Shloka 214
Strī-satkāra (On honoring women) — Mahābhārata 13.46
ब्रह्म! यौवनमदसे उन्मत्त रहनेवाली उस स्त्रीकी (उसके शरीरमें प्रवेश किये बिना) रक्षा करना तुम्हारे वशकी बात नहीं थी। अतः तुमने अपनी ओरसे कोई पाप नहीं किया; इसलिये मैं तुमपर प्रसन्न हूँ ।।
Brahman! yauvanamadase unmattarahanavālī tasya striyāḥ (tasya śarīre praviśya vinā) rakṣaṇaṃ tava vaśakī bāto na āsīt. ataḥ tvayā svataḥ kaścid api pāpaḥ na kṛtaḥ; tasmāt tvayi ahaṃ prasannaḥ. manodoṣavihīnānāṃ na doṣaḥ syāt tathā tava. anyathā liṅgyate kāntā snehenānyathā duhitā. niṣkaṣāyo viśuddhas tvaṃ rucyāveśān na dūṣitaḥ. yadi tv ahaṃ tvāṃ durvṛttam adrākṣaṃ dvijasattama, śapeyaṃ tvām ahaṃ krodhān na me ’trāsti vicāraṇā.
Vipula said: “O Brahman, it was not within your power to protect that woman, maddened by the intoxication of youth, without entering her body. Therefore you have committed no sin of your own; for this I am pleased with you. For those whose minds are free from fault, no blame attaches—so it is in your case as well. A beloved wife is embraced with one kind of affection, while a daughter is embraced with another—namely, with parental tenderness. You are free from passion and wholly pure; thus, even though you entered Ruci’s body, you were not tainted. But if I had seen you acting wickedly, O best of Brahmins, I would have cursed you in anger—there would have been no hesitation in me.”
विपुल उवाच
Educational Q&A
Moral blame depends primarily on inner intention and mental purity: when the mind is free from lust or corrupt motive, an act done under compulsion of duty (here, protection) does not generate sin. The verse also distinguishes appropriate forms of affection—conjugal vs parental—to clarify ethical boundaries.
Vipula addresses a Brahmin who had to enter another person’s body (Ruci’s) in order to protect a woman overcome by youthful passion. Vipula declares him innocent because his mind was passionless and his purpose protective, while adding that he would have cursed him immediately had he observed genuine misconduct.