*कच उवाच गुरुपुत्रीति कृत्वाहं प्रत्याख्यास्ये न दोषतः गुरुणा चाभ्यनुज्ञातः काममेव शपस्व माम् //
*kaca uvāca guruputrīti kṛtvāhaṃ pratyākhyāsye na doṣataḥ guruṇā cābhyanujñātaḥ kāmameva śapasva mām //
കചൻ പറഞ്ഞു—നീ എന്നെ ‘ഗുരുപുത്രി’ എന്നു വിളിച്ചതിനാൽ, കുറ്റമില്ലാതെ ഞാൻ നിന്നെ നിരസിക്കും. ഗുരുവിന്റെ അനുവാദവും ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്; ഇഷ്ടമുള്ളപോലെ എന്നെ ശപിക്കൂ.
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).