Shloka 16
Ethics of Action — Chanakya Niti
निर्गुणस्य हतं रूपं दुःशीलस्य हतं कुलम् ।
असिद्धस्य हता विद्या ह्यभोगेन हतं धनम् ॥
nirguṇasya hataṃ rūpaṃ duḥśīlasya hataṃ kulam |
asiddhasya hatā vidyā hyabhogena hataṃ dhanam ||
Beauty is ruined in one without virtue; lineage is ruined in one of bad conduct. Learning is ruined when not brought to fruition; wealth is ruined when not put to use.
FAQs
In the broader Nīti-śāstra tradition, such verses function as compact social-ethical observations used in courtly, pedagogical, and household instruction. The maxim reflects reputational logic common to early Sanskrit didactic literature, where social standing (kula), personal character (śīla/guṇa), and practical efficacy (siddhi, bhoga) are treated as mutually reinforcing markers of value.
Value is framed as contingent rather than inherent: appearance is treated as socially ineffective without virtues; lineage as socially ineffective without good conduct; learning as ineffective without demonstrable attainment or completion; and wealth as ineffective without use or enjoyment. The verse thus describes a model in which attributes are validated through perceived outcomes and social recognition.
The repeated predicate “हतम्/हता” (“ruined,” “nullified”) creates a parallel structure that reads like a catalog of negations, emphasizing loss of social efficacy. The compounds and genitives (निर्गुणस्य, दुःशीलस्य, असिद्धस्य) mark types of persons, while the final causal-instrumental “अभोगेन” (“through non-use/non-enjoyment”) shifts from a personal trait to a behavioral condition, suggesting that wealth’s ‘ruin’ is specifically a function of inactivity rather than intrinsic deficiency.