HomeMatsya PuranaAdh. 26Shloka 18
Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 18

Matsya Purana — The Dialogue of Kacha and Devayani: Dharma

*कच उवाच गुरुपुत्रीति कृत्वाहं प्रत्याख्यास्ये न दोषतः गुरुणा चाभ्यनुज्ञातः काममेव शपस्व माम् //

*kaca uvāca guruputrīti kṛtvāhaṃ pratyākhyāsye na doṣataḥ guruṇā cābhyanujñātaḥ kāmameva śapasva mām //

Kaca said: “Since you have addressed me as ‘the preceptor’s daughter,’ I shall refuse you without incurring fault; and having been permitted by the teacher, curse me as you please.”

कच (kaca)Kaca
कच (kaca):
उवाच (uvāca)said
उवाच (uvāca):
गुरुपुत्रीति (guru-putrīti)‘(you are) the guru’s daughter’—as such/with that expression
गुरुपुत्रीति (guru-putrīti):
कृत्वा (kṛtvā)having made/considered
कृत्वा (kṛtvā):
अहम् (aham)I
अहम् (aham):
प्रत्याख्यास्ये (pratyākhyāsye)I will refuse/decline
प्रत्याख्यास्ये (pratyākhyāsye):
न (na)not
न (na):
दोषतः (doṣataḥ)from fault/blame/sin
दोषतः (doṣataḥ):
गुरुणा (guruṇā)by the teacher (Shukra)
गुरुणा (guruṇā):
च (ca)and
च (ca):
अभ्यनुज्ञातः (abhyanujñātaḥ)permitted/authorized
अभ्यनुज्ञातः (abhyanujñātaḥ):
कामम् एव (kāmam eva)as you wish/at your pleasure
कामम् एव (kāmam eva):
शपस्व (śapasva)curse (imperative)
शपस्व (śapasva):
माम् (mām)me
माम् (mām):
Kaca
KacaGuru (Shukra)
Puranic dialogueEthicsGuru-discipleVowCurse motif

FAQs

This verse does not discuss Pralaya; it focuses on personal dharma—how speech, social roles, and a guru’s permission determine what is considered ‘fault’ (doṣa) in a moral dilemma.

It reflects a broader dharma principle relevant to kings and householders: decisions should align with established roles and authorization—here, Kaca claims moral blamelessness because his refusal follows from being addressed within a protected familial/guru framework and because he has the teacher’s consent (anujñā).

No Vastu or temple-ritual rule is stated here; the ritual-legal idea present is ‘anujñā’ (formal permission), a key concept in many rites where an authorized sanction prevents doṣa (ritual or ethical fault).