Shloka 121
Śiva-nāmānukīrtana-prastāvaḥ
Prologue to the praise of Śiva and the Upamanyu testimony
तात! इसीलिये वह आटेका रस मुझे प्रिय नहीं लगा; अतः मैंने बालस्वभाववश ही अपनी मातासे कहा-- ।।
tāta! isīliye sa āṭekā rasa mama priyaḥ na lāga; ataḥ mayā bālasvabhāvavaśāt eva svamātāyai uktam—
na idaṃ kṣīrodanaṃ mātari yat tvaṃ me dattavatī asi |
tato mām abravīn mātā duḥkhaśokasamanvitā,
vane nivasatāṃ nityaṃ kandamūlaphalāśinām |
“mā! tvaṃ me yad dattavatī, etat kṣīrodanaṃ na.”
(mādhava!) tataḥ sā mātā duḥkhaśokanimagnā putrasnehāt mām hṛdayena āliṅgya mama mastakaṃ ghrātvā mām abravīt—
“vane nityaṃ nivasantaḥ kandamūla-phalāhārāḥ śuddhāntaraṅgā munayaḥ; teṣāṃ kṣīrodanaṃ kutaḥ syāt?”
Disse Vāsudeva: “Querido, foi por isso que o sabor daquele mingau grosseiro não me agradou. E assim, na inocência infantil, eu disse à minha mãe: ‘Mãe, o que me deste não é arroz com leite.’ Então minha mãe —tomada por dor e tristeza— falou comigo. Abraçando-me por afeto materno e aspirando o perfume da minha cabeça, disse: ‘Meu filho, como poderiam aqueles sábios que vivem sempre na floresta e se sustentam de tubérculos, raízes e frutos obter arroz com leite?’”
वासुदेव उवाच
Educational Q&A
The passage highlights contentment and ethical realism: those who live by austere forest-dharma (subsisting on roots and fruits) cannot be judged by standards of luxury. It also underscores compassion—understanding the limits and circumstances of others rather than demanding what is unavailable.
Vāsudeva recalls a childhood moment when he complained to his mother that what he received was not milk-rice. His mother, grieving yet affectionate, explains that forest-dwelling sages who live on simple foods cannot possibly procure milk-rice, gently correcting his childish expectation.