Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 75

Śaraṇāgata-Atithi-Dharma in the Kapota Narrative (कपोत-आख्यानम्—शरणागतधर्मः)

चाण्डालने कहा--किसी असाधु पुरुषने यदि कोई अनुचित कार्य किया हो तो वह सनातन धर्म नहीं माना जायगा; अत: आप यहाँ न करनेयोग्य कर्म न कीजिये। कोई बहाना लेकर पाप करनेपर उतारू न हो जाइये ।।

viśvāmitra uvāca | na pātakaṃ nāvamataṃ ṛṣiḥ san kartum arhati | samau ca śvamṛgau manye tasmād bhokṣye śvajāghanīm ||

旃陀罗说道:“若有不善之人行了不当之事,那并非永恒之达摩;因此在此,切莫行不当行之业。不要借口推诿而执意造罪。” 毗湿瓦密多说道:“身为仙人,不应作罪业,亦不应作受谴责之事。然而在我看来,狗与鹿同为禽兽,并无二致;故我必将食此狗臀肉。”

विश्वामित्रःViśvāmitra
विश्वामित्रः:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootविश्वामित्र
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
उवाचsaid
उवाच:
TypeVerb
Rootवच्
FormPerfect, 3rd, Singular, Parasmaipada
not
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
पातकम्a sin
पातकम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootपातक
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
nor/not
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
अवमतम्censured, blameworthy
अवमतम्:
Karma
TypeAdjective
Rootअवमत
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
ऋषिःa sage
ऋषिः:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootऋषि
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
सन्being
सन्:
TypeVerb
Rootअस्
FormPresent active participle, Masculine, Nominative, Singular
कर्तुम्to do
कर्तुम्:
TypeVerb
Rootकृ
FormInfinitive (tumun)
अर्हतिis fit/ought
अर्हति:
TypeVerb
Rootअर्ह्
FormPresent, 3rd, Singular, Parasmaipada
समौequal (two)
समौ:
Karta
TypeAdjective
Rootसम
FormMasculine, Nominative, Dual
and
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
श्वमृगौdog and deer
श्वमृगौ:
Karta
TypeNoun
Rootश्वमृग
FormMasculine, Nominative, Dual
मन्येI think
मन्ये:
TypeVerb
Rootमन्
FormPresent, 1st, Singular, Atmanepada
तस्मात्therefore
तस्मात्:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतस्मात् (तद्)
भोक्ष्येI shall eat
भोक्ष्ये:
TypeVerb
Rootभुज्
FormSimple Future, 1st, Singular, Atmanepada
श्वजाघनीम्dog's haunch/thigh (meat)
श्वजाघनीम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootश्वजाघनी
FormFeminine, Accusative, Singular

विश्वामित्र उवाच

V
Viśvāmitra
ṛṣi (sage)
D
dog (śva)
D
deer (mṛga)
D
dog’s haunch (śvajāghanī)

Educational Q&A

The verse frames a dharmic boundary: a sage should not perform acts that are intrinsically sinful or socially condemned. At the same time, it shows how ethical reasoning can be argued through classification (dog and deer as equally ‘animals’), raising the question of whether such reasoning truly preserves dharma or merely rationalizes a questionable act.

Viśvāmitra speaks while confronting a situation involving eating meat identified as a dog’s haunch. He first asserts the principle that a ṛṣi should avoid sinful or censured deeds, then claims that dog and deer are equivalent as animals and concludes he will eat the dog’s haunch—presenting a tension between stated principle and chosen action.