Ja 141 Godhajātaka
The Story about the Iguana

In the present a monk ordained under the Buddha is easily persuaded to partake of Devadatta’s good food, rather than go on almsround. He is brought to the Buddha who tells a story about an iguana who made friends with a chameleon, to his own and his friends’ destruction.

⏑−⏑⏑¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−⏑¦⏑−⏑− Silopa pathyā
1. Na pāpajanasaṁsevī accantaṁ sukham-edhati,
Associating with the wicked doesn’t bring endless happiness,

−−⏑−¦⏑−−−¦¦⏑−−−¦⏑−−− Silopa pathyā
Godhā kulaṁ kakaṇṭā va kaliṁ pāpeti attānan-ti. The cadence is wrong in this pādayuga. There is no easy way to correct it.
Like the chameleons In the story there is just one chameleon who brings about the disaster, but in the verse kakaṇṭā is plural. who brought the iguana clan disaster.

Tatrāyaṁ {1.488} saṅkhepattho:
In this connection, this is a summary of the meaning:

pāpajanasaṁsevī puggalo accantasukhaṁ,
associating with a wicked person endless happiness,

ekantasukhaṁ nirantarasukhaṁ nāma,
happiness without end, what is known as uninterrupted happiness,

na edhati na vindati na paṭilabhati.
is not brought, is not found, is not received.

Yathā kiṁ?
In what way?

Godhā kulaṁ kakaṇṭā va.
Like the chameleons (who brought) the iguana clan.

Yathā kakaṇṭakato godhākulaṁ sukhaṁ na labhati,
Like with what the chameleons did, the iguana family did not receive happiness,

evaṁ pāpajanasaṁsevī puggalo sukhaṁ na labhati.
thus through associating with a wicked person he did not receive happiness.

Pāpajanaṁ pana sevanto ekanteneva kaliṁ pāpeti attānaṁ,
But through associating endlessly with wicked people they brought themselves to disaster,

kali vuccati vināso,
disaster is said (to be) destruction,

ekanteneva pāpasevī,
associating endlessly with the wicked,

attānañ-ca aññe ca attanā saddhiṁ vasante vināsaṁ pāpeti.
both themselves, and others living with them, were brought to destruction.

Pāḷiyaṁ pana: “Phalaṁ pāpeyyā” ti, likhanti.
But in the text: “They should receive their fruit,” is written.

Taṁ byañjanaṁ aṭṭhakathāyaṁ natthi, attho pissa na yujjati.
That expression is not found in the commentary, and the meaning is not suitable. I do not understand this reference, as the text of the verse of Ja 141 (without commentary) in Cst reads the same as here; and the parallel (Ja 397 Kukkujātakaṁ), does not have this reading either.

Tasmā yathāvuttam-eva, gahetabbaṁ.
Therefore just as it is spoken, so it should be understood.