Shloka 89
Śaraṇāgata-Atithi-Dharma in the Kapota Narrative (कपोत-आख्यानम्—शरणागतधर्मः)
चपच उवाच यद्येष हेतुस्तव खादने स्या- न्न ते वेद: कारण नार्यधर्म: | तस्माद् भक्ष्येडभक्षणे वा द्विजेन्द्र दोषं न पश्यामि यथेदमत्र,चाण्डालने कहा-द्विजेन्द्र! यदि इस अभक्ष्य वस्तु-को खानेमें आपके लिये यह प्राणरक्षारूपी हेतु ही प्रधान है तब तो आपके मतमें न वेद प्रमाण है और न श्रेष्ठ पुरुषोंका आचार-धर्म ही। अतः मैं आपके लिये भक्ष्य वस्तुके अभक्षणमें अथवा अभक्ष्य वस्तुके भक्षणमें कोई दोष नहीं देख रहा हूँ, जैसा कि यहाँ आपका इस मांसके लिये यह महान् आग्रह देखा जाता है
capaca uvāca yady eṣa hetus tava khādane syān na te vedaḥ pramāṇaṃ nārya-dharmaḥ | tasmād bhakṣyed abhakṣaṇe vā dvijendra doṣaṃ na paśyāmi yathā idam atra |
Capaca said: “If the decisive reason for your eating is only the need to preserve life, then in your view neither the Veda is an authority nor the dharma of the noble (as embodied in right conduct). Therefore, O best of Brahmins, I see no fault for you either in refraining from what is edible or in eating what is forbidden—just as is evident here from your intense insistence on this meat.”
चपच उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights a tension in dharma: if one justifies a prohibited act solely by survival-necessity, one risks undermining the very idea of scriptural and ethical authority. Capaca argues that the Brahmin’s reasoning makes Vedic and noble conduct irrelevant, so the moral distinction between eating permitted vs forbidden collapses in that logic.
A Caṇḍāla named Capaca addresses a Brahmin (dvijendra) who is pressing to eat meat (treated as abhakṣya in the situation). Capaca challenges the Brahmin’s justification—claiming that if mere life-preservation is the overriding motive, then the Brahmin is effectively setting aside Vedic authority and established righteous conduct.