Shloka 90
Śaraṇāgata-Atithi-Dharma in the Kapota Narrative (कपोत-आख्यानम्—शरणागतधर्मः)
विश्वामित्र उवाच नैवातिपापं भक्ष्यमाणस्य दुष्ट सुरां तु पीत्वा पततीति शब्द: । अन्योन्यकार्याणि यथा तथैव न पापमात्रेण कृतं हिनस्ति,विश्वामित्र बोले--अखाद्य वस्तु खानेवालेको ब्रह्महत्या आदिके समान महान् पातक लगता हो, ऐसा कोई शास्त्रीय वचन देखनेमें नहीं आता। हाँ, शराब पीकर ब्राह्मण पतित हो जाता है, ऐसा शास्त्रवाक्य स्पष्टरूपसे उपलब्ध होता है; अतः वह सुरापान अवश्य त्याज्य है। जैसे दूसरे-दूसरे कर्म निषिद्ध हैं, वैसा ही अभक्ष्य-भक्षण भी है। आपत्तिके समय एक बार किये हुए किसी सामान्य पापसे किसीके आजीवन किये हुए पुण्यकर्मका नाश नहीं होता
Viśvāmitra uvāca: naivātipāpaṃ bhakṣyamāṇasya duṣṭa surāṃ tu pītvā patatīti śabdaḥ | anyonyakāryāṇi yathā tathaiva na pāpamātreṇa kṛtaṃ hinasti ||
Viśvāmitra said: “There is no scriptural statement that merely eating what is forbidden becomes an extreme sin on the level of brahmin-slaying and the like. But there is a clear injunction that a Brāhmaṇa falls from his status by drinking liquor; therefore, drinking surā must certainly be abandoned. Just as various acts are prohibited in their own ways, so too is the eating of what is unfit. Yet a single, ordinary wrongdoing committed once in a time of distress does not destroy the merit accumulated through a lifetime of virtuous deeds.”
विश्वामित्र उवाच
Educational Q&A
Viśvāmitra distinguishes degrees of wrongdoing: drinking liquor is explicitly condemned as causing a Brāhmaṇa’s fall, whereas eating forbidden food is a prohibition but not necessarily an ‘extreme sin’ like brahmin-slaying. He further argues that a one-time, minor lapse in a crisis does not erase a lifetime of accumulated merit.
In a discussion on dharma—especially conduct under hardship—Viśvāmitra cites scriptural authority to weigh different prohibitions. He emphasizes that some acts have clearly stated severe consequences (surā-drinking), while others, though forbidden, should be judged with proportionality, particularly in times of distress.