Shloka 22
Yayāti, Devayānī, Śarmiṣṭhā, and the Exchange of Youth: The Unsatisfied Nature of Desire
यदिदं कूपमग्नाया भवतो दर्शनं मम । न ब्राह्मणो मे भविता हस्तग्राहो महाभुज । कचस्य बार्हस्पत्यस्य शापाद् यमशपं पुरा ॥ २२ ॥
yad idaṁ kūpa-magnāyā bhavato darśanaṁ mama na brāhmaṇo me bhavitā hasta-grāho mahā-bhuja kacasya bārhaspatyasya śāpād yam aśapaṁ purā
കിണറ്റിൽ വീണതിനാലാണ് എനിക്ക് നിങ്ങളുടെ ദർശനം ലഭിച്ചത്; ഇതെല്ലാം ദൈവവിധിയാണ്. ഞാൻ ബൃഹസ്പതിയുടെ പുത്രനായ കചനെ ശപിച്ചതിനാൽ, അവൻ എന്നെ ‘നിനക്ക് ബ്രാഹ്മണൻ ഭർത്താവാകില്ല’ എന്നു ശപിച്ചു. അതിനാൽ, ഹേ മഹാബാഹോ, എനിക്ക് ബ്രാഹ്മണന്റെ ഭാര്യയാകാൻ കഴിയില്ല.
Kaca, the son of the learned celestial priest Bṛhaspati, had been a student of Śukrācārya, from whom he had learned the art of reviving a man who has died untimely. This art, called mṛta-sañjīvanī, was especially used during wartime. When there was a war, soldiers would certainly die untimely, but if a soldier’s body was intact, he could be brought to life again by this art of mṛta-sañjīvanī. This art was known to Śukrācārya and many others, and Kaca, the son of Bṛhaspati, became Śukrācārya’s student to learn it. Devayānī desired to have Kaca as her husband, but Kaca, out of regard for Śukrācārya, looked upon the guru’s daughter as a respectable superior and therefore refused to marry her. Devayānī angrily cursed Kaca by saying that although he had learned the art of mṛta-sañjīvanī from her father, it would be useless. When cursed in this way, Kaca retaliated by cursing Devayānī never to have a husband who was a brāhmaṇa. Because Devayānī liked Yayāti, who was a kṣatriya, she requested him to accept her as his bona fide wife. Although this would be pratiloma-vivāha, a marriage between the daughter of a high family and the son of a lower family, she explained that this arrangement was made by providence.
FAQs
This verse states that Devayānī was cursed by Kaca (son of Bṛhaspati) such that no brāhmaṇa would become her husband, and she treats that curse as binding.
Because Kaca, a brāhmaṇa by birth and the son of Bṛhaspati, had previously cursed her; therefore she declares that a brāhmaṇa cannot be her “hand-taker” (husband).
The verse highlights accountability: words and actions carry consequences, so one should speak carefully, honor commitments, and make life decisions with dharma and long-term effects in mind.