Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.56.12
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
yācitaḥ
—
requested
Past participle of √yāc, to beg. The Supreme Lord places Himself in the posture of a supplicant — and is refused. Gauḍīya theology lingers on this: Bhagavān stoops to ask because love is consensual, never coerced.
-
yācñā-bhaṅgam
—
the breaking of the request
Compound: yācñā (begging, request) + bhaṅgam (breaking). A formal Sanskrit offense category — to break a yācñā is a recognized sin. Satrājit commits the textbook offense and does not even register it.
-
artha-kāmukaḥ
—
greedy for wealth
Compound: artha (wealth) + kāmukaḥ (lustful). The exact diagnosis. Kāma displaced onto artha — the modern condition named in one Sanskrit compound.
-
atarkayan
—
not considering
Present participle of negated √tark. Satrājit does not even think. The Bhāgavatam takes thoughtlessness as a moral category — to fail to weigh an offense to Bhagavān is itself an offense.
Krsna requested the jewel for the treasury of King Ugrasena. . Satrajit refused without considering the effects of refusing the request of the Lord (yacna bhangam atakrayan), By not offering it to the supreme lord, but instead enjoying it himself, that object which could destroy all misfortunes would instead become the cause of all misfortunes. What then would be the offense if the lord requested it for himself and he did not give? Therefore he requested it for King Ugrasena.
Kṛṣṇa asked him to give the jewel to Ugrasena, because it was only suitable for a king. Kṛṣṇa did not want it for himself since he was indifferent to it. He only requested, without any attempt at forcefully taking it by violence, since Kṛṣṇa was a person who spread the fame of heroes (śaurinā). Satrājit however was greedy for wealth (artha), not dharma. Therefore he did not consider it a fault when he ignored the Lord’s request. Since the gem was an excellent article, Satrājit should have previous offered it on his own. But even when the Lord requested he did not give it. Satrājit did not see that it would produce great disaster for himself. The word eva indicates that repeatedly he was requested but did not give. The verb prādāt (really give) indicates that when requested, he deceived him by pretending he would give it, with such words as “Yes, let him use it.”
- Where have you refused a request that the Lord (through a guru or devotee) actually made?
- What greed currently prevents redirecting a resource?
When Kṛṣṇa Himself asks, the answer must be 'yes' — to refuse Bhagavān a small thing is to claim ownership of something that was never yours. Satrājit hoards the gem; he loses the gem, his brother, and his reputation. The accountant of bhakti is exacting.
When Vāmana-deva, the dwarf-Brāhmaṇa, asked Bali Mahārāja for three steps of land, Bali — though warned by his guru — gave everything. Two steps covered all the worlds; for the third Bali offered his own head.
Bali stands as the perfect counter-image to Satrājit. When Bhagavān asks, the devotee gives more than is asked. When Bhagavān asks Satrājit for a single gem, he refuses — and the chapter records the cost of that refusal verse by verse.
My note
Source: vedabase.io