Shloka 15

राजधर्मः, दण्डनीतिः, कर्तृत्व-विचारः च

Royal Duty, Lawful Discipline, and the Question of Agency

Devanagari script

अथवा तदुपादानात्‌ प्राप्तुयात्‌ कर्मण: फलम्‌ । दण्डशस्त्रकृतं पापं पुरुषे तन्न विद्यते,अथवा यदि कहें कि “उस कुल्हाड़ीको ग्रहण करनेके कारण चेतन पुरुषको ही उस हिंसाकर्मका फल प्राप्त होगा (जड होनेके कारण कुल्हाड़ीको नहीं)”, तब तो जिसने उस शस्त्रको बनाया और जिसने उसमें डंडा लगाया, वह पुरुष ही प्रधान प्रयोजक होनेके कारण उसीको उस कर्मका फल मिलना चाहिये। चलानेवाले पुरुषपर उसका कोई उत्तरदायित्व नहीं है

Transliteration

athavā tadupādānāt prāpnuyāt karmaṇaḥ phalam | daṇḍaśastrakṛtaṃ pāpaṃ puruṣe tan na vidyate ||

Translation

Oder, wenn man behauptet, „schon dadurch, dass man dieses Werkzeug ergreift, müsse der bewusste Mensch die Frucht der Gewalttat tragen (da die Axt selbst unbeseelt ist)“, dann müsste das Ergebnis vielmehr dem zufallen, der die Waffe schmiedete, und dem, der den Stiel befestigte—denn sie sind die eigentlichen Ursachen. In diesem Fall trüge der, der sie schwingt, überhaupt keine Verantwortung. Vyāsa führt dies an, um die Unstimmigkeit bloßer Schuldzuweisung aufgrund körperlicher Berührung mit einem Werkzeug aufzudecken und zu verdeutlichen, dass Handlungsurheberschaft und Absicht die ethische Verantwortlichkeit bestimmen.

Word by Word

अथवाor else

तत्from that

उपादानात्from taking/appropriating (it); from the act of taking

प्राप्तुयात्might obtain

कर्मणःof the act/deed

फलम्fruit/result

दण्डशस्त्रकृतम्done by a staff/weapon (i.e., weapon-caused)

पापम्sin/evil

पुरुषेin/with regard to a person

तत्that (sin/result)

नnot

विद्यतेexists/is found

Speaker

व्यास उवाच

Characters & Entities

Vyāsa

daṇḍaśastra (handled weapon/axe-like implement)

daṇḍa (handle/staff)

Character Dynamics

Dharma Sankata (Moral Dilemma)

War Context

Verse Rasa (Emotional Essence)

Philosophical Teaching

Political Layer

Meter (Chandas)

Sandhi Notes

Educational Q&A

What is the core teaching?

Moral responsibility cannot be assigned merely by physical proximity to an instrument. If one claims the ‘taker-up’ of a weapon alone receives the karmic fruit because he is conscious, the logic collapses—then makers and assemblers would be even more responsible as primary causes. Vyāsa uses this to emphasize that ethical accountability depends on true agency (intention and decisive causation), not on a simplistic link between a person and a tool.

What is happening in the narrative?

In Śānti Parva’s ethical discussion, Vyāsa presents a reductio argument about violence and karmic fruit: if the weapon is inert and only the conscious person can ‘receive’ sin, then responsibility would shift backward to those who created and prepared the weapon. This highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of causation and culpability in acts of harm.