Those who are actually eager to be liberated from material entanglement would do well to accept at once the conclusion given by Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī. In the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is spoken by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, it is said that hearing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is extremely conducive to liberation. The same fact is now confirmed by Sūta Gosvāmī: if anyone who is traveling aimlessly within this material world cares to hear the nectarean words spoken by Śukadeva Gosvāmī, certainly he will come to the right conclusion, which is that simply by discharging devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead one will be able to stop the fatigue of perpetually migrating from one material body to another. In other words, one who becomes fixed in loving devotional service to Viṣṇu will certainly be able to get relief from this journey of material life, and the process is very simple: one has to give aural reception to the sweet words spoken by Śukadeva Gosvāmī in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
Another conclusion is that we should never consider the demigods, even Lord Śiva and Lord Brahmā, to be on an equal level with Lord Viṣṇu. If we do this, then according to the Padma Purāṇa we are immediately categorized as atheists. Also, in the Vedic scripture known as Hari-vaṁśa it is stated that only the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, is to be worshiped and that the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, or any such viṣṇu-mantra, is always to be chanted. In the Second Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Lord Brahmā says, “Both Lord Śiva and I are engaged by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to act in different capacities under His direction.” In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is also stated that the only master is Kṛṣṇa and that all others in all categories of life are servants of Kṛṣṇa only.
In the Bhagavad-gītā it is confirmed by the Lord that there is no truth superior to Kṛṣṇa. Śukadeva Gosvāmī also, in order to draw attention to the fact that among all viṣṇu-tattva forms Lord Kṛṣṇa is one hundred percent the Supreme Personality of Godhead, narrated the story of an incident which took place when Lord Kṛṣṇa was present.
Once upon a time in Dvārakā, a brāhmaṇa’s wife gave birth to a child. Unfortunately, however, just after being born and touching the ground, the child immediately died. The brāhmaṇa father took the child and went directly to the palace of the King. The brāhmaṇa was very upset because of the untimely death of the child in the presence of his young father and mother. Thus his mind became very much disturbed. Formerly, when there were responsible kings, up to the time of Dvāpara-yuga, when Lord Kṛṣṇa was present, the king was liable to be blamed for the untimely death of a child in the presence of his parents. Similarly, such responsibility was there during the time of Lord Rāmacandra. As we have explained in the First Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the king was so responsible for the comforts of the citizens that he was to see that there was not even excessive heat or cold. Now the brāhmaṇa whose child had died, thinking there was no fault on his own part, immediately went to the palace door with the dead child in his arms and accused the King as follows.
“The present King, Ugrasena, is envious of the brāhmaṇas!” The exact word used in this connection is brahma-dviṣaḥ. One who is envious of the Vedas, of a qualified brāhmaṇa or of the brāhmaṇa caste is called brahma-dviṣ. So the King was accused of being brahma-dviṣ. He was also accused of being śaṭha-dhī, falsely intelligent. The executive head of a state must be very intelligent to see to the comforts of the citizens, but according to the brāhmaṇa the King was not at all intelligent, although he was occupying the royal throne. Therefore the brāhmaṇa also called him lubdha, which means “greedy.” In other words, a king or an executive head of state should not occupy the exalted post of president or king if he is greedy and self-interested. But it is natural that an executive head becomes self-interested when he is attached to material enjoyment. Therefore, another word used here is viṣayātmanaḥ.
The brāhmaṇa also accused the King of being kṣatra-bandhu, which refers to a person born in the family of kṣatriyas, or the royal order, but lacking the qualifications of a royal personality. A king should protect brahminical culture and should be very alert to the welfare of his citizens; he should not be greedy due to attachment to material enjoyment. If a person with no qualifications represents himself as a kṣatriya of the royal order, he is not called a kṣatriya but a kṣatra-bandhu. Similarly, if a person is born of a brāhmaṇa father but has no brahminical qualification, he is called brahma-bandhu or dvija-bandhu. This means that a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya is not accepted simply by birth. One has to qualify himself for the particular position; only then is he accepted as a brāhmaṇa or a kṣatriya.
Thus the brāhmaṇa charged that his newly born baby was dead due to the disqualifications of the King. The brāhmaṇa took it to be most unnatural, and therefore he held the King responsible. We also find in Vedic history that if a kṣatriya king was irresponsible, sometimes a consulting board of brāhmaṇas maintained by the monarchy would dethrone him. Considering all these points, it appears that the post of monarch in the Vedic civilization is a very responsible one.