कृ
कृमिकुलचितं लालाक्लिन्नं विगन्धि जुगुप्सितं
निरुपमरसरीत्या खादन्खरास्थि निरामिषम् ।
सुरपतिमपि श्वा पार्श्वस्थं विलोक्य न शङ्कते
न हि गणयति क्षुद्रो जन्तुः परिग्रहफल्गुताम्।। (नीतिशतकम्- 9)
kṛmikulacitaṁ lālāklinnaṁ vigandhi jugupsitaṁ
nirupamarasarītyā khādankharāsthi nirāmiṣam|
surapatimapi śvā pārśvasthaṁ vilokya na śaṅkate
na hi gaṇayati kṣudro jantuḥ parigrahaphalgutām||
शुनकः, कृमिकुलैः व्याप्तं दन्तान्तर्जलात् आर्द्रं दुर्गन्धि जुगुप्सितं मांसलेशशून्यं रासभकीकसं, निरुपमस्वादप्रीत्या भक्षयन्, अन्तिकस्थं सुरपतिमिन्द्रमपि दृष्ट्वा न लज्जते। यतः नीचजन्तुः स्वीकृतवस्तुनः तुच्छत्वं न मनुते।
The above sloka is from Bhartrhari’s nIti satakam.
A dog, cracking with matchless relish and eagerness, a piece of fleshless bone of an ass, full of worms, moist with spittle, of a sickening evil odour, and therefore loathsome does not mind even the lord of gods (Indra) standing by him. For a mean creature does not mind the worthlessness of the object in its possession.
श्वा- a dog, निरुपमरसप्रीत्या- with an incomparable taste, कृमिकुलचितं - covered by worms, लालाक्लिन्नं – wet due to saliva (falling from the dog’s mouth), विगन्धि- bad smell, जुगुप्सितं- disgusting, निरामिषं- without any meat , खारास्थि- bone of an ass, खादन्- was eating or relishing, पार्श्वस्थं- standing beside, सुरपतिमपि- even the indra, विलोक्य – after seeing, (the dog) न शङ्कते- does not care.
क्षुद्रो- mean, जन्तुः - creature, परिग्रहे- things obtained, फल्गुताम्- worthlessness , न हि गणयति – does not mind.
6 comments:
Just like the Indian politicians don't mind anybody's presence as long as they're in possession of "chair".
With due respects to the poet,
1. A bone, however obnoxious, has value for a dog.Dog's are made that way.The dog does not see it as something worthless.
2.From what little I know, only humans are considered to be gifted with the potential for spiritual knowledge and enlightenment.Animals are incapable of it.If this is correct, then why should a dog be expected to recognise Indra?
Am I missing the point or the bigger picture?Pls help.
sittingathome,
you are right...
1 A dog only knows the worth of a bone. Hence the bone is precious from the dog's point of view.
But from a human point of view - it is the most disgusting thing. It is like a pig in a gutter. Have we ever described the beauty of a pig immersing itself in a gutter.
2 Here the poet uses the dog as an anecdote. And the crux of the verse is directed towards a human and not to the dog.
This shloka was written for humans, so they could recognize their own actions in the light of what a dog was doing. The morale of the story is, there is a difference between humans and dogs, and the difference is due to spirituality and higher standards of conduct. Humans should always maintain a higher standard of conduct, and not become like the dog in the example, ignoring even Gods for momentary gains.
The poet had to give an example of an animal, and the most common animal with human contact is dog. I think the poet did not mean to "criminalize" dogs, he rather just wanted to put forward his point by giving an example of an animal.
Also let's remember that most of these shlokas were written thousands of years ago, and the society was setup differently in those days.
thanks PRG and Anil.
Initially, it did seem that the poet wrote those verses to express
his dislike for dogs.It baffled me as to why a distinguished sanskrit poet should leave all else and write about dogs.But now I know that there is a human link and therefore understand these verses better.
Vultures feed on corpses. Worms feed on rotten dead bodies and relish it. Dogs, vultures, worms and bacteria are part of the ecosystem. You cannot say that man is at the high end of the ecosystem and some bacteria is at the lowest end. Except man all living creatures are in harmony with nature.
Post a Comment