FolioCorpusŚrīmad-Bhāgavatam

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.3.1

मैत्रेय उवाच सदा विद्विषतोरेवं कालो वै ध्रियमाणयो: । जामातु: श्वशुरस्यापि सुमहानतिचक्रमे ॥ १ ॥
maitreya uvāca
[maitreya uvaacha]
sadā vidviṣator evaṁ
[sadaa vidvishator evam]
kālo vai dhriyamāṇayoḥ
[kaalo vai dhriyamaanayoh]
jāmātuḥ śvaśurasyāpi
[jaamaatuh shvashurasyaapi]
sumahān aticakrame
[sumahaan atichakrame]
maitreyaḥ uvāca — Maitreya said sadā — constantly vidviṣatoḥ — the tension evam — in this manner kālaḥ — time vai — certainly dhriyamāṇayoḥ — continued to bear jāmātuḥ — of the son-in-law śvaśurasya — of the father-in-law api — even su-mahān — a very great aticakrame — passed.
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
maitreya uvāca
maitreyaḥ uvāca
Maitreya said
sadā vidviṣator evaṁ
sadā
constantly
vidviṣatoḥ
the tension
evam
in this manner
kālo vai dhriyamāṇayoḥ
kālaḥ
time
vai
certainly
dhriyamāṇayoḥ
continued to bear
jāmātuḥ śvaśurasyāpi
jāmātuḥ
of the son-in-law
śvaśurasya
of the father-in-law
api
even
sumahān aticakrame
su-mahān
a very great
aticakrame
passed.
Maitreya continued: In this manner the tension between the father-in-law and son-in-law, Dakṣa and Lord Śiva, continued for a considerably long period.

The previous chapter has already explained that Vidura questioned the sage Maitreya as to the cause of the misunderstanding between Lord Śiva and Dakṣa. Another question is why the strife between Dakṣa and his son-in-law caused Satī to destroy her body. The chief reason for Satī’s giving up her body was that her father, Dakṣa, began another sacrificial performance, to which Lord Śiva was not invited at all. Generally, when any sacrifice is performed, although each and every sacrifice is intended to pacify the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, all the demigods, especially Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva and the other principal demigods, such as Indra and Candra, are invited, and they take part. It is said that unless all the demigods are present, no sacrifice is complete. But in the tension between the father-in-law and son-in-law, Dakṣa began another yajña performance, to which Lord Śiva was not invited. Dakṣa was the chief progenitor employed by Lord Brahmā, and he was a son of Brahmā, so he had a high position and was also very proud.

— A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura Gauḍīya
Translation
Considerable time passed as the father-in-law and son –in-law continued their enmity. In the Third Chapter, Satī, desiring to see the sacrifice performed by her father Dakṣa, is forbidden by Śiva, who cites words concerning proper conduct. Dhriyamāṇayoḥ means continued. They did not beg pardon from each other. Dhṛ means “to continue to exist.”
The tension between Dakṣa and Śiva 'continued for a considerably long period' — unaddressed family conflicts compound over time. Unresolved grievances don't dissolve; they deepen. Address what festers before it ignites.
Reflection Questions
  • What unresolved family conflict am I letting compound over years?
  • What would it cost me to address it now, versus letting it ignite later?
📝 My note

← Read full Chapter 3