SB 1.18.34
TEXT 34
|
TEXT
ब्राह्मणैः क्षत्रबन्धुर्हि गृहपालो निरूपितः ।
स कथं तद्गृहे द्वाःस्थः सभाण्डं भोक्तुमर्हति ॥ ३४ ॥ brahmanaiḥ ksatra-bandhur hi
grha-palo nirūpitaḥ
sa katham tad-grhe dvaḥsthaḥ
sa-bhanḍam bhoktum arhati
brahmanaiḥ-by the brahminical order; ksatra-bandhuḥ-the sons of the ksatriyas; hi-certainly; grha-palaḥ-the watchdog; nirūpitaḥ-designated; saḥ-he; katham-on what grounds; tat-grhe-in the home of him (the master); dvaḥsthaḥ-keeping at the door; sa-bhanḍam-in the same pot; bhoktum-to eat; arhati-deserves.
TRANSLATION
The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?
PURPORT
The inexperienced brahmana boy certainly knew that the King asked for water from his father and the father did not respond. He tried to explain away his father's inhospitality in an impertinent manner befitting an uncultured boy. He was not at all sorry for the King's not being well received. On the contrary, he justified the wrong act in a way characteristic of the brahmanas of Kali-yuga. He compared the King to a watchdog, and so it was wrong for the King to enter the home of a brahmana and ask for water from the same pot. The dog is certainly reared by its master, but that does not mean that the dog shall claim to dine and drink from the same pot. This mentality of false prestige is the cause of the downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brahmana. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Srhgi, the King had no right to enter the house of Samika Rsi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.
Link to this page: https://prabhupadabooks.com/sb/1/18/34
|