Shloka 38

Vamana's Three Steps — Vamana’s Three Steps and the Binding of Bali

Devanagari script

बाण उवाच कृत्वा महीमल्पतरां जगत्पते स्वायंभुवादिभुवनानि वै षट् कथं बलिं प्रार्थयसे सुविस्तृतां यां प्राग्भवान् नो विपुलामथाकरोत् // वम्प्_65.37 विभो सही यावतीयं त्वयाद्य सृष्टचा समेता भुवनान्तरालैः दत्ता च तातेन हि तावतीयं किं वाक्छलेनैष निबध्यते ऽद्य

Transliteration

bāṇa uvāca kṛtvā mahīmalpatarāṃ jagatpate svāyaṃbhuvādibhuvanāni vai ṣaṭ kathaṃ baliṃ prārthayase suvistṛtāṃ yāṃ prāgbhavān no vipulāmathākarot // VamP_65.37 vibho sahī yāvatīyaṃ tvayādya sṛṣṭacā sametā bhuvanāntarālaiḥ dattā ca tātena hi tāvatīyaṃ kiṃ vākchalenaiṣa nibadhyate 'dya

Translation

بان نے کہا— اے جہان کے پالنے والے! جب سوایمبھُو وغیرہ چھ بھون موجود ہیں تو تُو نے زمین کو اتنا چھوٹا کر دیا؛ پھر اُس نہایت وسیع دان کی بھیک تُو بلی سے کیسے مانگتا ہے جسے پہلے تُو ہی نے بے حد و حساب کیا تھا؟ اے ہمہ گیر! آج تُو نے جتنی سृष्टی بنائی ہے، بھونوں کے درمیان کے فاصلوں سمیت، اتنی ہی میرے باپ نے دان میں دے دی ہے۔ پھر آج لفظی فریب سے اسے کیوں باندھا جا رہا ہے؟

Speakers

• Bāṇa (son of Bali) addressing Vāmana/Viṣṇu (as Jagatpati
• Vibhu).

Primary Deities

• Vishnu (Vamana/Trivikrama)

Key Themes

• Dāna (charity) and its limits
• Ethics of vows and verbal contracts
• Cosmological scale vs. human gifting
• Devotee’s advocacy (Bāṇa defending Bali)
• Divine strategy (māyā) vs. dharma

Verse Rasa (Emotional Flavour)

{ "primaryRasa": "vira", "secondaryRasa": "raudra", "rasaIntensity": 0, "emotionalArcPosition": "", "moodDescriptors": [] }

FAQs

Why does Bāṇa call the request for ‘three steps’ a ‘vākchala’ (verbal trick)?

Because the boon is phrased as a small, measurable request (three paces of land), yet it is intended to expand into a cosmic claim when Vāmana becomes Trivikrama. Bāṇa frames this as a mismatch between literal wording and intended outcome.

What is the point of mentioning ‘six worlds beginning with Svāyambhuva’?

It situates the dispute on a cosmological register: Bali’s generosity is portrayed as already encompassing the created order. The reference strengthens Bāṇa’s argument that there is nothing ‘left’ to give without paradox.

Does the verse deny Viṣṇu’s righteousness?

Not directly; it is a devotee-son’s legal-ethical protest. The narrative tension highlights dharma’s complexity: truthfulness in vows, the sanctity of dāna, and the divine role in curbing pride and restoring cosmic balance.