In the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana, third canto,
sometimes called the status quo, portrays Brahma
at the center of a web of inner desires and moral
confusions that seem to ripple outward into the
entire created order. Now imagine this. The Puranic
text describes different vices, lust, anger,
greed, emerging from specific parts of Brahma's
own body. It is as if the inner disorder within
him overflows into creation itself. For today,
we are focusing specifically on greed, or in
Sanskrit, lobha. The text narrates that greed
proceeds from Brahma's own mouth, given voice
and presence in the world as a living force.
According to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana,
Canto 3, Chapter 12, Verse 32, Translated by
A .C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in Srimad
Bhagavatam, published by the Bhaktivedanta Book
Trust, Los Angeles, 1972, the passage reads that,
From the mouth of Brahma arose greed, while from
his chest came lust, and from other limbs other
powers were born. Taken literally, that statement
offers more than mere poetry. It tells us that
greed was born from the lips of the so -called
creator. that the craving which corrodes human
relationships first stepped into existence through
the mouth of the universal grandfather himself.
What an image that is! The same organ that articulates
truth and blessing, in biblical language the
same mouth that would be meant for praise, becomes
the point of origin for covetous desire. So what
does that tell us? It tells us the moral poison
does not come from below. It begins from the
top. The cosmos, as depicted here, is not infected
by creaturely rebellion alone. It is seated from
above by a creator whose very body gives birth
to vice. But pause for a moment. What might it
mean for a personal vice to emerge from the lips
of a deity? Are we to picture a subtle spiritual
energy, a demonic embodiment, or simply an abstract
quality made visible? Does greed pre -exist within
Brahma as a passion ready to overflow outward?
Or does this story mean that the principle of
greed is part of his divine nature itself? Either
way, the line between symbol and substance begins
to blur. The story treats moral failure as if
it were a real substance, escaping the divine
mouth like breath or speech, and roaming free
as an independent power. Now, consider the theological
weight of that idea. If greed truly issues from
Brahma's lips, then the entire universe begins
with a compromised creator. The architect of
reality carries corruption in his own being.
The same mouth that calls the worlds into being
is also the mouth that births the desire to possess
them. So what follows from that? Can such a being
be the ultimate measure of righteousness? Can
he reasonably condemn greed in others if greed
literally originated from him? Apologists from
some Puranic traditions often retreat to symbolic
readings here. They'll say this imagery simply
suggests that speech or creative energy can be
misused for acquisition. Maybe the lips just
stand for language, and greed is the twisting
of that language into control. But does that
interpretation really fit with the text as written?
The Purana does not merely describe an attitude.
It narrates an event, the birth of a personified
power called greed. The moment we turn it into
pure metaphor, we quietly erase the very concreteness
that the narrator insists upon. From a logical
perspective, we face a sharp tension. On one
side, Brahma is honored as a being of creative
order and moral worth. On the other, his own
body generates the moral vices that destroy that
order. If the fountain of creation produces moral
poison, two options emerge. Either vice is fundamentally
compatible with divine reality, or Brahma himself
is not ultimate and must be judged by a higher
standard. Can both be true? Hardly. If greed
is divine, morality collapses into chaos. But
if greed is evil, then Brahma cannot be the final
God. This is precisely where a biblical presuppositional
critique becomes crucial. The Bible depicts a
creator whose holiness is not a temporary role,
but the very essence of his being. In 1 John
1, verse 5, the apostle writes, God is light,
and in him there is no darkness at all. That
means the living God does not emanate greed,
lust, or violence as parts of his nature. Those
traits arise only in creatures who turn away
from him. In biblical terms, the fall is not
a spillover of divine vice, but a rupture in
fellowship with a holy creator who remains morally
pure. The distinction between creator and creature
is preserved, and the source of goodness remains
untouched by evil. When we move forward to the
New Testament revelation, this contrast becomes
even sharper in the incarnation. Think of the
Gospel of John chapter 1 verse 14, where it says,
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The
Word made flesh does not come with lips that
drip greed, but with lips that speak truth, blessing,
and sacrificial love. Jesus exposes covetousness
instead of producing it. He warns against storing
up treasures on earth as recorded in Matthew
chapter 6 verse 19 through 21. And he confronts
the rich young ruler in Mark chapter 10 verse
17 through 22. In him, the Creator steps into
his own creation with no hint of moral defect.
Hebrews chapter 4 verse 15 says that he was tempted
in every way as we are yet without sin. There
is no vice from his lips, only grace and truth,
as John chapter 1 verse 17 declares. So let me
ask my friend listening right now, can a universe
that has greed flowing from the very mouth of
its creator provide any stable foundation for
condemning greed at all? If the mouth that speaks
creation is the same mouth that births covetous
desire, how can that deity judge anyone for the
same impulse? And if you try to dissolve that
claim into mere symbolism to avoid this dilemma,
then what does the symbol really explain? Does
it still claim to describe reality? Or has it
become a myth that says everything and therefore
nothing? In contrast, the biblical vision offers
a world spoken into being by a God whose speech
is pure. Greed in that world is not divine. It
is rebellion against divine love. It is not woven
into the fabric of reality. It is a disease that
Christ came to heal. The Creator does not excuse
human covetousness as a reflection of His own
heart. He names it, confronts it, and bears its
judgment in our place. The Apostle Paul in 2
Corinthians 8, verse 9, reminds us that though
He was rich, yet for our sake He became poor,
so that we through His poverty might become rich.
That is the reversal of greed at the deepest
level. So we are left with two stories standing
face to face. One portrays greed as something
that flows naturally from the lips of the Creator
and becomes interwoven with creation itself.
The other shows greed as the corruption Christ
came to redeem. And here's the question that
every worldview must answer. Which story truly
sustains moral coherence? Genuine hatred of greed?
Real hope for deliverance? and true dignity for
those exploited by it the myth that sacralizes
greed at its origin or the gospel that reveals
a holy god who stoops to rescue both the oppressor
and the oppressed through perfect self -giving
love