Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.4.23
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
kṣamadhvam
—
please forgive (you two)
Imperative dual — 'forgive!' addressed to Devakī and Vasudeva. Kṣamā is one of the six items the Bhāgavatam names as Hari's tanū (v.41 of this very chapter). Asking for kṣamā is, indirectly, asking for the Lord.
-
daurātmyam
—
evil-mindedness / cruelty
From dur-ātman — 'bad self'. Kaṁsa names his own state correctly. Repentance again labels itself accurately, even if it cannot yet cure itself.
-
sādhavaḥ
—
saintly persons
Vocative plural. Kaṁsa addresses Devakī and Vasudeva as sādhus — a true identification, since both are pure devotees. The asura sees what he is asking from: the mercy that lives only in sādhu-hearts.
-
dīna-vatsalāḥ
—
affectionate to the fallen
Compound — 'tender to the wretched'. Bhagavān is called dīna-vatsala, and so are His devotees. Kaṁsa invokes the very quality of the saint that makes his request possible — without dīna-vatsalatā, no fallen soul would ever be heard.
-
aśru-mukhaḥ
—
with face full of tears
Compound — 'tear-faced'. The Bhāgavatam pauses to record the tears. Whether the tears were durable or not, the moment was real. The verse honors the moment so the reader can learn how to fall — even if Kaṁsa cannot learn to remain fallen.
Although Kaṁsa had spoken very nicely on the subject of real knowledge, his past deeds were abominable and atrocious, and therefore he further begged forgiveness from his sister and brother-in-law by falling at their feet and admitting that he was a most sinful person.
"If it is the case that you will continue to grieve and blame me for the death of your sons, then, though I am wicked, I did not commit this sinful act consciously. My atonement is only by your mercy." Thus he says, "Please forgive me." Syala (brother or brother in law) indicates Kamsa. Svasro is dual form of sister, but here indicates the sister and her husband, Devaki and Vasudeva. Kamsa touched both of their feet.
Since I did not have a realization, please forgive me. He addresses them in the plural in order to ask forgiveness from all Devakī’s and Vasudeva’s family members. Forgive me since you are all well bred and affectionate to friends. Instead of bandhu-vatsalāḥ sometimes dīna-vatsalāḥ (affectionate to the miserable) is seen. By this he appeals to their sympathy, showing himself very fallen. As soon as he said this (atha) he grabbed their feet. Svasroḥ (two sisters) is used to indicate Devakī and Vasudeva. Just as the prāṇa-bhṛt (a brick) indicates all other bricks laid afterwards, so “sister” indicates Devakī’s husband as well. Taking svasroḥ to indicate two persons, Vasudeva and Devakī, requires some interpretation. One can also take svasroḥ as a modifier of pādau in the dual, to indicate Devakī alone. The purport of this section is that knowledge of ātmā simply nourishes the cruelty of people who are inimical to the Lord.
- Madhavananda Pr SB 10-04-23 - 2021-02-01 ISKCON Vrindavan
- Revati Raman Pr SB 10-04-23 - 2009-03-02 ISKCON Tirupati
- JAS SB 10-04-23 - The Wrong ways of the Materialistic Men - 2011-12-13 ISKCON Chowpatty
- PrahladAnS SB 10-04-23 Slovenian Translation - Odgovarjamo za svoje %C5%BEelje - 2023-07-12 ISKCON Slovenia
- Identify one person you have harmed and, today, name the specific wrong to them without excuse or self-justification.
- Refuse to let philosophical understanding substitute for concrete amends — speak the apology your past actions still owe.
- When tears of regret arise, do not suppress them; offer them to Kṛṣṇa as the first honest currency of bhakti.
- Whose feet do I need to fall at — which person have I wronged through my 'daurātmya' that I have been too proud to approach with tears and a plain admission of guilt?
- When I confess a fault, am I genuinely throwing myself on the mercy of the dīna-vatsala — those tender to the fallen — or am I performing remorse to manage how others see me?
- Think of the person in your class or friend group you have quietly written off — the one who screenshotted your message, spread the rumor, or humiliated you in a group chat. Without posting anything, sit for five minutes today and try to see the eternal soul in them, separate from what they did. Notice how hard it is; that resistance is your real homework.
- If you are the one who hurt someone — a sibling, a classmate, an ex — do the Kaṁsa move minus the theatre: go to them in person (not on a story, not in DMs), name the specific thing you did as daurātmya, and ask forgiveness without explaining yourself. No edit, no audience.
- When a teacher, parent, or coach apologizes to you, resist two equal traps: instant ‘it’s fine’ (which is cowardice dressed as politeness) and cold contempt (which is ego dressed as boundaries). Practice the sādhu’s middle response: acknowledge the apology, name what still hurts, and let time — not the apology — decide trust.
- Identify one family member — spouse, parent, in-law, sibling — toward whom you carry a long-standing grievance you have stopped naming out loud. This week, in one quiet conversation, name it once, fully and without rehearsal, the way Kaṁsa names his own wickedness. Then drop it; do not relitigate it for thirty days.
- In front of your children, apologize specifically for one parenting failure of the last year — a temper, a broken promise, an unfair comparison. Do not soften it with ‘but you also…’ You are teaching them what dīna-vatsala looks like: that adults can fall at feet without losing authority.
- When a colleague or business partner who once wronged you returns with contrition — a late payment, a stolen idea, a betrayal — do the householder’s discrimination: forgive the soul, renegotiate the contract. Samatā in vision does not mean foolishness in paperwork.
- Make a written list of the people you intend to die unreconciled with. Beside each name, write the specific daurātmya — yours or theirs — that still stands between you. This month, attempt one reconciliation in person or by letter; for the rest, perform a formal release before Kṛṣṇa, offering the grievance at His feet and asking that the soul be unburdened on both sides.
- Tell one younger person — a child, grandchild, mentee — a story of a time you behaved like Kaṁsa, fell at someone’s feet, and were forgiven. Do not moralize it. Let them see that an elder can name their own wickedness without collapse; this is the legacy of vairāgya, not the legacy of curated wisdom.
- As physical capacity loosens, practice loosening the grievance-grip alongside it. Each evening, take one resentment you have carried for decades and consciously offer it as part of your sandhyā — not because the wrong did not happen, but because you are preparing the soul to leave this body lighter than it entered.
- Mistaking Kaṁsa's eloquent talk on the soul (in the preceding verses) for actual transformation — speaking philosophy fluently while past atrocities remain unrepented and unchanged in conduct.
- Treating tearful apology as the finish line, the way Kaṁsa did, and reverting to old atrocities the moment fear or self-interest shifts — sentiment without sustained reformation is not real surrender.
- Approaching the saintly only when caught or cornered, exploiting their dīna-vatsalāḥ nature as a loophole for forgiveness rather than as the doorway to genuine change of heart.
- Kaṁsa fell at the feet of the very people he had imprisoned and whose children he had murdered. Share with your partner: is this a genuine spiritual moment, or is it the cheap relief of a man who has just been told he will not die today? Where do you draw the line, and why?
- Vasudeva and Devakī are described as sādhu and dīna-vatsala — saintly and affectionate to the fallen. If your sibling had killed six of your children, would forgiveness on the spot be a virtue or a failure of duty (kartavya) toward those children? Argue both sides honestly before agreeing.
- Kaṁsa says ‘kṣamadhvaṁ mama daurātmyaṁ’ — forgive my wickedness. Discuss: is asking forgiveness a form of śaucha (purification), or can it become another performance of the false ego (ahaṅkāra)? Bring in a real example from your own life where you weren’t sure which one was happening.
Two students play Vasudeva and Devakī, just released from years of imprisonment, standing over the bodies of their six murdered infants in memory. A third student plays Kaṁsa, who has just heard a discourse on the soul, and now falls weeping at their feet, begging forgiveness. A fourth student plays a younger cousin watching the scene, who pulls Vasudeva aside and whispers, ‘Don’t trust him — this is tapas in costume.’ Run the scene for five minutes. Vasudeva and Devakī must decide, in real time and out loud, what to say to Kaṁsa, what to say to the cousin, and what duty (kartavya) they owe each. Then swap roles and run it again — does your verdict change when you are the one at the feet?
- This is exactly what abusers do — weep, beg, fall at feet, and get forgiven, only to harm again. The verse romanticizes a manipulation pattern and shames victims who refuse to forgive.
A Gauḍīya teacher does not read this verse as a command to forgive every Kaṁsa we meet. Vasudeva and Devakī are sādhus precisely because their forgiveness flows from realization of the soul, not from denial of what happened — and notice that Kṛṣṇa Himself, in the larger narrative, still arranges for Kaṁsa’s death. Forgiveness of the soul does not cancel the consequences of action. The verse asks us to cultivate equanimity (samatā) of vision, not naïveté of judgment. Apaiśunam — refusing to slander — is not the same as refusing to protect. A sādhu can simultaneously forgive the eternal soul and refuse to hand the body back the knife. - Why should I take spiritual instruction from a story where the ‘villain’ is allowed to grovel his way back into the family? Modern ethics says accountability matters more than apology.
Accountability and apology are not opposites here — Kaṁsa is admitting, in public and in tears, that his deeds were daurātmya, wickedness. That is accountability in its oldest form: naming one’s own act without softening it. The Gauḍīya line goes further than modern ethics, not less far: Kaṁsa will still reap what he sowed, but his admission opens the door for the soul, which is what actually matters. Modern accountability often stops at consequences for the body and reputation; bhakti asks what happens to the soul carrying the saṁskāra of those acts. Both layers are real. The verse holds both — it does not let Kaṁsa off, and it does not let Vasudeva and Devakī harden into the kind of bitterness that would corrode their own bhakti.
A wolf falls at the shepherd's feet, weeping. Whether the wolf will remain a wolf when morning comes is a separate question — but for now, his head is bowed and his tears are real. The verse honors that bowing, no matter the species. Bhagavān's devotees, being dīna-vatsala, must receive every supplicant with mercy, even one whose pādau remember blood.
The two drunkards Jagāi and Mādhāi, after wounding Nityānanda Prabhu with a clay pot, fell at the feet of Caitanya Mahāprabhu and Nityānanda. The Lord's first impulse was to release His cakra; Nityānanda interceded, and the two were embraced and transformed into ardent devotees (CC Ādi 17).
Kaṁsa here, similarly, falls at Vasudeva's and Devakī's feet with eyes full of tears. The Gauḍīya commentators note the contrast: where the Vaiṣṇavas receive Jagāi and Mādhāi with full mercy and the offenders are saved, Devakī and Vasudeva also accept Kaṁsa's apology — but Kaṁsa himself, lacking saṅga of pure devotees who could nurture the moment, soon falls back into asuric resolve. The same gesture, two outcomes; the difference is later association.
My note
Source: vedabase.io