Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 31

Vyāghra–Gomāyu Saṃvāda (व्याघ्रगोमायु संवाद) — Testing Character Beneath Appearances

नृपेणाहूयमानस्य यत्‌ तिष्ठति भयं हृदि । न तत्‌ तिष्ठति तुष्टानां वने मूलफलाशिनाम्‌

nṛpeṇāhūyamānasya yat tiṣṭhati bhayaṁ hṛdi | na tat tiṣṭhati tuṣṭānāṁ vane mūlaphalāśinām ||

Khi một người bị nhà vua triệu vào trước mặt, nỗi sợ trỗi dậy và đứng chặn trong tim. Còn nỗi sợ ấy không ngự trong lòng những kẻ an phận, sống nơi rừng sâu và nuôi thân bằng rễ củ, trái cây.

नृपेणby the king
नृपेण:
Karana
TypeNoun
Rootनृप
FormMasculine, Instrumental, Singular
आहूयमानस्यof one being summoned/called
आहूयमानस्य:
Adhikarana
TypeAdjective
Rootआहूयमान (आ-√ह्वा)
FormMasculine/Neuter, Genitive, Singular
यत्that which
यत्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootयद्
FormNeuter, Nominative/Accusative, Singular
तिष्ठतिstands/remains
तिष्ठति:
TypeVerb
Root√स्था
FormPresent, 3rd, Singular, Parasmaipada
भयम्fear
भयम्:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootभय
FormNeuter, Nominative, Singular
हृदिin the heart
हृदि:
Adhikarana
TypeNoun
Rootहृद्
FormNeuter, Locative, Singular
not
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
तत्that (same fear)
तत्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootतद्
FormNeuter, Nominative/Accusative, Singular
तिष्ठतिstands/remains
तिष्ठति:
TypeVerb
Root√स्था
FormPresent, 3rd, Singular, Parasmaipada
तुष्टानाम्of the content/satisfied (people)
तुष्टानाम्:
Adhikarana
TypeAdjective
Rootतुष्ट (√तुष्)
FormMasculine, Genitive, Plural
वनेin the forest
वने:
Adhikarana
TypeNoun
Rootवन
FormNeuter, Locative, Singular
मूलफलाशिनाम्of those who eat roots and fruits
मूलफलाशिनाम्:
Adhikarana
TypeNoun/Adjective
Rootमूलफलाशिन्
FormMasculine, Genitive, Plural

शार्टूल उवाच

नृप (king)
वन (forest)
मूल
फल

Educational Q&A

Dependence on royal authority and worldly power breeds fear and inner insecurity, whereas contentment and a simple, self-reliant life (symbolized by living in the forest on roots and fruits) supports fearlessness and mental steadiness.

Śārṭūla states a reflective maxim: he contrasts the anxious state of someone summoned by a king with the calm of forest-dwellers who are satisfied with minimal sustenance, using this contrast to highlight the psychological cost of courtly dependence versus the freedom of renunciation.