Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.18.34

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.18.34

brāhmaṇaiḥ kṣatra-bandhur hi

gṛha-pālo nirūpitaḥ

sa kathaḿ tad-gṛhe dvāḥ-sthaḥ

sabhāṇḍaḿ bhoktum arhati

SYNONYMS

brāhmaṇaiḥ — by the brahminical order; kṣatra-bandhuḥ — the sons of the kṣatriyas; hi — certainly; gṛha-pālaḥ — the watchdog; nirūpitaḥ — designated; saḥ — he; katham — on what grounds; tat-gṛhe — in the home of him (the master); dvāḥ-sthaḥ — keeping at the door; sa-bhāṇḍam — 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 brāhmaṇa 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 brāhmaṇas of Kali-yuga. He compared the King to a watchdog, and so it was wrong for the King to enter the home of a brāhmaṇa 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 downfall of the perfect social order, and we can see that in the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa. As the dog is never allowed to enter within the room and hearth, although it is reared by the master, similarly, according to Śṛńgi, the King had no right to enter the house of Śamīka Ṛṣi. According to the boy's opinion, the King was on the wrong side and not his father, and thus he justified his silent father.