Shloka 37
कर्णनिधनवृत्तान्तनिवेदनम् | Reporting Karṇa’s Fall to Yudhiṣṭhira
जिसकी बुद्धि शुद्ध (निष्काम) है, वह पुरुष यदि अत्यन्त कठोर होकर भी, जैसे अंधे पशुको मार देनेसे बलाक नामक व्याध पुण्यका भागी हुआ था, उसी प्रकार महान् पुण्य प्राप्त कर ले तो कया आश्चर्य है? ।। किमाश्चर्य पुनर्मूढो धर्मकामो हापण्डित: । सुमहत् प्राप्तुयात् पापमापगास्विव कौशिक:,इसी तरह जो धर्मकी इच्छा तो रखता है, पर है मूर्ख और अज्ञानी, वह नदियोंके संगमपर बसे हुए कौशिक मुनिकी भाँति यदि अज्ञानपूर्वक धर्म करके भी महान् पापका भागी हो जाय तो क्या आश्चर्य है?
kim āścaryaṃ punaḥ mūḍho dharmakāmo hy apaṇḍitaḥ | sumahat prāpnuyāt pāpam āpagāsv iva kauśikaḥ ||
Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: “What wonder is it, then, if a man who is deluded—though he desires righteousness, yet lacks true discernment—should incur a very great sin, just as the sage Kauśika, dwelling at the confluence of rivers, became implicated in grave wrongdoing through an act performed in ignorance under the guise of dharma? By contrast, when one’s intellect is purified and free from selfish motive, even a deed that appears harsh may yield great merit—like the hunter Bālaka, who gained religious merit by killing a blind beast.”
श्रीकृष्ण उवाच
Educational Q&A
Kṛṣṇa contrasts purified, desireless discernment with ignorant moral zeal: a person lacking true wisdom may commit grave wrong while trying to practice dharma, whereas one with a purified, selfless intellect may gain merit even from an outwardly harsh act. The ethical emphasis is on right understanding and inner motive, not merely the external label of “dharma.”
In the Karṇa Parva war context, Kṛṣṇa instructs by citing exempla: the hunter Bālaka, who gained merit by killing a blind beast, and the sage Kauśika at a river-confluence, who incurred great sin through an ignorant act done under the pretense of righteousness. These stories are used to clarify how dharma can be subtle and how ignorance can corrupt seemingly pious action.