Śrī Bādarāyani said: Although Lord Govinda was fully aware of what had actually occurred, when He heard reports that the Pāndavas and Queen Kuntī had burned to death, He went with Lord Balarāma to the kingdom of the Kurus to fulfill the family obligations expected of Him.
The Lord was quite aware that the Pāndavas had escaped the assassination plot of Duryodhana, although the world heard the false news that the Pāndavas and their mother had perished in the fire.
The two Lords met with Bhīshma, Kripa, Vidura, Gāndhārī and Drona. Showing sorrow equal to theirs, They cried out, “Alas, how painful this is!”
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī points out that those who were involved in the assassination attempt were of course not at all sorry to hear of the Pāndavas’ death. The persons specifically mentioned here, however — Bhīshma, Kripa, Vidura, Gāndhārī and Drona — were actually unhappy to hear of the supposed tragedy.
Taking advantage of this opportunity, O King, Akrūra and Kritavarmā went to Śatadhanvā and said, “Why not take the Syamantaka jewel?”
Akrūra and Kritavarmā reasoned that since Krishna and Balarāma were absent from Dvārakā, Satrājit could be killed and the jewel stolen. Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī mentions that these two must have flattered Śatadhanvā telling him, “You are much braver than we are; so you kill him.”
“Satrājit promised his jewellike daughter to us but then gave her to Krishna instead, contemptuously neglecting us. So why should Satrājit not follow his brother’s path?”
Since Satrājit’s brother, Prasena, had been violently killed, the implication of “following his brother’s path” is obvious. What we have here is an assassination plot.
It is well known that both Akrūra and Kritavarmā are exalted, pure devotees of the Supreme Lord, so their unusual behavior requires some explanation. The ācāryas provide it as follows: Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that Akrūra, although a first-class, pure devotee of the Lord, was a victim of the anger directed against him by the residents of Gokula because he took Lord Krishna away from Vrindāvana. The gosvāmī further states that Kritavarmā had associated with Kamsa — both of them being members of the Bhoja dynasty — and thus Kritavarmā was now suffering from this undesirable association.
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī offers an alternative explanation: Both Akrūra and Kritavarmā were furious with Satrājit because he had insulted Lord Krishna and spread false rumors about Him in Dvārakā. Under normal circumstances Akrūra and Kritavarmā would have been most pleased that Lord Krishna married the beautiful Satyabhāmā. Being pure devotees, they could not actually be unhappy about this match, nor could they become jealous rivals of the Lord. Therefore they had an ulterior motive in behaving like His rivals.
His mind thus influenced by their advice, wicked Śatadhanvā murdered Satrājit in his sleep simply out of greed. In this way the sinful Śatadhanvā shortened his own life span.
According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī, the word asattamah indicates that Śatadhanvā was basically evil-minded and a firm hater of Satrājit.
As the women of Satrājit’s palace screamed and helplessly wept, Śatadhanvā took the jewel and left, like a butcher after he has killed some animals.
When Satyabhāmā saw her dead father, she was plunged into grief. Lamenting “My father, my father! Oh, I am killed!” she fell unconscious.
According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, Satyabhāmā’s anguished feelings and words at the death of her father were prompted by Lord Krishna’s pastime potency (līlā-śakti), to prepare for the Lord’s violent reaction against Śatadhanvā.
Queen Satyabhāmā put her father’s corpse in a large vat of oil and went to Hastināpura, where she sorrowfully told Lord Krishna, who was already aware of the situation, about her father’s murder.
When Lord Krishna and Lord Balarāma heard this news, O King, They exclaimed, “Alas! This is the greatest tragedy for Us!” Thus imitating the ways of human society, They lamented, Their eyes brimming with tears.
The Supreme Lord returned to His capital with His wife and elder brother. After arriving in Dvārakā, He readied Himself to kill Śatadhanvā and retrieve the jewel from him.
Upon learning that Lord Krishna was preparing to kill him, Śatadhanvā was struck with fear. To save his life he approached Kritavarmā and begged him for help, but Kritavarmā replied as follows.
[Kritavarmā said:] I dare not offend the Supreme Lords, Krishna and Balarāma. Indeed, how can one who troubles Them expect any good fortune? Kamsa and all his followers lost both their wealth and their lives because of enmity toward Them, and after battling Them seventeen times Jarāsandha was left without even a chariot.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī explains that the word helanam indicates acting against the Lords’ will, and that vrijinam indicates an offense against the Lords.
His appeal refused, Śatadhanvā went to Akrūra and begged him for protection. But Akrūra similarly told him, “Who would oppose the two Personalities of Godhead if he knew Their strength?”
“It is the Supreme Lord who creates, maintains and destroys this universe simply as His pastime. The cosmic creators cannot even understand His purpose, bewildered as they are by His illusory Māyā.”
The use of the singular yah, “He who,” indicates that the frequent references to “the two Lords, Krishna and Rāma,” do not compromise the firm principle of monotheism expressed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. As explained in many Vedic literatures, the one Supreme Lord expands Himself into innumerable forms, yet He remains the one and almighty God. For example, we have this statement in the Brahma-samhitā (5.33): advaitam acyutam anādir ananta-rūpam. “The one Supreme Lord is infallible and beginningless, and He expands Himself into innumerable manifest forms.” Out of regard for the spirit of the Lord’s pastimes, in which He expands Himself and appears as His own older brother, Balarāma, the Bhāgavatam here refers to “the two Lords.” But the “bottom line” is that there is one Supreme Godhead, one Absolute Truth, who appears in His original form as Krishna.
“As a child of seven, Krishna uprooted an entire mountain and held it aloft as easily as a young boy picks up a mushroom.”
“I offer my obeisances to that Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, whose every deed is amazing. He is the Supreme Soul, the unlimited source and fixed center of all existence.”
His appeal thus rejected by Akrūra also, Śatadhanvā placed the precious jewel in Akrūra’s care and fled on a horse that could travel one hundred yojanas [eight hundred miles].
The term nyasya, “leaving in the care of,” implies Śatadhanvā now believed the jewel was his; thus he was leaving it in the care of a friend. In blunt terms, this is a thief’s mentality.
My dear King, Krishna and Balarāma mounted Krishna’s chariot, which flew the flag of Garuda and was yoked with tremendously swift horses, and pursued Their elder’s murderer.
In a garden on the outskirts of Mithilā, the horse Śatadhanvā was riding collapsed. Terrified, he abandoned the horse and began to flee on foot, with Krishna in angry pursuit.
As Śatadhanvā fled on foot, the Supreme Lord, also going on foot, cut off his head with His sharp-edged disc. The Lord then searched Śatadhanvā’s upper and lower garments for the Syamantaka jewel.
Not finding the jewel, Lord Krishna went to His elder brother and said, “We have killed Śatadhanvā uselessly. The jewel isn’t here.”
To this Lord Balarāma replied, “Indeed, Śatadhanvā must have placed the jewel in the care of someone. You should return to Our city and find that person.”
“I wish to visit King Videha, who is most dear to Me.” O King, having said this, Lord Balarāma, the beloved descendant of Yadu, entered the city of Mithilā.
Krishna and Balarāma had finally caught up with Śatadhanvā on the outskirts of Mithilā. Since the king of this city was a dear friend of Balarāma’s, the Lord decided to enter the city and spend some time there.
The King of Mithilā immediately rose from his seat when he saw Lord Balarāma approaching. With great love the King honored the supremely worshipable Lord by offering Him elaborate worship, as stipulated by scriptural injunctions.
The almighty Lord Balarāma stayed in Mithilā for several years, honored by His affectionate devotee Janaka Mahārāja. During that time Dhritarāshtra’s son Duryodhana learned from Balarāma the art of fighting with a club.
Lord Keśava arrived in Dvārakā and described the demise of Śatadhanvā and His own failure to find the Syamantaka jewel. He spoke in a way that would please His beloved, Satyabhāmā.
Naturally Queen Satyabhāmā was pleased to hear that her father’s murderer had been brought to justice. But her father’s Syamantaka jewel still had to be recovered, and thus she was also pleased to hear of Lord Krishna’s determination to recover it.
Lord Krishna then had the various funeral rites performed for His deceased relative, Satrājit. The Lord attended the funeral along with well-wishers of the family.
When Akrūra and Kritavarmā, who had originally incited Śatadhanvā to commit his crime, heard that he had been killed, they fled Dvārakā in terror and took up residence elsewhere.
In Akrūra’s absence ill omens arose in Dvārakā, and the citizens began to suffer continually from physical and mental distresses, as well as from disturbances caused by higher powers and by creatures of the earth.
The word daivika here refers to disturbances caused by supernatural beings. These disturbances often manifest as natural calamities like earthquakes, tidal waves or extreme weather. Nowadays materialistic people attribute these disturbances to earthly causes, not realizing that they constitute punishment at the hands of superior beings. The word bhautikāh refers to trouble caused by fellow creatures of the earth, such as human beings, animals and insects.
According to Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, Akrūra took the Syamantaka jewel and went to reside in the city of Benares, where he became known as Dānapati, “the master of charity.” There he executed fire sacrifices on gold altars with elaborate assemblies of qualified priests.
Some residents of Dvārakā felt that the unusual calamities were due to Akrūra’s absence, forgetting (as described in the next verse) that the Supreme Lord’s personal presence in Dvārakā precluded that possibility. Because when the Lord comes to earth His pastimes resemble those of human beings, the principle of “familiarity breeds contempt” comes into play. It appears that during the lives of many saintly persons and incarnations of God there always exists a class of people who fail to appreciate, or who only occasionally appreciate, the position of the great souls among them. On the other hand, the fortunate and enlightened souls who recognize the true position of the Lord and His associates are supremely blessed.
Some men proposed [that the troubles were due to Akrūra’s absence], but they had forgotten the glories of the Supreme Lord, which they themselves had so often described. Indeed, how can calamities occur in a place where the Personality of Godhead, the residence of all the sages, resides?
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī provides the following insight on this verse: In Benares Akrūra became famous for performing sacrifices on golden altars and for his abundant charity to the brāhmanas. When the citizens of Dvārakā heard about this, some of them gossiped that Krishna, considering Akrūra a rival, had sent him into exile. To dispel this new and incredible stain on His reputation, Lord Krishna created various calamities in Dvārakā, thus inducing the citizens to call for Akrūra’s return, which the Lord then ordered.
[The elders said:] Previously, when Lord Indra had withheld rain from Kāsī [Benares], the king of that city gave his daughter Gāndinī to Śvaphalka, who was then visiting him. It soon rained in the kingdom of Kāśī.
Śvaphalka was Akrūra’s father, and the citizens felt that the son must have the same power as the father. Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī points out that because of Akrūra’s relationship with his maternal grandfather, the King of Kāśī, in a time of difficulty Akrūra went to that city.
Wherever his equally powerful son Akrūra stays, Lord Indra will provide sufficient rain. Indeed, that place will be free of miseries and untimely deaths.
Hearing these words from the elders, Lord Janārdana, though aware that the absence of Akrūra was not the only cause of the evil omens, had him summoned back to Dvārakā and spoke to him.
Since Lord Krishna is the supreme controller, it was obviously by His will that certain troubles appeared in the city of Dvārakā. Superficially these evils may have been caused by Akrūra’s absence, and also by the absence of the auspicious Syamantaka jewel. But we should recall that Dvārakā is the eternal abode of Lord Krishna; it is a city of divine bliss because the Lord resides there. Still, to execute His pastimes as a prince of this world, Lord Krishna did the needful and summoned Akrūra.
Lord Krishna honored Akrūra, greeted him confidentially and spoke pleasant words with him. Then the Lord, who was fully aware of Akrūra’s heart by virtue of His being the knower of everything, smiled and addressed him: “O master of charity, surely the opulent Syamantaka jewel was left in your care by Śatadhanvā and is still with you. Indeed, We have known this all along.”
Lord Krishna’s treatment of Akrūra here confirms that he is actually a great devotee of the Lord.
“Since Satrājit had no sons, his daughter’s sons should receive his inheritance. They should pay for memorial offerings of water and pinda, clear their grandfather’s outstanding debts and keep the remainder of the inheritance for themselves.”
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī quotes the following smriti injunction regarding inheritance: patnī duhitaraś caiva pitaro bhrātaras tathā/tat-sutā gotra-jā bandhuh śishyāh sa-brahmacārinah. “The inheritance goes first to the wife, then [if the wife has passed away] to the daughters, then to the parents, then to the brothers, then to the brothers’ sons, then to family members of the same gotra as the deceased, and then to his disciples, including brahmacārīs.”
Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī adds that since Satrājit had no sons, since his wives were killed together with him, and since his daughter Satyabhāmā was not interested in the Syamantaka jewel, which constituted the inheritance, it rightfully belonged to her sons.
In Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “Lord Krishna indicated by this statement that Satyabhāmā was already pregnant and that her son would be the real claimant of the jewel and would certainly take the jewel from Akrūra.”
“Nevertheless, the jewel should remain in your care, O trustworthy Akrūra, because no one else can keep it safely. But please show the jewel just once, since My elder brother does not fully believe what I have told Him about it. In this way, O most fortunate one, you will pacify My relatives. [Everyone knows you have the jewel, for] you are now continually performing sacrifices on altars of gold.”
Although technically Satyabhāmā’s sons had a right to the jewel, Lord Krishna decided to leave the jewel in the care of Akrūra, who was using the jewel’s wealth to continually perform religious sacrifices. Indeed, Akrūra’s ability to perform such rituals on altars of gold was an indication of the jewel’s potency.
Thus shamed by Lord Krishna’s conciliatory words, the son of Śvaphalka brought out the jewel from where he had concealed it in his clothing and gave it to the Lord. The brilliant gem shone like the sun.
We can see in this chapter how a valuable jewel caused so much intrigue, violence and suffering. This is certainly a good lesson for those who desire a trouble-free spiritual life.
After the almighty Lord had shown the Syamantaka jewel to His relatives, thus dispelling the false accusations against Him, He returned it to Akrūra.
For the second time, doubts about the Lord’s reputation occasioned by the Syamantaka jewel are dispelled by the jewel itself. Indeed, for the second time the Lord brought the jewel to Dvārakā to establish His integrity there. This amazing series of incidents demonstrates that even when Lord Krishna descends to this world there is a tendency for His “peers” to criticize Him. The whole material world is infected by the faultfinding propensity, and in this chapter the Supreme Lord demonstrates the nature of this undesirable quality.
This narration, rich with descriptions of the prowess of Lord Śrī Vishnu, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, removes sinful reactions and bestows all auspiciousness. Anyone who recites, hears or remembers it will drive away his own infamy and sins and attain peace.