was anguished due to separation from Śrī Kṛṣṇa and on account of the śūdras who would now exploit her. The fact that Parīkṣit was of such stature that he could directly encounter the personified forms of dharma, the Earth, and Kali, testifies to the extraordinary nature of his deeds (karmāṇi) in the matter of his dharmic rule (verses 21–27).

Sūta then relates that when Kali saw Parīkṣit standing with raised sword ready to kill him, he cast aside his royal dress and fell at the feet of the king. Seeing Kali surrendered and fearful, King Parīkṣit did not kill him but ordered him to leave his kingdom. Being the friend and personal attendant of adharma, Kali is the source of all vices, and thus there was no place for him in Parīkṣit’s kingdom of Brahmāvarta, a place dedicated to dharma and truth (verses 28–34).

Knowing that Parīkṣit’s kingdom extended beyond Brahmāvarta to include the entire earth, Kali requested the king to grant him some particular place where he could lawfully reside in accordance with the king’s order (verses 35–37). Hearing his plea, the king allotted him as his residence the places wherein the immoral acts of gambling, intoxication, prostitution, and animal slaughter abound. Kali then requested an additional residence where all four sinful acts could be found together. He was thus given permission to reside wherever gold is hoarded. By this concession, Kali was also granted the irreligious principles of falsehood, intoxication, lust, violence, and enmity, since these are all rooted in the misappropriation of gold (verses 38–40).

Sūta then concludes the narration with the admonition that those who are intent upon their own progressive well-being, especially dharmic kings, public leaders, and spiritual preceptors, should never resort to these five immoral acts. He goes on to say that King Parīkṣit thus reestablished the three lost legs of Dharma and comforted the Earth, engendering her prosperity (verses 41–42).

In the final three verses of the chapter, Sūta openly declares that this same Parīkṣit now occupies the royal throne in Hastināpura. This is curious, because Parīkṣit had already passed away at the time. The commentators explain that the present tense is used to signify Parīkṣit’s continued influence up to the time of Sūta’s statement and that he was now present in the form of his son, Janamejaya. Thus it was by Parīkṣit’s sustained and current influence alone that the sages were enabled to undertake their long-enduring sacrifice. This is the significance of Sūta’s use of the present tense in reference to Parīkṣit. Once again, this emphasizes the extraordinary nature of Parīkṣit’s dharmic deeds (verses 43–45).