Shloka 75
Śaraṇāgata-Atithi-Dharma in the Kapota Narrative (कपोत-आख्यानम्—शरणागतधर्मः)
चाण्डालने कहा--किसी असाधु पुरुषने यदि कोई अनुचित कार्य किया हो तो वह सनातन धर्म नहीं माना जायगा; अत: आप यहाँ न करनेयोग्य कर्म न कीजिये। कोई बहाना लेकर पाप करनेपर उतारू न हो जाइये ।। विश्वामित्र उवाच न पातकं नावमतमृषि: सन् कर्तुमर्हति । समौ च श्वमृगौ मन्ये तस्माद् भोक्ष्ये श्वजाघनीम्,विश्वामित्र बोले--कोई श्रेष्ठ ऋषि ऐसा कर्म नहीं कर सकता, जो पातक हो अथवा जिसकी निन्दा की गयी हो। कुत्ते और मृग दोनों ही पशु होनेके कारण मेरे मतमें समान हैं, अतः मैं यह कुत्तेकी जाँच अवश्य खाऊँगा
viśvāmitra uvāca | na pātakaṃ nāvamataṃ ṛṣiḥ san kartum arhati | samau ca śvamṛgau manye tasmād bhokṣye śvajāghanīm ||
The Caṇḍāla said: “If some wicked man has done an improper deed, it cannot be taken as the eternal Dharma; therefore, here do not do what ought not be done. Do not, under some pretext, set your mind on sin.” Viśvāmitra said: “A sage should not commit an act that is sinful or condemned. Yet, in my judgment, a dog and a deer are alike in being animals; therefore I will eat this dog’s haunch.”
विश्वामित्र उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames a dharmic boundary: a sage should not perform acts that are intrinsically sinful or socially condemned. At the same time, it shows how ethical reasoning can be argued through classification (dog and deer as equally ‘animals’), raising the question of whether such reasoning truly preserves dharma or merely rationalizes a questionable act.
Viśvāmitra speaks while confronting a situation involving eating meat identified as a dog’s haunch. He first asserts the principle that a ṛṣi should avoid sinful or censured deeds, then claims that dog and deer are equivalent as animals and concludes he will eat the dog’s haunch—presenting a tension between stated principle and chosen action.