Rahūgaṇa’s logic is sound from a practical perspective, but it is based on the wrong perspective. He doesn’t see the soul as truly separated from the body, believing that body and soul are interconnected and that somehow the pains of the body factually affect the soul. Apart from that, he is still under the false ego, seeing himself as the king and others as his subjects. Jaḍa Bharata starts by chastising him for speaking on the bodily perspective, similar to how Kṛṣṇa chastised Arjuna at the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā:
“The brāhmaṇa Jaḍa Bharata said: My dear King, although you are not at all experienced, you are trying to speak like a very experienced man. Consequently you cannot be considered an experienced person. An experienced person does not speak the way you are speaking about the relationship between a master and a servant or about material pains and pleasures. These are simply external activities. Any advanced, experienced man, considering the Absolute Truth, does not talk in this way.” (SB 5.11.1)
Rahūgaṇa tried to establish three ideas:
a) The reality of material pain and pleasure (they are not false as claimed by Māyāvādis).
b) The importance of the performance of mundane roles, such as father, husband, and king.
c) The value of punishment as a way of compelling people to perform their duties.
These ideas are correct, but only on the practical level of mundane and social behavior. Rahūgaṇa is imitating the vocabulary of great sages, speaking about ātmā (soul), sva-dharma (prescribed duties), etc., but he has no realized knowledge, being still in the bodily platform. In other words, he is out of his depth, trying to speak on topics that are above his understanding. This is similar to when we learn a few complicated Sanskrit words and try to fake erudition by discussing topics we don’t fully understand. Jaḍa Bharata immediately catches that and calls the king akovidaḥ (inexperienced).
