Rantideva perceived the presence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in every living being, but he never thought that because the Supreme Lord is present in every living being, every living being must be God. Nor did he distinguish between one living being and another. He perceived the presence of the Lord both in the brāhmaṇa and in the caṇḍāla. This is the true vision of equality, as confirmed by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gītā (5.18):

“The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].” A paṇḍita, or learned person, perceives the presence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in every living being. Therefore, although it has now become fashionable to give preference to the so-called daridra-nārāyaṇa, or “poor Nārāyaṇa,” Rantideva had no reason to give preference to any one person. The idea that because Nārāyaṇa is present in the heart of one who is daridra, or poor, the poor man should be called daridra-nārāyaṇa is a wrong conception. By such logic, because the Lord is present within the hearts of the dogs and hogs, the dogs and hogs would also be Nārāyaṇa. One should not mistakenly think that Rantideva subscribed to this view. Rather, he saw everyone as part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ). It is not that everyone is the Supreme Godhead. Such a theory, which is propounded by the Māyāvāda philosophy, is always misleading, and Rantideva would never have accepted it.

Because King Rantideva saw everyone as part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he never distinguished between the brāhmaṇa and the śūdra, the poor and the rich. Such equal vision is called sama-darśinaḥ (paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ). One who has actually realized that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is situated in everyone’s heart and that every living being is part of the Lord does not make any distinction between the brāhmaṇa and the śūdra, the poor (daridra) and the rich (dhanī). Such a person sees all living beings equally and treats them equally, without discrimination.

Mahārāja Rantideva’s words were like amṛta, or nectar, and therefore, aside from rendering bodily service to an aggrieved person, by his words alone the King could save the life of anyone who might hear him.

Vāsudeva Datta made a similar statement to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, requesting the Lord to liberate all living entities in His presence. Vāsudeva Datta submitted that if they were unfit to be liberated, he himself would take all their sinful reactions and suffer personally so that the Lord might deliver them. A Vaiṣṇava is therefore described as being para-duḥkha-duḥkhī, very much aggrieved by the sufferings of others. As such, a Vaiṣṇava engages in activities for the real welfare of human society.

Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has sung:

If one wants to become a pure devotee of the Supreme Lord, one should not hanker to take benedictions from the demigods. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (7.20), kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante ’nya-devatāḥ: those befooled by the illusion of the material energy worship gods other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore, although Rantideva was personally able to see Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva, he did not hanker to take material benefits from them. Rather, he fixed his mind upon Lord Vāsudeva and rendered devotional service unto Him. This is the sign of a pure devotee, whose heart is not adulterated by material desires.

“One should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa favorably and without desire for material profit or gain through fruitive activities or philosophical speculation. That is called pure devotional service.”

As it is said:

Just as there is no chance that darkness can exist in the sunshine, in a pure Kṛṣṇa conscious person there can be no existence of māyā. The Lord Himself says in Bhagavad-gītā (7.14):

“This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” If one wants to be free from the influence of māyā, the illusory energy, one must become Kṛṣṇa conscious and always keep Kṛṣṇa prominent within the core of his heart. In Bhagavad-gītā (9.34) the Lord advises that one always think of Him (man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru). In this way, by always being Kṛṣṇa-minded or Kṛṣṇa conscious, one can surpass the influence of māyā (māyām etāṁ taranti te). Because Rantideva was Kṛṣṇa conscious, he was not under the influence of the illusory energy. The word svapnavat is significant in this connection. Because in the material world the mind is absorbed in materialistic activities, when one is asleep many contradictory activities appear in one’s dreams. When one awakens, however, these activities automatically merge into the mind. Similarly, as long as one is under the influence of the material energy he makes many plans and schemes, but when one is Kṛṣṇa conscious such dreamlike plans automatically disappear.

The best yogīs or mystics are the devotees, as confirmed by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad-gītā (6.47):

“Of all yogīs, he who always abides in Me with great faith, worshiping Me in transcendental loving service, is most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all.” The best yogī is he who constantly thinks of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the core of the heart. Because Rantideva was the king, the chief executive in the state, all the residents of the state became devotees of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Nārāyaṇa, by the king’s transcendental association. This is the influence of a pure devotee. If there is one pure devotee, his association can create hundreds and thousands of pure devotees. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has said that a Vaiṣṇava is meritorious in proportion to the number of devotees he has created. A Vaiṣṇava becomes superior not simply by jugglery of words but by the number of devotees he has created for the Lord. Here the word rantidevānuvartinaḥ indicates that Rantideva’s officers, friends, relatives and subjects all became first-class Vaiṣṇavas by his association. In other words, Rantideva is confirmed herein to be a first-class devotee, or mahā-bhāgavata. Mahat-sevāṁ dvāram āhur vimukteḥ: one should render service to such mahātmās, for then one will automatically achieve the goal of liberation. Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura has also said, chāḍiyā vaiṣṇava-sevā nistāra pāyeche kebā: one cannot be liberated by his own effort, but if one becomes subordinate to a pure Vaiṣṇava, the door to liberation is open.

This verse gives evidence confirming the statement of Bhagavad-gītā that the orders of society — brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra — are calculated in terms of qualities and activities (guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ). All the descendants of Ajamīḍha, who was a kṣatriya, became brāhmaṇas. This was certainly because of their qualities and activities. Similarly, sometimes the sons of brāhmaṇas or kṣatriyas become vaiśyas (brāhmaṇa-vaiśyatāṁ gatāḥ). When a kṣatriya or brāhmaṇa adopts the occupation or duty of a vaiśya (kṛṣi-gorakṣya-vāṇijyam), he is certainly counted as a vaiśya. On the other hand, if one is born a vaiśya, by his activities he can become a brāhmaṇa. This is confirmed by Nārada Muni. Yasya yal-lakṣaṇaṁ proktam. The members of the varṇas, or social orders — brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra — must be ascertained by their symptoms, not by birth. Birth is immaterial; quality is essential.

The Śuka mentioned here is different from the Śukadeva Gosvāmī who spoke Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Śukadeva Gosvāmī, the son of Vyāsadeva, is described in great detail in the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa. There it is said that Vyāsadeva maintained the daughter of Jābāli as his wife and that after they performed penances together for many years, he placed his seed in her womb. The child remained in the womb of his mother for twelve years, and when the father asked the son to come out, the son replied that he would not come out unless he were completely liberated from the influence of māyā. Vyāsadeva then assured the child that he would not be influenced by māyā, but the child did not believe his father, for the father was still attached to his wife and children. Vyāsadeva then went to Dvārakā and informed the Personality of Godhead about his problem, and the Personality of Godhead, at Vyāsadeva’s request, went to Vyāsadeva’s cottage, where He assured the child in the womb that he would not be influenced by māyā. Thus assured, the child came out, but he immediately went away as a parivrājakācārya. When the father, very much aggrieved, began to follow his saintly boy, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, the boy created a duplicate Śukadeva, who later entered family life. Therefore, the śuka-kanyā, or daughter of Śukadeva, mentioned in this verse is the daughter of the duplicate or imitation Śukadeva. The original Śukadeva was a lifelong brahmacārī.