Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.1.67
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
ghnanti
—
they kill
Third plural present of han, 'kill.' The verse uses the present tense: this is the ongoing condition, not a one-time event. Greed-driven kings kill, generation after generation. The Bhāgavata's social diagnosis is timeless.
-
asu-tṛpaḥ
—
those who envy the lives of others for their personal sense gratification
Asu (life-breath) + tṛp (satisfy). 'Those who satisfy themselves by [taking] others' lives.' Bhāgavata names a specific psychological type: the asu-tṛp, whose sense-gratification is bound up with others' loss. Bhakti's offer: have tṛpti from Bhagavān, not from others' bodies.
-
lubdhāḥ
—
greedy
From lubh, 'to covet.' The asu-tṛp is named precisely as lubdha — greedy. Bhāgavata's mode-analysis: lobha is one of the six enemies (kāma, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, mātsarya). When lobha rules a king, the kingdom becomes a hunting ground.
-
rājānaḥ
—
such kings
Plural of rājan. The verse generalizes: rājānaḥ. Not 'a king' — kings, plural. The Bhāgavata refuses individual exceptionalism; the pattern is structural. Kaṁsa is one instance of a recurring social phenomenon, and the warning extends to every age.
We have seen in the history of India that Aurangzeb killed his brother and nephews and imprisoned his father to fulfill political ambitions. There have been many similar instances, and Kaṁsa was the same type of king. Kaṁsa did not hesitate to kill his nephews and imprison his sister and his father. For demons to do such things is not astonishing. Nonetheless, although Kaṁsa was a demon, he was aware that Lord Viṣṇu cannot be killed, and thus he attained salvation. Even partial understanding of the activities of Lord Viṣṇu makes one eligible for salvation. Kaṁsa knew a little about Kṛṣṇa — that He could not be killed — and therefore he attained salvation although he thought of Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa, as an enemy. What then is to be said of one who knows Kṛṣṇa perfectly from the descriptions of śāstras like Bhagavad-gītā ? It is therefore the duty of everyone to read Bhagavad-gītā and understand Kṛṣṇa perfectly. This will make one’s life successful.
This was not a surprising action for evil men like Kamsa. That is the intention of this verse. What to speak of killing father, brothers, and friends, they will kill even their own mothers. The order of seriousness is from first (mother) to last (friend).
“Was Kaṁsa not ashamed of killing a baby?” This verse answers. The list begins with the person invoking the most affection, the mother. Greedy kings, to satisfy their own life airs (asutṛpaḥ), greedy for kingdoms, kill even their mother, what to speak of their father and others. Prāyaśaḥ means that not all kings act in this manner. Thus it shows Kaṁsa’s extreme debasement.
- Notice today the one relationship you are quietly willing to bruise to protect a personal ambition, and name that ambition out loud as lobha.
- Refuse to wield any small 'kingship' you hold — over a sibling, employee, or child — to extract sense gratification, and instead use that authority to serve them.
- Before each meal or purchase today, pause and ask whether this is santoṣa or asu-tṛp (insatiable craving), and offer the act to Kṛṣṇa to break the demoniac pattern.
- Where in my own life have I quietly justified harming someone close to me — in word, withheld attention, or broken trust — because some 'whim' of mine (status, comfort, ambition) demanded it?
- If even Kaṁsa attained salvation through partial awareness of Kṛṣṇa as an enemy, what excuse can I offer for not studying Bhagavad-gītā seriously, given the access I have been given?
- Notice the next time you 'unfollow,' freeze out, or talk down a friend who became inconvenient to your image, your group, or your goals — that is the small-scale Kaṁsa instinct (asutṛpa, lubdhā) operating through your phone.
- During exam season or a competitive internship hunt, write down one thing you would not do to win — a classmate you would not undermine, a parent you would not lie to, a value you would not trade. Tape it where you study. The verse exists because in heat, people forget.
- Pick one Sanskrit term from the related values — santoṣa or brahmacharya — and apply it for one week to a single appetite (scrolling, snacking, gossip, hookups). Notice what happens to your study, sleep, and relationships when one viṣaya is restrained.
- Audit one major family decision from the last year — a move, a school, a career jump, a property matter — and ask honestly: whose interests did I subordinate, and did I tell myself a story to make it sound noble? This is how lubdhā hides inside 'providing for the family.'
- When money or inheritance discussions come up with parents or siblings, name the Kaṁsa-temptation out loud (at least to yourself) before the meeting: 'I will be tempted to maximize my share and call it fairness.' Naming it weakens it; pretending it isn't there strengthens it.
- Each evening, in front of the family altar, offer the day's earnings and decisions to Kṛṣṇa explicitly — not as ritual, but as a check on whether the day's work would embarrass you to lay before Him. If it would, that is the verse's warning landing on your own household.
- Look at your will, your estate plan, your unfinished conversations with adult children — where are you still holding power as leverage (over inheritance, approval, time)? The verse warns that even at the end, the king-instinct grasps. Loosen one grip this month: a conversation forgiven, a clause simplified, a possession given early.
- Where you once might have crushed a rival in business, family, or community to get your way, now mentor someone you would once have seen as competition. This reverses the asutṛpa current — you become the opposite of the king in the verse: one whose remaining strength feeds others rather than consumes them.
- Meditate daily on the fact that Kaṁsa, for all his crimes, attained salvation through constant remembrance of Viṣṇu (even fearful) — and resolve that your remembrance, with the time you have left, will be loving and unbroken. Memorize one verse from the related list (BG 12.6 or 2.62) and let it run under your day.
- Reading this verse as being about 'other people' — corrupt politicians, historical tyrants like Aurangzeb or Kaṁsa — and missing that asutṛpa lubdhā (greed for sense gratification) names the same impulse that runs my own day.
- Concluding from Kaṁsa's salvation that thinking of Kṛṣṇa as an enemy is a viable path; the verse is meant to shame us into proper sādhana, not license casual or adversarial God-consciousness.
- Treating 'read Bhagavad-gītā' as an intellectual checkbox — collecting verses and translations — instead of letting daily study actually restrain the lubdhā tendencies the verse exposes.
- Kaṁsa imprisoned his father and killed his nephews to secure his throne. Where in your own life have you (or someone you respect) sacrificed a relationship — even subtly — for ambition, comfort, or reputation? Was the cost visible at the time, or only later?
- The verse claims that 'kings greedy for sense gratification' will 'almost always' kill even kin. Do you actually believe ordinary people are this corruptible when power and viṣaya are on the table, or is this Vyāsa exaggerating? Argue both sides honestly in your pair.
- Prabhupāda says even Kaṁsa attained salvation because he knew Viṣṇu could not be killed — while many 'devotees' who think of Kṛṣṇa as friend may not. What does this do to your idea of what qualifies someone for liberation? Does it make you more confident or more uneasy about your own sādhana?
Two students play siblings inheriting a family business after their father's death. One sibling (the 'Kaṁsa figure') wants to push the elderly mother into a care facility she doesn't want, buy out the other sibling at below-market value, and pivot the business in a direction the father explicitly opposed — all justified as 'necessary for growth.' The other sibling must respond not with modern legal/ethical arguments alone but from the standpoint of this verse: name what is actually happening (lubdhā, asutṛpa — greed for sense gratification dressed as pragmatism), and try to help the brother see it without moralizing. The class then debates: at what exact line did practical ambition cross into the territory the verse warns about?
- This verse is just ancient political cynicism — 'all kings are murderous tyrants.' It has nothing to say to me; I'm not running a kingdom and I'm not killing anyone.
Read 'king' as anyone with power over others — a manager, a parent, the head of a household, even the manager of your own senses. The verse isn't a sociology of monarchy; it's a diagnosis of what unrestrained viṣaya-tṛṣṇā does to a person who has the means to act on it. You may not literally kill, but ask honestly: whose flourishing have you quietly traded away — a parent's wishes ignored, a sibling's share quietly reduced, a friend dropped because they became inconvenient — to feed something you wanted? The verse names that pattern. Without brahmacharya and santoṣa, the same logic that produced Kaṁsa produces the smaller Kaṁsas we each carry. - If even Kaṁsa — a child-murderer — got salvation just by thinking of Viṣṇu (even as enemy), then the whole moral apparatus of the tradition collapses. Why bother with sādhana, sva-dharma, restraint?
This is the classic misreading, and Prabhupāda anticipates it. Kaṁsa's 'salvation' came at a terrible price — a life consumed by fear, paranoia, the murder of his own kin, and finally death at Kṛṣṇa's hand. He attained mukti despite that life, not because of it, and only because his constant, fearful meditation on Viṣṇu happened to be uninterrupted. You and I do not have that kind of obsessive concentration on Kṛṣṇa even in devotion, let alone in enmity. The purport's actual punchline is the opposite of permissive: if even partial, hostile knowledge of Kṛṣṇa liberates, then how foolish to neglect the Bhagavad-gītā, which offers full, loving knowledge. The point is not 'sin is fine' but 'do not waste the rare gift of being able to know Him favorably.'
Greedy kings, the verse observes, will kill anyone — mother, father, brother, friend — to satisfy their sense gratification. Kaṁsa is being placed in a general category, not singled out. The Bhāgavata is doing political theology: power without surrender produces the same fruit in every age. The verse's sober tone is a warning to every devotee tempted to think kingship is itself a problem solver.
My note
Source: vedabase.io