Shloka 39
Nābhāga’s Inheritance, Śiva’s Verdict, and the Rise of Ambarīṣa—Prelude to Durvāsā’s Offense
ब्राह्मणातिक्रमे दोषो द्वादश्यां यदपारणे । यत् कृत्वा साधु मे भूयादधर्मो वा न मां स्पृशेत् ॥ ३९ ॥ अम्भसा केवलेनाथ करिष्ये व्रतपारणम् । आहुरब्भक्षणं विप्रा ह्यशितं नाशितं च तत् ॥ ४० ॥
brāhmaṇātikrame doṣo dvādaśyāṁ yad apāraṇe yat kṛtvā sādhu me bhūyād adharmo vā na māṁ spṛśet
国王说道：“违越对婆罗门应有的恭敬礼法，确是大罪；但若在二日（Dvādaśī）时限内不行破斋（pāraṇa），誓戒亦有瑕疵。故诸婆罗门啊，若你们认为此举吉祥且非不法（adharma），我将唯以饮水来破斋。”依婆罗门之见，饮水既可算作进食，也可算作未食。
When Mahārāja Ambarīṣa, in his dilemma, consulted the brāhmaṇas about whether he should break the fast or wait for Durvāsā Muni, apparently they could not give a definite answer about what to do. A Vaiṣṇava, however, is the most intelligent personality. Therefore Mahārāja Ambarīṣa himself decided, in the presence of the brāhmaṇas, that he would drink a little water, for this would confirm that the fast was broken but would not transgress the laws for receiving a brāhmaṇa. In the Vedas it is said, apo ’śnāti tan naivāśitaṁ naivānaśitam. This Vedic injunction declares that the drinking of water may be accepted as eating or as not eating. Sometimes in our practical experience we see that some political leader adhering to satyāgraha will not eat but will drink water. Considering that drinking water would not be eating, Mahārāja Ambarīṣa decided to act in this way.
FAQs
This verse highlights that failing to break the fast at the proper Dvādaśī time is considered a fault, so the devotee-king seeks a dharmic way to complete the vow correctly.
He faced two competing duties: honoring the Dvādaśī parāṇa time for his vow and avoiding any offense toward the brāhmaṇa sage Durvāsā, so he asked what action would remain free from adharma.
When duties seem to conflict, prioritize actions that minimize harm and offense, seek a principled solution, and aim to keep both scriptural discipline and respectful conduct intact.