Metaphors And Similes In The Bhagavatam

Free to Read
9 mins September, 2026
Metaphors And Similes In The Bhagavatam
00:00
00:00

By Kaustubh  Narasimhan



Samyak kritam samskritam, “most perfectly composed” — this is what the word Samskritam translates to. The language of all our scriptures, the language of the heavenly planets, and the language even of the spiritual world, Sanskrit sure is a distinctive language. Be it the Ramayana of Valmiki, the Mahabharata of Vyasa, the Srimad-Bhagavatam or the Visnu Purana, the Vedas or the Vedanta-sutras — all of our scriptures have been handed down to us in pure and pristine Sanskrit. How so? Owing to the strength, precision, distinctiveness, remarkableness and definiteness of Sanskrit expression.



Alankara – A Phenomenal Attribute Of Sanskrit 



The language of Sanskrit is extraordinary in countless ways. One of the many aspects of its singular characteristics is its ability to express complex philosophical realities and worldly circumstances with reasonable and yet pragmatic figures of speech — and in the least number of words. Figures of speech are customary to every language. The English language itself has a plethora of them — metaphors, similes, hyperboles, apostrophes to state a few. And so does every other language. However, Sanskrit boasts of those broad categories of figures of speech that are scarcely seen in any other language. 



Figures of speech are used knowingly or unknowingly by all of us in everyday life too. For example, when we say devotees have a heart of butter, it only goes to show how soft devotees usually are, and not the literal meaning. 



Figures of speech are referred to by the word alankara in Sanskrit. Alankaroti iti alankarah: “that which embellishes is called an alankarah.” Alternatively, it’s also explained as alam kurute iti alankarah: “that which makes embellishment seem enough (in the sense that anything more will only spoil the entire show). Just as when a maiden girl is decorated with ornaments makes her more beautiful, the Vedic message becomes all the more pleasing to the ears when it’s embellished by figures of speech. It’s explained that prosody (chandas) are the legs and figures of speech (alankara) the hands of Vedic poetry.



Alankara In The Bhagavatam And Other Vedic Scriptures 



Being the mature fruit of the entire tree of Vedic knowledge (nigama-kalpataror galitam phalam), the Bhagavatam is typically known for its figures of speech. Throughout the twelve cantos of the Bhagavatam the author, Sri Vyasadeva brings out intense emotions, multiplex philosophical tenets, sober ethics, valuable values, and, above all, sweet pastimes of the Lord and His devotees, with the help of simple and yet profound alankaras, or figures of speech. These very alankaras are what make the Bhagavatam Srimad Bhagavatam, or the “beautiful Bhagavatam.” It’s for this very reason that the Bhagavatam is largely acclaimed even in the academic world to be the “epitome of Sanskrit poetry.” Alankara is also profusely implemented in all the other Vedic scriptures. 



Sanskrit generally uses the word iva to indicate a metaphor or a simile. Upon searching for the number of hits with the word iva in Bhagavatam, I found a surprising multitude of 1307 on the Vedabase. This is testimony enough to the beauty of the Bhagavatam. While using metaphors in the Bhagavatam, we can see that the author uses them broadly in the following three categories:


1. Metaphors in relation to the Lord: For example, Queen Kunti compares each of the limbs of the transcendental body of Lord Krishna to a lotus flower (SB 1.8.22 namah pankaja-nabhaya…)


2. Metaphors in relation to pure devotees of the Lord: For example, Srila Suta Gosvami is described as the captain of the boat for those who wish to cross the difficult ocean of Kali (SB 1.1.22 karnadhara ivarnavam) 


3. Metaphors in relation to general phenomena: For example, while describing the rainy season in Vrindavan, Srila Sukadeva Gosvami says that the sky and its natural illumination were covered in the same way that the spirit soul is covered by the three modes of material nature (SB 10.20.4 brahmeva sagunam babhau) 



While the latter two may not require much delineation, there’s much that our acaryas have written about the first. It is said that the transcendental body of the Supreme Lord is aprakrita, “completely spiritual and ethereal.” Srila Prabhupada clarifies this by quoting numerous verses of the Bhagavad-gita as well as the Srimad-Bhagavatam. For instance, Uddhava says to Vidura in the Third Canto of the Bhagavatam (SB 3.2.12) – 



yanmartya-lilaupayikam svayoga-

mayabalam darsayata grihitam

vismapanam svasya ca saubhagarddheh

param padam bhushanabhushanangam



This verse essentially means that “the Lord appeared in this mortal world by His internal potency, yoga-maya, and He came in His original, eternal form, which is just suitable for His pastimes.”



Can Material Analogies Describe The Spiritual Lord?



That being the case, can material metaphors and similes describe the all-spiritual Lord? Or even if they were to do, can they describe Him and other spiritual truths in full? On the contrary, we see that the scriptures are abundant with analogies and comparisons of the corporeal world. How do we resolve this apparent incongruity? 



Using material metaphors and similes to describe the Lord and other spiritual realities is actually a long-established Vedic tradition that is almost ubiquitous in Vedic literature. Srila Prabhupada explains this tradition with a Vedic maxim (nyaya) called the sakha-candra-nyaya. Imagine a mother standing with her kid in her arms under a tree on a full moon night. Kids are generally accustomed to only seeing sideways. Therefore, if the mother has to show her child the moon, she would rather show the tree by pointing towards it laterally, then its branches by pointing upward, and finally the moon by pointing between the branches. 



So is the case with the sastras too. Just as kids can only see laterally, we are accustomed to seeing only the material. And so, the sastras, who are like our divine mother, use material analogies to point towards spiritual truths, which are actually far beyond us (just like the moon is almost inaccessible to both the mother and the kid). However, we need to understand that those very analogies have their limitations too. The moon doesn’t actually exist between the branches, but does on a far higher plane. Similarly, spiritual truths cannot be entirely captured within the restricted shell of material analogies but lie independently on a completely transcendental plane. 



Examples To The Contrary



This truth is verily highlighted enchantingly in a southern retelling of the Tenth Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam called the Yadavabhyudayam:



aparicchidyamanasya desakaladibhistava

nidarsanam tvamevaikastvadanyadvyatirekatah



While offering their prayers to Kshirodakasayi Vishnu keeping Mother Earth at the fore on the banks of the Kshira-sagara (Ocean of Milk), the demigods highlight a spiritual truth concerning the Lord and the sastras that is of foremost importance. In order to understand this, we need to appreciate two of the acclaimed alankaras in Sanskrit.



1. Ananvaya Alankara



In Sanskrit, the object of comparison is called the upameya and the standard of comparison (object that is compared with) is referred to as the upamana. When a phrase or a verse describes something by essentially comparing it with itself, it’s called ananvaya alankara. In other words, if the upamana and the upameya are the same, it results in a surprisingly special poetic effect called the ananvaya alankara.



A famous example of this would be the following verse – 



gaganam gaganakaram sagarah sagaropamah

ramaravanayoryuddham ramaravanayoriva



There can’t be any metaphor to describe the all-encompassing sky, and hence it has to be compared to itself. There can’t be a comparison to the depths of the ocean, and therefore the ocean can only have itself in comparison. And so, there can’t be an analogy to describe the belligerence of the war between Rama and Ravana, but the war itself. 



2. Vyatireka Alankara 



This is another renowned figure of speech in Sanskrit that highlights the difference between the upamana and the upameya. The term vyatireka generally means discordance or difference. When a figure of speech asserts the superiority of the upameya over the upamana, it’s called vyatireka-alankara. Again, a famous example could be the following half verse: saila ivonnatah santah kintu prakriti-komalah. Now, this verse compares saintly personalities to mountains. The first half says, “Saints are high in character like the mountains.” Now, with this analogy of mountains in place, can we compare all aspects of mountains to saintly persons? The second half of the same verse clarifies, kintu prakriti-komalah: “However, saints are soft by heart (unlike the mountains, which are hard).” 



Ananvaya – Alankara And Vyatireka- Alankara In Relation To The Lord



Returning to the prayers of the demigods, we see that they say, nidarsanam tvameva ekah: “You can only be compared to Yourself.” That is literally the eternal truth: that the Lord cannot be compared to anything of this world at all, as all objects of this world prove to be insufficient to describe the Lord and thus, they cannot explain the Lord in full. Consequently, the scriptures should essentially have only the ananvaya-alankara, or in other words, the Lord should only have Himself in comparison.



However, material analogies can still do a partial job. They can serve as launchpads in our search for the Absolute Truth. If we decline to understand them, we will be stripped off of even that tiny possibility of understanding Krishna. On the other hand, if we stretch them beyond what they are intended to communicate, we end up with a deviant understanding. Accordingly, we should use them only in the sense that Srila Prabhupada communicated to us in his purports.



Concurrently, the demigods also say tvad anyad vyatirekatah: “all metaphors and similes used for You are to the contrary.” In other words, all material analogies used in reference to the Lord only assert the superiority of the Lord (upameya) and the inferiority of the analogy (upamana) itself. For instance, Queen Kunti compares Krishna’s transcendental bodily limbs to a lotus when she says the celebrated verse:



namah pankaja-nabhaya

namah pankaja-maline

namah pankaja-netraya

namaste pankajanghraye



This verse is a marvelous meditation on the beauty of the Lord. However, we can also observe some discordance in the metaphor too. The lotus is certainly beautiful, but can it be called “the most beautiful flower”? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. For some, the jasmine may be more beautiful; for others, the rose; and for yet others, another. The lotus is also popularly known to blossom with sunrise and to wilt with sunset. More than anything else, the lotus has a time period before it withers away. 



Now, can all of the above discordance be applied to the Lord too? Certainly not. And therefore, the demigods say that “all material analogies in relation to the Lord only indicate the superiority of the Lord and insufficiency of the analogies themselves.” This is the vyatireka-alankara. On that account, we can see that all material analogies that are given to the Lord in any of our revealed scriptures are examples of vyatireka-alankara, or “examples to the contrary.”



Srila Prabhupada often said that sastras are like our divine mother and the spiritual master our divine father. The divine union of both results in pure devotion for the Supreme Lord in the heart of the disciple. Since sastras are not easy to understand by ourselves, we need the guiding hand of our spiritual master. Therefore, when a disciple accepts the grace of his guru and then scrutinizingly studies the sastras, he will know exactly what sense to make of the figures of speech that the same sastras elaborate. 



Kaustubh Narasimhan hails from a devout Vaishnava family in Melukote, Karnataka. He presently serves as a full-time brahmacari at ISKCON Dharwad under the guidance of His Holiness Bhaktirasamrita Swami Maharaja.

Subscribe to BTG Digital Magazine

Embark on your path to Krishna consciousness with BTG Digital Magazine! Subscribe now and discover inspiring stories of growth, enlightenment, and connection shared by our community.

Subscribe

Metaphors And Similes In The Bhagavatam

Metaphors And Similes In The Bhagavatam
Listen to Article
Press Play to listen

By Kaustubh  Narasimhan



Samyak kritam samskritam, “most perfectly composed” — this is what the word Samskritam translates to. The language of all our scriptures, the language of the heavenly planets, and the language even of the spiritual world, Sanskrit sure is a distinctive language. Be it the Ramayana of Valmiki, the Mahabharata of Vyasa, the Srimad-Bhagavatam or the Visnu Purana, the Vedas or the Vedanta-sutras — all of our scriptures have been handed down to us in pure and pristine Sanskrit. How so? Owing to the strength, precision, distinctiveness, remarkableness and definiteness of Sanskrit expression.



Alankara – A Phenomenal Attribute Of Sanskrit 



The language of Sanskrit is extraordinary in countless ways. One of the many aspects of its singular characteristics is its ability to express complex philosophical realities and worldly circumstances with reasonable and yet pragmatic figures of speech — and in the least number of words. Figures of speech are customary to every language. The English language itself has a plethora of them — metaphors, similes, hyperboles, apostrophes to state a few. And so does every other language. However, Sanskrit boasts of those broad categories of figures of speech that are scarcely seen in any other language. 



Figures of speech are used knowingly or unknowingly by all of us in everyday life too. For example, when we say devotees have a heart of butter, it only goes to show how soft devotees usually are, and not the literal meaning. 



Figures of speech are referred to by the word alankara in Sanskrit. Alankaroti iti alankarah: “that which embellishes is called an alankarah.” Alternatively, it’s also explained as alam kurute iti alankarah: “that which makes embellishment seem enough (in the sense that anything more will only spoil the entire show). Just as when a maiden girl is decorated with ornaments makes her more beautiful, the Vedic message becomes all the more pleasing to the ears when it’s embellished by figures of speech. It’s explained that prosody (chandas) are the legs and figures of speech (alankara) the hands of Vedic poetry.



Alankara In The Bhagavatam And Other Vedic Scriptures 



Being the mature fruit of the entire tree of Vedic knowledge (nigama-kalpataror galitam phalam), the Bhagavatam is typically known for its figures of speech. Throughout the twelve cantos of the Bhagavatam the author, Sri Vyasadeva brings out intense emotions, multiplex philosophical tenets, sober ethics, valuable values, and, above all, sweet pastimes of the Lord and His devotees, with the help of simple and yet profound alankaras, or figures of speech. These very alankaras are what make the Bhagavatam Srimad Bhagavatam, or the “beautiful Bhagavatam.” It’s for this very reason that the Bhagavatam is largely acclaimed even in the academic world to be the “epitome of Sanskrit poetry.” Alankara is also profusely implemented in all the other Vedic scriptures. 



Sanskrit generally uses the word iva to indicate a metaphor or a simile. Upon searching for the number of hits with the word iva in Bhagavatam, I found a surprising multitude of 1307 on the Vedabase. This is testimony enough to the beauty of the Bhagavatam. While using metaphors in the Bhagavatam, we can see that the author uses them broadly in the following three categories:


1. Metaphors in relation to the Lord: For example, Queen Kunti compares each of the limbs of the transcendental body of Lord Krishna to a lotus flower (SB 1.8.22 namah pankaja-nabhaya…)


2. Metaphors in relation to pure devotees of the Lord: For example, Srila Suta Gosvami is described as the captain of the boat for those who wish to cross the difficult ocean of Kali (SB 1.1.22 karnadhara ivarnavam) 


3. Metaphors in relation to general phenomena: For example, while describing the rainy season in Vrindavan, Srila Sukadeva Gosvami says that the sky and its natural illumination were covered in the same way that the spirit soul is covered by the three modes of material nature (SB 10.20.4 brahmeva sagunam babhau) 



While the latter two may not require much delineation, there’s much that our acaryas have written about the first. It is said that the transcendental body of the Supreme Lord is aprakrita, “completely spiritual and ethereal.” Srila Prabhupada clarifies this by quoting numerous verses of the Bhagavad-gita as well as the Srimad-Bhagavatam. For instance, Uddhava says to Vidura in the Third Canto of the Bhagavatam (SB 3.2.12) – 



yanmartya-lilaupayikam svayoga-

mayabalam darsayata grihitam

vismapanam svasya ca saubhagarddheh

param padam bhushanabhushanangam



This verse essentially means that “the Lord appeared in this mortal world by His internal potency, yoga-maya, and He came in His original, eternal form, which is just suitable for His pastimes.”



Can Material Analogies Describe The Spiritual Lord?



That being the case, can material metaphors and similes describe the all-spiritual Lord? Or even if they were to do, can they describe Him and other spiritual truths in full? On the contrary, we see that the scriptures are abundant with analogies and comparisons of the corporeal world. How do we resolve this apparent incongruity? 



Using material metaphors and similes to describe the Lord and other spiritual realities is actually a long-established Vedic tradition that is almost ubiquitous in Vedic literature. Srila Prabhupada explains this tradition with a Vedic maxim (nyaya) called the sakha-candra-nyaya. Imagine a mother standing with her kid in her arms under a tree on a full moon night. Kids are generally accustomed to only seeing sideways. Therefore, if the mother has to show her child the moon, she would rather show the tree by pointing towards it laterally, then its branches by pointing upward, and finally the moon by pointing between the branches. 



So is the case with the sastras too. Just as kids can only see laterally, we are accustomed to seeing only the material. And so, the sastras, who are like our divine mother, use material analogies to point towards spiritual truths, which are actually far beyond us (just like the moon is almost inaccessible to both the mother and the kid). However, we need to understand that those very analogies have their limitations too. The moon doesn’t actually exist between the branches, but does on a far higher plane. Similarly, spiritual truths cannot be entirely captured within the restricted shell of material analogies but lie independently on a completely transcendental plane. 



Examples To The Contrary



This truth is verily highlighted enchantingly in a southern retelling of the Tenth Canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam called the Yadavabhyudayam:



aparicchidyamanasya desakaladibhistava

nidarsanam tvamevaikastvadanyadvyatirekatah



While offering their prayers to Kshirodakasayi Vishnu keeping Mother Earth at the fore on the banks of the Kshira-sagara (Ocean of Milk), the demigods highlight a spiritual truth concerning the Lord and the sastras that is of foremost importance. In order to understand this, we need to appreciate two of the acclaimed alankaras in Sanskrit.



1. Ananvaya Alankara



In Sanskrit, the object of comparison is called the upameya and the standard of comparison (object that is compared with) is referred to as the upamana. When a phrase or a verse describes something by essentially comparing it with itself, it’s called ananvaya alankara. In other words, if the upamana and the upameya are the same, it results in a surprisingly special poetic effect called the ananvaya alankara.



A famous example of this would be the following verse – 



gaganam gaganakaram sagarah sagaropamah

ramaravanayoryuddham ramaravanayoriva



There can’t be any metaphor to describe the all-encompassing sky, and hence it has to be compared to itself. There can’t be a comparison to the depths of the ocean, and therefore the ocean can only have itself in comparison. And so, there can’t be an analogy to describe the belligerence of the war between Rama and Ravana, but the war itself. 



2. Vyatireka Alankara 



This is another renowned figure of speech in Sanskrit that highlights the difference between the upamana and the upameya. The term vyatireka generally means discordance or difference. When a figure of speech asserts the superiority of the upameya over the upamana, it’s called vyatireka-alankara. Again, a famous example could be the following half verse: saila ivonnatah santah kintu prakriti-komalah. Now, this verse compares saintly personalities to mountains. The first half says, “Saints are high in character like the mountains.” Now, with this analogy of mountains in place, can we compare all aspects of mountains to saintly persons? The second half of the same verse clarifies, kintu prakriti-komalah: “However, saints are soft by heart (unlike the mountains, which are hard).” 



Ananvaya – Alankara And Vyatireka- Alankara In Relation To The Lord



Returning to the prayers of the demigods, we see that they say, nidarsanam tvameva ekah: “You can only be compared to Yourself.” That is literally the eternal truth: that the Lord cannot be compared to anything of this world at all, as all objects of this world prove to be insufficient to describe the Lord and thus, they cannot explain the Lord in full. Consequently, the scriptures should essentially have only the ananvaya-alankara, or in other words, the Lord should only have Himself in comparison.



However, material analogies can still do a partial job. They can serve as launchpads in our search for the Absolute Truth. If we decline to understand them, we will be stripped off of even that tiny possibility of understanding Krishna. On the other hand, if we stretch them beyond what they are intended to communicate, we end up with a deviant understanding. Accordingly, we should use them only in the sense that Srila Prabhupada communicated to us in his purports.



Concurrently, the demigods also say tvad anyad vyatirekatah: “all metaphors and similes used for You are to the contrary.” In other words, all material analogies used in reference to the Lord only assert the superiority of the Lord (upameya) and the inferiority of the analogy (upamana) itself. For instance, Queen Kunti compares Krishna’s transcendental bodily limbs to a lotus when she says the celebrated verse:



namah pankaja-nabhaya

namah pankaja-maline

namah pankaja-netraya

namaste pankajanghraye



This verse is a marvelous meditation on the beauty of the Lord. However, we can also observe some discordance in the metaphor too. The lotus is certainly beautiful, but can it be called “the most beautiful flower”? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. For some, the jasmine may be more beautiful; for others, the rose; and for yet others, another. The lotus is also popularly known to blossom with sunrise and to wilt with sunset. More than anything else, the lotus has a time period before it withers away. 



Now, can all of the above discordance be applied to the Lord too? Certainly not. And therefore, the demigods say that “all material analogies in relation to the Lord only indicate the superiority of the Lord and insufficiency of the analogies themselves.” This is the vyatireka-alankara. On that account, we can see that all material analogies that are given to the Lord in any of our revealed scriptures are examples of vyatireka-alankara, or “examples to the contrary.”



Srila Prabhupada often said that sastras are like our divine mother and the spiritual master our divine father. The divine union of both results in pure devotion for the Supreme Lord in the heart of the disciple. Since sastras are not easy to understand by ourselves, we need the guiding hand of our spiritual master. Therefore, when a disciple accepts the grace of his guru and then scrutinizingly studies the sastras, he will know exactly what sense to make of the figures of speech that the same sastras elaborate. 



Kaustubh Narasimhan hails from a devout Vaishnava family in Melukote, Karnataka. He presently serves as a full-time brahmacari at ISKCON Dharwad under the guidance of His Holiness Bhaktirasamrita Swami Maharaja.