[The brāhmaṇa’s son, Śṛṅgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants. (33)
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? (34)
After the departure of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the Personality of Godhead and supreme ruler of everyone, these upstarts have flourished, our protector being gone. Therefore I myself shall take up this matter and punish them. Just witness my power. (35)
The son of the ṛṣi, his eyes red-hot with anger, touched the water of the River Kauśika while speaking to his playmates and discharged the following thunderbolt of words. (36)
The commentary by Shridhara Swami called Bhāvārthadīpikā:
He censures the adharma, indeed the sin, of the nourished, stout rulers which is a degradation for servants towards their master, like the crows and dogs partaking of offerings. (33)
He shows their servant-hood. The word 'brāhmaṇair' (by the brāhmaṇas) is implied. They remain situated only in the plate (implying their lowly status). (34)
Immediately after that. I will punish, I will chastise them. (35)
Om. Uttering this, his eyes becoming copper-red due to anger, the son of the ṛṣi (touched) the waters of the river Kaushiki. Sandhir ārṣaḥ (an obscure phrase). Vāgvajram means a curse. (36)
The commentary Bhāvārthadīpikā by Śrī Vaṃśīdhara:
For servants towards their master, the brāhmaṇa, the sin, ah, the great adharma of the rulers who are like doorkeepers. (33)
The doorkeeper is a dog, a guardian of the door like a dog. Entering the house, being situated in the plate means the thing like ghee, etc. By this is implied the question of what qualification the rulers have to suddenly enter the āśrama of the munis and request water, etc. there. And so this is meant as a punishment. (34)
Then who is the punisher? To that, he says "Kṛṣṇa." "O boys, witness my power over those going the wrong way, abandoning the prescribed path," is the remainder. (35)
Kauśikī means the sacred Kauśikī is present in his hands, hence (the name) Kauśikī is well-known. Touching the waters, sipping them, vāgvajram means the curse, as destructive as a thunderbolt. Or Kauśika means Viśvāmitra is the deity of this (mantra), so Kauśikī (means) the Gāyatrī; touching (the waters) while reciting the Gāyatrī (mantra) of the ṛṣi Viśvāmitra according to the prescribed method of sandhyopāsana. There, a river by the name Kauśikī is also unheard of. (36)
The commentary by Śrī Vārarāghava:
He speaks of that very (matter) with five (words) beginning with 'aho'. "Oh, look at the great adharma of the nourished, stout rulers, like the crows partaking of offerings or the roaming dogs. What is that adharma? For the ruler-kings who have become like doorkeeper-dogs, servants towards the brāhmaṇa master, a sin, a transgression - this alone is the adharma." (33)
He substantiates that very (point): "Indeed, the kṣatriya-clan has been employed by the brāhmaṇas just as a watchdog. That kṣatriya-clan, standing at the door, how can he be qualified, just as a dog, to partake of the same plate in the brāhmaṇa's house?" (34)
When the chastiser, the Lord Kṛṣṇa, had departed for His own realm, those who had transgressed the boundaries - today I shall punish them, I shall instruct them. Witness my power. (35)
Leaving aside the courtesies to his same-aged playmates, the boys, with eyes becoming copper-red due to anger, that son of the ṛṣi touched the waters of the river Kaushiki, sipped them, and discharged a thunderbolt in the form of a curse. (36)
The commentary Padaratnāvalī by Śrī Vijayādhvajatīrtha:
33॥ Explaining what he means by "kimāha", he says "aho iti". "Oh, today we have witnessed the adharma, the injustice, of the ruling kings, like the crows partaking of offerings on the ground. What is that?" To this, he says "svāmini iti". "Just as for dogs towards their master, a sin has been seen now for the ruler-kings who are doorkeepers of the brāhmaṇa house, servants of the brāhmaṇa master." Since this is so. (33)
As to how the kings are servants of the brāhmaṇas, he says "brāhmaṇair iti". "The kings have been assigned as doorkeepers by the brāhmaṇas in a servile position. That king, being a doorkeeper at the house of that brāhmaṇa, how can he be worthy to consume the plate along with the contents of the house? Indeed, because of that, he is to be punished by the master." This is the meaning. (34)
Then, as to who will punish them now, he says "kṛṣṇa iti". "Those who have transgressed the prescribed path, abandoning the bridges, violating the boundaries - the punisher being Lord Kṛṣṇa, who has departed - today I shall punish them." This is the connection. "Witness my power, O boys!" is the remainder. (35)
And what was that punishment like? To this, he says "iti iti". "With eyes becoming copper-red due to anger, Kauśikī means holding the sacred kuśa grass, sipping the waters, he discharged a thunderbolt in the form of a curse upon the kings." This is the remainder. By the word "iti" indicating a narrative, it should be understood that the interpretation of "Kauśikī" as a river whose waters were sipped is rejected. (36)
The commentary Sārārthadarśinī by Śrī Viśvanāthacakravartin
Of the nourished, stout rulers. Like the crows partaking of offerings. (33)
Or, the doorkeeper dog, entering the house, (means partaking of) the plate along with the contents like ghee etc. By this is implied the question of what qualification the rulers have to suddenly enter the midst of the munis' āśrama and request for water etc. there. (34)
Immediately after that, I will punish, I will chastise them. (35)
Leaving aside the courtesies. The phrase "Kauśikyāpa iti" means "sandhir ārṣaḥ" (joining of the seer's words). (36)
The commentary Siddhāntadīpa by Śrī Śukadevā:
He speaks of that very (matter) with the five words beginning with 'aho'. "Oh, look at this very adharma - the sin, the wrongful conduct towards the master, of the nourished doorkeepers like the crows partaking of offerings, or the stout watchdogs appointed for protection, having become servants." (33)
He illustrates the similarity to a doorkeeper: "By the brāhmaṇas, for those doorkeepers, that kṣatriya, being positioned at the door of their house, how can he be qualified to partake of the same plate?" (34)
Therefore, since there is no chastiser of those who have transgressed the path here (in this world), I myself shall punish them, shall instruct them. (35)
With the river Kauśikī, according to the connection of the seer's words, sipping the waters, he discharged a thunderbolt in the form of a curse. (36)
The commentary Subodhinī by Śrī Vallabhācārya:
For the purpose of describing the punishment, he states the worthiness for punishment in three verses. Adharma, treachery towards the master, is the cause for punishment. For having the ability to punish, he states the first fault from his own viewpoint, with the word 'aho' indicating wonder. "Aho! The adharma of the protectors!" - The upholders of dharma actually negate dharma instead of upholding it - this is wondrous. Absorbed in this sense of wonder, he realized "This is not to be wondered at." Therefore, stating the cause of adharma and reaching a particular stance, indicating its justification, he gives an example with the words "pīvnām" (of the nourished). Their mere stoutness itself is the cause of their adharma. The meaning is: the lowly ones, nourished by the kingdom, have committed adharma - just as dogs nourished by offerings even consume their donor and enter his house. The brāhmaṇas have two kingdoms - their own kingdom and the outer kingdom. The outer kingdom arises by their fortune, so they are appointed for attaining their own kingdom. This very earth was created by Brahmā and given by Kashyapa, and likewise by Parashurāma and Raghunātha, yet the outer kingdom was not made by the brāhmaṇas. Therefore, for the very purpose of making that, he says "svāminyagham" - that sinful conduct towards the master by servants, like that of the dogs, arises due to their innate flaw and lack of discrimination. Those appointed as doorkeepers similarly consume their own master due to ignorance, they should not enter the house. For the very purpose of restraining this, the king is appointed - let him not restrain us, let him perform our worship. (33)
By this, the similarity of the king to a dog is described. To dispel the doubt raised by the contradictory example, he says "brāhmaṇair" etc. By this, the treachery towards the master is justified. Thus, the four-fold description is indicated - physical etc. The supreme abode here is in fact described by the Bhṛgus. Therefore, in the house of those very ones by whom it was described, that gatekeeper, ever stationed at the door, is qualified to partake of the same plate containing cooked food, not to instruct the brāhmaṇas, since the kingdom was granted by their grace. For Brahmā's house is the universe, wherein all human goals are places of enjoyment for the brāhmaṇas; consequently, to dispel those who obstruct this, the king as the gatekeeper has the kingdom as a place of offerings. And since the brāhmaṇa too falls amidst the offerings like a farmer, partaking of the same plate amounts to entering the house due to the fault of restraining meditation. (34)
Having thus justified the fault, stating his own ability to punish, he introduces another mode with "Kṛṣṇe gate bhagavatī". When the Blissful One has gone to His own abode, only for their own experience of bliss did He appoint the brāhmaṇas. Since two limits were established, therefore we two must act, he says "bhinnasetuniṣātāham" - those by whom the boundaries were severed, this implies renunciation of self-interest. But it was never heard that boundary-making took place at any time, to this he says "adya" - today itself it has occurred, today itself punishment must be given, is the meaning. He instructs the children about his such ability through "paśyata". Seeing the manifest brahma-effulgence in himself, being their well-wisher, he reveals it to them too. (35)
Having made this resolution, he states what he did with "ityuktvā". Out of the notion of being a ruler and consequent lack of a protector's attitude, arose anger. By this, it is indicated that he did not reconsider further. The river Kauśikī - sipping its waters, manifesting his brahma-state, he discharged a thunderbolt in the form of speech, reciting the mantra 'vapat' 'phaṭ' 'jahī' and so on. That thunderbolt fashioned from curds and bones, but this is the speech-thunderbolt which is the root of the brāhmaṇas. (36)
The commentary Subodhinī Prakāśa by Śrī Purushottama Goswami:
On the statement "brāhmaṇair" (by the brāhmaṇas): The doubt of a contradictory example is raised. The meaning is as follows: From the Vedic statement "There is nothing greater than the Kshatriya, therefore the Brāhmaṇa worships the Kshatriya as superior", it is so.
On "caturdhā nirūpaṇam" (the four-fold description): This refers to the four-fold description of treachery towards the master. When the doubt arises as to how this could be the case, since the prima facie understanding is of being a doorkeeper etc., they explain it through the words "śarīrādītyādinā" (starting with "physical" etc.). "Dvāram" means the entrance by implication. And thus, being the protector of that (entrance), it is being a doorkeeper - so there is no direct contradiction, is the meaning.
Then, how is the dispelling of the contradiction in the example? To this they say "vastuto" etc. And the meaning is that since the subsequent import is different, there is no such contradiction.
On "arhati" (is qualified): Here, the words "how" and "speech" are to be supplied from the main text. Thus, treachery towards the master has been described in one way.
The second way is stated as "brāhmaṇam" etc. And the meaning is that even though the kingdom was given by Kashyapa and others, since it was a grant to the Kshatriyas by them, there is treachery in that regard too.
The third way is stated as "brahmaṇo" etc. "Sarva-puruṣa" means "all the entrances". "Bali-sthānam" means the place for offering oblations, or it could be read as "in that place". "Brāhmaṇam api" - here "brāhmaṇam" seems to be in the locative case, otherwise there would be a discontinuity in construing it with "ājñāpayitum" etc.
The fourth way is stated as "samādhītyādi". (33)
On "Kṛṣṇe" here: By the adjective "bhagavatī" in the original, they indicate it is laden with suggestion. Through "bhagavattvāt", they mean "since it is of that nature" i.e. being opposed to the experience of one's own bliss. By "koṭidvayasya", they mean the two classes of the ruled and the ruler. "Dvayam" refers to protecting the boundary as well as issuing contradictory commands. "Svārtha-parityāgaḥ" means abandoning one's own purpose or aim. (34)
The commentary Bālaprabodhini by Śrī Giridhara:
He shows those very statements - "Alas! The unrighteousness of the stout, well-nourished, ruling kings." He clarifies this itself - the sin, the transgression committed by those who were Kshatriyas, towards the master, the Brāhmaṇa, is like that of the eaters of offerings, the crows, and like that of the doorkeepers, the dogs. (33)
He indeed expounds what was stated - For the Kshatriya kinsman was designated by the Brāhmaṇas themselves as a doorkeeper, employed only for the purpose of self-protection, having been coronated in the kingdom. That Kshatriya kinsman, being fit to stand at the door, how does he deserve to consume the vessels and objects in the houses of those very Brāhmaṇas? - this is the sequence. And thus, since employing him for fetching water etc. by the Brāhmaṇa, whose kingdom he enjoys given by the Brāhmaṇas, is improper, in that employment and in accepting that grant, depositing (showing) anger towards him was certainly inappropriate - this is the idea. (34)
To those who have strayed from the path, when the chastiser, the punisher, the Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, has gone to His own abode, I will chasten and instruct those boundary-breakers with broken boundaries today. Witness my strength! (35)
Having said thus towards the young boys, that young sage whose eyes were copper-red due to anger, sipped water from the Kaushiki river and unleashed the thunderbolt of a curse. Recalling the fact that the king did not deserve the curse, he expresses wonder - "Oh!". In "Kaushikyā apa", the sandhi is Ārsha. (36)
Hindi anuvada
'These people called kings have become so unjust, behaving like scavenger crows, stuffing themselves shamelessly! Though servants, they insult their own master like the dogs guarding the doorway. (33)
The Brahmins have made the Kshatriyas their doorkeepers. They should remain at the doorway for protection; they have no right to enter the house and eat from the master's utensils. (34)
Therefore, after the ruler Lord Shri Krishna departs for His supreme abode, I will punish today these transgressors who violate boundaries. Witness my ascetic power!' (35)
Having spoken thus to his fellow young ones, that young sage, his eyes reddened by anger, sipped water from the Kaushiki river and unleashed the thunderbolt of his speech. (36)
SB 1.18.33-36
