Question on SB 4.22.13 Purport

[BVKS Sanga]

From "Damodara Dasa" 

Date 19-06-2026 13:35:45

Subject Re: Question on SB 4.22.13 Purport

Respected Guru Maharaja and devotees,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah.

My few cents here:

While reading Srimad Bhagavatam 4.22.13 purport, I came across the following statement by Srila Prabhupada:

"Four kinds of sinful activities—associating with women for illicit sex, eating meat, intoxication and gambling—are allowed for the kṣatriyas."

At the same time, it is often said that to live as a civilized human being one should follow the four regulative principles and avoid these four sinful activities.

I am unable to reconcile these two points and would be grateful if you could kindly explain how this statement regarding kṣatriyas is to be understood. Does "allowed" refer to regulated concessions within varṇāśrama society, and how should we understand this in relation to the universal instruction to avoid the four sinful activities?

There is "samanya-visesa-nyaya" -- specific injunction overrules the generic injunction. 

For example, "Stool of any animal is contaminating and one must take bath" is one injunction (A), and "Cow-dung is pure and purifies everything and thus to be used for purification, to the extent that one takes bath with it to purify oneself," this is another injunction (B). The subject of injunciton B is a specific case of the subject of injunction A, because the jati cow is a specific part of more generic group, the animal. (cow is an animal, goat is an animal, dog is an animal, etc.)

In such cases the generic injunction (A) is applicable on all cases except the cases of the specific injunction (B). So in the above case, the injunction of animal stool being contaminating is applicable on the stool of all animals except that of cows.*** 

Similarly, the statement of ksatriyas being sometimes allowed the four sinful activities is a specific case of the more generic case of absolutely avoiding 4 sinful activities for all civilized human beings, because ksatriyas are a specific part of all civilized human beings that includes brahmins, ksatriyas, and vaisyas. 

So this would mean that the absolute prohibition of these 4 sinful actions is applicable to brahmins and vaisyas, while not on ksatriyas.

Now a question will arise, if it is not applicable on ksatriyas then why there are sastric statements specifically refereing to ksatriyas for not being sinful in these activities?

The next statement in SB 4.22.13 purport reveals an important point (bolded) and I am pasting the purport in its context:

Kings are not only grhasthas, who are generally absorbed in sense gratification, but are sometimes employed to kill animals in hunting because they have to practice the killing art, otherwise it is very difficult for them to fight their enemies. Such things are not auspicious. Four kinds of sinful activities -- associating with woman for illicit sex, eating meat, intoxication and gambling -- are allowed for the ksatriyas. For political reasons, sometimes they have to take to these sinful activities. Ksatriyas do not refrain from gambling. One vivid example is the Pandavas. When the Pandavas were challenged by the opposite party, Duryodhana, to gamble and risk their kingdom, they could not refrain, and by that gambling they lost their kingdom, and their wife was insulted. Similarly, the ksatriyas cannot refrain from fighting if challenged by the opposite party. (SB 4.22.13, Purport)

Therefore, even for ksatriyas there is absolute prohibition of 4 sinful actions. However, in case of need for executing their varna duties they may need to engage in such activities. In such cases, they are allowed to engage in those. 

So a question arises that when there is allowance for engaging in drinking, gambling, eating meat, and having so-called illicit sex, should he do them as he feels okay or there are restrictions? 

Answer is that there are restrictions given in sastras for engaging in these: which types of meat are allowed to be eaten (Manu Smrti etc), which types of women and in what way he can associate, which types of wines and in what way he can drink, etc. 

Thsee type of injunctions which are meant for restricting the subject of allowances are called parisankhya-vidhi. For instance, it is said "panca panca-nakhah bhaksyah" -- five types of five nailed animals are eatable (Ramayana, Vali to Lord Rama). 

The purpose of such types of injunctions (parisankhya vidhis) is just the opposite of what is injuncted, i.e. although it appears in the injunciton that it is injuncting to eat five types of animals the actual purpose is to discourage eating of animals by restricting its allowance to only five types: the actual injunction technically becomes "do not eat any other animal than these five types."

The spefic nature of parisankhya-vidhi injunction is that if one doesn't follow its apparent injunction then one doesn't incur sin, i.e. if you do not eat any animals, even any of the five types, then you do not incur sin of not following the injunction of eating five types of animals.  

CONCLUSION:

* Absolute prohibition of 4-sinful actions apply on all civilized people (brahmins, ksatriyas, and vaisyas).

* Ksatriyas who need to take to some of these sinful acions due to some needs for following thier sva-dharma are allowed to do so.

* In that allowance, they have to follow the restrictions given by several sastras.

There are some more nuances to this which I have not discussed herein.

Thank you.

Your servant,

damodara das

NOTES:

***  Hardcore logic behind the samanya-visesa-nyaya is that if the generic injunction (A) is allowed to overrule the specific injunction (B) then the specific injunction (B) becomes inapplicable anywhere else and thus there is anarthakya of sastric injunction (uselessness of existence of injunction B).

While, if the specific injunction (B) overrules the generic injunction (A) then the generic injunction (A) is still applicable in cases except those in which specific injunction (B) is applied. Therefore both the generic injunction (A) and the specific injunction (B) have some applicability and thus not useless. 

For example, if the injunction of all animal stool is contaminating overrules the injunction that cow-dung is purifying and not contaminating, then the injunction of cowdung being purifying (not contaminating) cannot be applied anywhere else, and thus this injunctive statement of sastra becomes useless. On the other hand, if the injunction of cowdung being purifying overrules the injunction of all animal stool being contaminating, the injunction of all animal stool being contaminating an still be applicable on dogs, goats, cats, and so on, except on cows, thus both the injunctions have their application and none remains useless.