निशम्य शप्तमतदर्हं नरेन्द्रं स ब्राह्मणो नात्मजमभ्यनन्दत् ।
अहो बतांहो महदद्य ते कृतमल्पीयसि द्रोह उरुर्दमो धृतः ॥४१॥

niÅ›amya Å›aptam atad-arhaá¹ narendraá¹
sa brÄhmaṇo nÄtmajam abhyanandat
aho batÄá¹ho mahad adya te ká¹›tam
alpīyasi droha urur damo dhṛtaḥ

 niÅ›amya - after hearing; Å›aptam - cursed; atat-arham - never to be condemned; nara-indram - unto the King, best of humankind; saḥ - that; brÄhmaṇaḥ - brÄhmaṇa-ṛṣi; na - not; Ätma-jam - his own son; abhyanandat - congratulated; aho - alas; bata - distressing; aá¹haḥ - sins; mahat - great; adya - today; te - yourself; ká¹›tam - performed; alpÄ«yasi - insignificant; drohe - offense; uruḥ - very great; damaḥ - punishment; dhá¹›taḥ - awarded.


Text

The father heard from his son that the King had been cursed, although he should never have been condemned, for he was the best amongst all human beings. The ṛṣi did not congratulate his son, but, on the contrary, began to repent, saying: Alas! What a great sinful act was performed by my son. He has awarded heavy punishment for an insignificant offense.

Purport

The king is the best of all human beings. He is the representative of God, and he is never to be condemned for any of his actions. In other words, the king can do no wrong. The king may order hanging of a culprit son of a brÄhmaṇa, but he does not become sinful for killing a brÄhmaṇa. Even if there is something wrong with the king, he is never to be condemned. A medical practitioner may kill a patient by mistaken treatment, but such a killer is never condemned to death. So what to speak of a good and pious king like MahÄrÄja ParÄ«ká¹£it? In the Vedic way of life, the king is trained to become a rÄjará¹£i, or a great saint, although he is ruling as king. It is the king only by whose good government the citizens can live peacefully and without any fear. The rÄjará¹£is would manage their kingdoms so nicely and piously that their subjects would respect them as if they were the Lord. That is the instruction of the Vedas. The king is called narendra, or the best amongst the human beings. How then could a king like MahÄrÄja ParÄ«ká¹£it be condemned by an inexperienced, puffed-up son of a brÄhmaṇa, even though he had attained the powers of a qualified brÄhmaṇa?

Since ÅšamÄ«ka Ṛṣi was an experienced, good brÄhmaṇa, he did not approve of the actions of his condemned son. He began to lament for all that his son had done. The king was beyond the jurisdiction of curses as a general rule, and what to speak of a good king like MahÄrÄja ParÄ«ká¹£it. The offense of the King was most insignificant, and his being condemned to death was certainly a very great sin for Śṛṅgi. Therefore Ṛṣi ÅšamÄ«ka regretted the whole incident.