Samika Rsi

Expressions researched:
"Rsi Samika" |"Samika Muni" |"Samika Rsi" |"sage Samika" |"sage named Samika"

SB Canto 1

SB 1.18.24-25, Translation:

Once upon a time Mahārāja Parīkṣit, while engaged in hunting in the forest with bow and arrows, became extremely fatigued, hungry and thirsty while following the stags. While searching for a reservoir of water, he entered the hermitage of the well-known Śamīka Ṛṣi and saw the sage sitting silently with closed eyes.

SB 1.18.28, Purport:

When Mahārāja Parīkṣit entered the door of Śamīka Ṛṣi, he did not expect a royal reception by the ṛṣi because he knew that saints and ṛṣis are not materially rich men. But he never expected that a seat of straw, a glass of water and some sweet words would be denied to him. He was not an ordinary guest, nor was he an enemy of the ṛṣi, and therefore the cold reception by the ṛṣi astonished the King greatly. As a matter of fact, the King was right to get angry with the ṛṣi when he needed a glass of water very badly. To become angry in such a grave situation was not unnatural for the King, but because the King himself was not less than a great saint, his becoming angry and taking action were astonishing. So it must be accepted that it was so ordained by the supreme will of the Lord. The King was a great devotee of the Lord, and the saint was also as good as the King.

SB 1.18.34, Purport:

The dog is certainly reared by its master, but that does not mean that the dog shall claim to dine and drink from the same pot. This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Śṛṅgi, the King had no right to enter the house of Śamīka Ṛṣi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.

SB 1.18.41, Purport:

That is the instruction of the Vedas. The king is called narendra, or the best amongst the human beings. How then could a king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit be condemned by an inexperienced, puffed-up son of a brahmaṇa, even though he had attained the powers of a qualified brāhmaṇa?

Since Śamīka Ṛṣi was an experienced, good brāhmaṇa, he did not approve of the actions of his condemned son. He began to lament for all that his son had done. The king was beyond the jurisdiction of curses as a general rule, and what to speak of a good king like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. The offense of the King was most insignificant, and his being condemned to death was certainly a very great sin for Śṛṅgi. Therefore Ṛṣi Śamīka regretted the whole incident.

SB 1.18.46, Purport:

After explaining the general codes relating to the royal position and asserting that the king can do no wrong and therefore is never to be condemned, the sage Śamīka wanted to say something about Emperor Parīkṣit specifically. The specific qualification of Mahārāja Parīkṣit is summarized herein. The King, even calculated as a king only, was most celebrated as a ruler who administered the religious principles of the royal order. In the śāstras the duties of all castes and orders of society are prescribed. All the qualities of a kṣatriya mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.43) were present in the person of the Emperor. He was also a great devotee of the Lord and a self-realized soul. Cursing such a king, when he was tired and fatigued with hunger and thirst, was not at all proper. Śamīka Ṛṣi thus admitted from all sides that Mahārāja Parīkṣit was cursed most unjustly. Although all the brāhmaṇas were aloof from the incident, still for the childish action of a brāhmaṇa boy the whole world situation was changed. Thus Ṛṣi Śamīka, a brāhmaṇa, took responsibility for all deterioration of the good orders of the world.

SB 1.18.47, Purport:

Everyone is responsible for his own action, either pious or sinful. Ṛṣi Śamīka could foresee that his son had committed a great sin by cursing Mahārāja Parīkṣit, who deserved to be protected by the brāhmaṇas, for he was a pious ruler and completely free from all sins because of his being a first-class devotee of the Lord. When an offense is done unto the devotee of the Lord, it is very difficult to overcome the reaction. The brāhmaṇas, being at the head of the social orders, are meant to give protection to their subordinates and not to curse them. There are occasions when a brāhmaṇa may furiously curse a subordinate kṣatriya or vaiśya, etc., but in the case of Mahārāja Parīkṣit there were no grounds, as already explained. The foolish boy had done it out of sheer vanity in being a brāhmaṇa's son, and thus he became liable to be punished by the law of God.

SB 1.18.47, Purport:

The all-merciful Lord gave them a chance to have their births in the families of pious brāhmaṇas so that they could progress toward salvation. But the demons, instead of utilizing the good opportunity, misused the brahminical culture due to being puffed up by vanity in becoming brāhmaṇas. The typical example is the son of Śamīka Ṛṣi, and all the foolish sons of brāhmaṇas are warned hereby not to become as foolish as Śṛṅgi and be always on guard against the demoniac qualities which they had in their previous births. The foolish boy was, of course, excused by the Lord, but others, who may not have a father like Śamīka Ṛṣi, will be put into great difficulty if they misuse the advantages obtained by birth in a brāhmaṇa family.

SB 1.18.48, Purport:

Ṛṣi Śamīka also knew that the Lord does not forgive a person who has committed an offense at the feet of a devotee. The Lord can only give direction to take shelter of the devotee. He thought within himself that if Mahārāja Parīkṣit would countercurse the boy, he might be saved. But he knew also that a pure devotee is callous about worldly advantages or reverses. As such, the devotees are never inclined to counteract personal defamation, curses, negligence, etc. As far as such things are concerned, in personal affairs the devotees do not care for them. But in the case of their being performed against the Lord and His devotees, then the devotees take very strong action. It was a personal affair, and therefore Śamīka Ṛṣi knew that the King would not take counteraction. Thus there was no alternative than to place an appeal to the Lord for the immature boy.

SB 1.18.49, Purport:

Mahārāja Parīkṣit also did not mind the curse offered to him by a foolish brāhmaṇa. On the contrary, he took full advantage of the awkward situation, and by the great will of the Lord, Mahārāja Parīkṣit achieved the highest perfection of life through the grace of Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī. Actually it was the desire of the Lord, and Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Ṛṣi Śamīka and his son Śṛṅgi were all instrumental in fulfilling the desire of the Lord. So none of them were put into difficulty because everything was done in relation with the Supreme Person.

SB 1.19.4, Purport:

As a devotee of the Lord, he could understand that the cursing of the brāhmaṇa boy, although unwise, was a blessing upon him, being the cause of detachment from worldly affairs, both political and social. Śamīka Muni also, after regretting the incident, conveyed the news to the King as a matter of duty so that the King would be able to prepare himself to go back to Godhead. Śamīka Muni sent news to the King that foolish Śṛṅgi, his son, although a powerful brāhmaṇa boy, unfortunately had misused his spiritual power by cursing the King unwarrantedly. The incident of the King's garlanding the muni was not sufficient cause for being cursed to death, but since there was no way to retract the curse, the King was informed to prepare for death within a week. Both Śamīka Muni and the King were self-realized souls. Śamīka Muni was a mystic, and Mahārāja Parīkṣit was a devotee. Therefore there was no difference between them in self-realization.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.1.13, Purport:

As a human being, he was certainly both hungry and thirsty, and therefore Śukadeva Gosvāmī might have wanted to stop narrating the transcendental topics of Kṛṣṇa; but despite his fast, Mahārāja Parīkṣit was not at all fatigued. "The hunger and thirst from my fast do not disturb me," he said. "Once when I felt very thirsty, I went to the āśrama of Śamīka Muni to drink water, but the muni did not supply it. I therefore wrapped a dead snake over his shoulder, and that is why I was cursed by the brāhmaṇa boy. Now, however, I am quite fit. I am not at all disturbed by my hunger and thirst." This indicates that although on the material platform there are disturbances from hunger and thirst, on the spiritual platform there is no such thing as fatigue.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 23.21, Purport:

This is a verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.19.15) spoken by Mahārāja Parīkṣit while he was sitting on the bank of the Ganges expecting to be bitten by a snake-bird summoned by the curse of a brāhmaṇa boy named Śṛṅgi, who was the son of a great sage named Śamīka. News of the curse was conveyed to the King, who prepared for his imminent death. Many great saintly persons, sages, brāhmaṇas, kings and demigods came to see him in his last days. Mahārāja Parīkṣit, however, was not at all afraid of being bitten by the snake-bird. Indeed, he requested all the great personalities assembled to continue chanting the holy name of Lord Viṣṇu.