Shloka 5236
न चेदस्त्राणि निर्णेशु: स कथं निहतः परे: । यदि उसका रथ नहीं टूट गया था, धनुषके टुकड़े-टुकड़े नहीं हो गये थे और अस्त्र नहीं नष्ट हुए थे, तब शत्रुओंने उसे किस प्रकार मार दिया?
na ced astrāṇi nirṇeśuḥ sa kathaṃ nihataḥ paraiḥ |
Vaiśampāyana said: “If his weapons had not been rendered useless, how could he have been slain by the enemy? If his chariot had not been broken, his bow had not been shattered into pieces, and his missiles had not been destroyed, by what means did the foes manage to kill him?”
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames a moral-narrative puzzle: a great warrior is not defeated merely by strength, but through the collapse of supports—weaponry, chariot, and tactical advantage—suggesting the interplay of fate, circumstance, and the ethical tensions of war.
Vaiśampāyana raises a pointed question about the manner of a warrior’s death: if his arms and equipment had not failed, the enemies could not have killed him—implying that some decisive disabling event (loss of weapons/chariot/bow) preceded his fall.