SB 1.18.34 (1965)
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
TEXT No. 34
- Brahmanaih Kshatrabandhur hi grihapalo nirupitah
- Sakatham tadgrihe dwasthah sabhandam bhoktum arhati.
ENGLISH SYNONYMS
Brahmanaih—by the Brahminical order, Kshatrabandhur—the sons of the Kshatriyas, Hi—certainly, Grihapalo—the watch dog, Nirupitah—designated, Sa—he, Katham—on what ground, Tadgrihe—in the home of him (the master), Dwasthah—keeping at the door, Sabhandam—in the same pot, Bhoktum—to eat, Arhati—deserves.
TRANSLATION
The descendants of the Kingly orders are definitly fixed up as the watch dogs and they must keep themselves at the door. On what ground such dogs can enter within the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate ?
PURPORT
The inexperienced Brahmin boy certainly was informed of the fact that the King asked for water from his father and the father did not respond to such request. He tried to explain away the incidence of non-reception of the king by his father, in the impertinent manner just fitting an uncultured boy. He was not at all sorry for the king being not received well but on the contrary he justified the wrong act in a way as the Brahmins of the Kaliyuga would do it. He compared the king with the watch dog and as such it was wrong for the king to enter within the home boundary of Brahmin and ask for water in 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 in the same pot of the master ? This mentality of false prestige of the higher caste upon the lower is the cause of fall down of the perfect social order and we can see that the beginning was started by the inexperienced son of a Brahmin. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly according to Sringi, the king had no right to enter the house of the Kousika Rishi. According to the boy's opinion the king was on the wrong side and not his father and thus he justified his silent father.