Shloka 4.10.5

सुग्रीवस्य वैरानुकथनम् (Sugriva’s Account of Enmity and Appeal to Rama)

Devanagari script

आर्तश्चाथ बिलद्वारि स्थितस्संवत्सरं नृप।दृष्ट्वाऽहं शोणितं द्वारि बिलाच्चापि समुत्थितम्4.10.4।।शोकसंविग्नहृदयो भृशं व्याकुलितेन्द्रियः।अपिधाय बिलद्वारं शैलशृङ्गेण तत्तथा4.10.5।।तस्माद्देशादपाक्रम्य किष्किन्धां प्राविशं पुनः।

Transliteration

ārtaś cātha biladvāri sthitaḥ saṃvatsaraṃ nṛpa | dṛṣṭvā'haṃ śoṇitaṃ dvāri bilāc cāpi samutthitam (4.10.4) || śokasaṃvignahṛdayo bhṛśaṃ vyākulitendriyaḥ | apidhāya biladvāraṃ śailaśṛṅgeṇa tattathā (4.10.5) || tasmād deśād apākramya kiṣkindhāṃ prāviśaṃ punaḥ |

Translation

“O King, when I saw blood emerge from the cave and spread at the entrance, I was overwhelmed by grief and my senses were shaken. Therefore I sealed the cave-mouth with a massive, mountain-peak-like rock, withdrew from that place, and returned again to Kiṣkindhā.”

Context

'O king I waited at the entrance of the cave for a year. As you did not come out, I felt distressed and my heart sank in great sorrow seeing blood flowing out of the cave. With my senses fused I returned to Kishkinda, closing the entrance with a rock(lest the demon should come out).

Characters & Entities

• Vāli
• Sugrīva
• Kiṣkindhā
• cave (bila)

FAQs

What is the core ethical principle (Dharma) in this verse?

Even in repeated/variant transmission, the ethical claim remains: Sugrīva frames his act as protective and non-treacherous, appealing to truthfulness (satya) about his intent.

What is the narrative situation?

A duplicated/continued verse segment in the Southern Recension reiterating Sugrīva’s explanation of sealing the cave and returning.

Which character virtue is emphasized?

Accountability—explaining one’s actions and motives when accused.