Shloka 33
Rājasūya: Agrapūjā for Kṛṣṇa and the Slaying (and Liberation) of Śiśupāla
तपोविद्याव्रतधरान् ज्ञानविध्वस्तकल्मषान् । परमऋषीन्ब्रह्मनिष्ठाल्ँ लोकपालैश्च पूजितान् ॥ ३३ ॥ सदस्पतीनतिक्रम्य गोपाल: कुलपांसन: । यथा काक: पुरोडाशं सपर्यां कथमर्हति ॥ ३४ ॥
tapo-vidyā-vrata-dharān jñāna-vidhvasta-kalmaṣān paramaṛṣīn brahma-niṣṭhāḻ loka-pālaiś ca pūjitān
どうして汝らは、この集会の最も崇高なる者たち――梵に安住し、苦行と聖なる学知と厳しい誓戒を具え、智によって罪垢を滅し、世界の守護者にさえ礼拝される至上の仙人たち――を差し置いて、この牧童、家門の汚れを礼敬に値するとするのか。
The great commentator Śrīdhara Svāmī has analyzed Śiśupāla’s words as follows. The term go-pāla means not only “cowherd” but also “protector of the Vedas and the earth.” Similarly, kula-pāṁsana has a double meaning. Śiśupāla intended it to mean “the disgrace of His family,” which is its meaning when divided as above. But the word may also be analyzed as ku-lapām aṁsana, giving a totally different meaning. Kulapām indicates those who prattle with crooked words contrary to the Vedas, and aṁsana, derived from the verb aṁsayati, means “destroyer.” In other words, he was praising Lord Kṛṣṇa as “He who vanquishes all misguided and frivolous speculations about the nature of truth.” Similarly, although Śiśupāla wanted to compare Lord Kṛṣṇa to a crow with the words yathā kākaḥ, these words may also be divided yathā a-kākaḥ. In that case, according to Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī, the word kāka is a combination of ka and āka, which indicate material happiness and misery. Thus Lord Kṛṣṇa is akāka in the sense that He is beyond all material misery and happiness, being on the pure, transcendental platform. Finally, Śiśupāla was right in saying the Lord Kṛṣṇa does not deserve merely the puroḍāśa rice cake, offered to the lesser demigods as a substitute for the heavenly beverage soma. In fact, Lord Kṛṣṇa deserves to receive everything that we possess, since He is the ultimate proprietor of everything, including ourselves. Thus we should give Lord Kṛṣṇa our life and soul, not merely a ritualistic offering of rice cakes.
FAQs
It describes exalted sages as austere, learned, faithful to vows, purified by spiritual knowledge, fixed in Brahman, and honored even by cosmic rulers.
He uses the presence and prestige of great sages in the assembly to argue—wrongly—that honoring Kṛṣṇa first is improper.
True spiritual authority is marked by purity, discipline, and realization; one should honor saintly persons without using religion to justify envy or disrespect.