FolioCorpusŚrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.4.12

शिवाय लोकस्य भवाय भूतये य उत्तमश्लोकपरायणा जना: । जीवन्ति नात्मार्थमसौ पराश्रयं मुमोच निर्विद्य कुत: कलेवरम् ॥ १२ ॥
śivāya lokasya bhavāya bhūtaye
[shivaaya lokasya bhavaaya bhootaye]
ya uttama-śloka-parāyaṇā janāḥ
[ya uttama-shloka-paraayanaa janaah]
jīvanti nātmārtham asau parāśrayaṁ
[jeevanti naatmaartham asau paraashrayam]
mumoca nirvidya kutaḥ kalevaram
[mumocha nirvidya kutah kalevaram]
śivāya — welfare lokasya — of all living beings bhavāya — for flourishing bhūtaye — for economic development ye — one who is uttama-śloka-parāyaṇāḥ — devoted to the cause of the Personality of Godhead janāḥ — men jīvanti — do live na — but not ātma-artham — selfish interest asau — that para-āśrayam — shelter for others mumoca — gave up nirvidya — being freed from all attachment kutaḥ — for what reason kalevaram — mortal body.
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
śivāya lokasya bhavāya bhūtaye
śivāya
welfare
lokasya
of all living beings
bhavāya
for flourishing
bhūtaye
for economic development
ye
one who is
ya uttama-śloka-parāyaṇā janāḥ
uttama-śloka-parāyaṇāḥ
devoted to the cause of the Personality of Godhead
janāḥ
men
jīvanti nātmārtham asau parāśrayaṁ
jīvanti
do live
na
but not
ātma-artham
selfish interest
asau
that
para-āśrayam
shelter for others
mumoca nirvidya kutaḥ kalevaram
mumoca
gave up
nirvidya
being freed from all attachment
kutaḥ
for what reason
kalevaram
mortal body.
Those who are devoted to the cause of the Personality of Godhead live only for the welfare, development and happiness of others. They do not live for any selfish interest. So even though the Emperor [Parīkṣit] was free from all attachment to worldly possessions, how could he give up his mortal body, which was the shelter for others?

Parīkṣit Mahārāja was an ideal king and householder because he was a devotee of the Personality of Godhead. A devotee of the Lord automatically has all good qualifications. And the Emperor was a typical example of this. Personally he had no attachment for all the worldly opulences in his possession. But since he was king for the all-around welfare of his citizens, he was always busy in the welfare work of the public, not only for this life, but also for the next. He would not allow slaughterhouses or killing of cows. He was not a foolish and partial administrator who would arrange for the protection of one living being and allow another to be killed. Because he was a devotee of the Lord, he knew perfectly well how to conduct his administration for everyone’s happiness — men, animals, plants and all living creatures. He was not selfishly interested. Selfishness is either self-centered or self-extended. He was neither. His interest was to please the Supreme Truth, the Personality of Godhead. The king is the representative of the Supreme Lord, and therefore the king’s interest must be identical with that of the Supreme Lord. The Supreme Lord wants all living beings to be obedient to Him and thereby become happy. Therefore the king’s interest is to guide all subjects back to the kingdom of God. Hence the activities of the citizens should be so coordinated that they can at the end go back home, back to Godhead. Under the administration of a representative king, the kingdom is full of opulence. At that time, human beings need not eat animals. There are ample food grains, milk, fruit and vegetables so that the human beings as well as the animals can eat sumptuously and to their heart’s content. If all living beings are satisfied with food and shelter and obey the prescribed rules, there cannot be any disturbance between one living being and another. Emperor Parīkṣit was a worthy king, and therefore all were happy during his reign.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
Persons who are surrendered to the Lord live for the auspiciousness of the world: extinguishing repeated birth and death and supplying material needs, and not for themselves. Why did Parīkṣit, becoming renounced, give up his body, which was meant as a shelter for others?
Commentary

Those surrendered to the Lord live for the auspiciousness of the world (lokasya sivāya) in two ways: for extinguishing material life (bhavāya) and for giving material wealth (bhūtaye). Bhavāya literally means “for material life” but here it means “the devotees live for helping people give up their material life” in the manner that smoke is used to smother mosquitoes. Or the dative case bhavāya may express a missing infinite: bhavāya saṁhartum (they live to extinguish material life.) [Note: kriyārthopapadasya ca. (Aṣṭādhyāyī, Pāṇini 2.3.14) Use of dative case with the verb indicates there is a hidden infinite which should be understood. ]

Parāśṛayam means helping others. One should not give up something upon which others depend for life, even though one may be personally detached from it.

Devotees live for others' welfare, so the sages are puzzled: how could Parīkṣit leave a body that was sheltering many? The right question for a sincere life isn't 'is this mine?' but 'does anyone still need it?'.
Reflection Questions
  • Which of my roles is still genuinely sheltering others — and how does that shape what I can release?
  • Where am I clinging in the name of service but it has become identity?
📝 My note

← Read full Chapter 4