Shloka 45

Śuka’s Guṇa-Transcendence and Vyāsa’s Consolation (शुकगति-वर्णनम्)

Devanagari script

आधिपत्ये तथा तुल्ये निग्रहानुग्रहात्मके । राजभिभिक्षुकास्तुल्या मुच्यन्ते केन हेतुना

Transliteration

ādhipatye tathā tulye nigrahānugrahātmake | rājabhibhikṣukās tulyā mucyante kena hetunā ||

Translation

Janaka said: “Sovereignty consists in exercising restraint and bestowing favor—punishing some and showing grace to others. If this same principle is present in a renunciant as well as in a king, then in that respect mendicants and rulers are alike. On what grounds, then, is it claimed that only the renunciants attain liberation?”

Word by Word

• {'ādhipatya': 'lordship, sovereignty, authority', 'tathā': 'and likewise

• in the same way', 'tulya': 'equal, comparable', 'nigraha': 'restraint

• control', 'anugraha': 'favor

• granting of benefit', 'ātmake': 'consisting in

• having the nature of (locative singular)', 'rāja': 'king, ruler', 'bhibhikṣu': 'mendicant

• beggar-monk', 'tulyāḥ': 'are equal (plural)', 'mucyante': 'are released

• attain liberation (present passive)', 'kena': 'by what? on what (instrumental of ‘what’)', 'hetunā': 'cause, reason, ground (instrumental)'}

Speaker

जनक उवाच

Characters & Entities

• Janaka
• king (rāja)
• mendicant/renunciant (bhibhikṣu)

Educational Q&A

What is the core teaching?

Janaka challenges the assumption that liberation belongs only to formal renunciants: if both rulers and mendicants exercise ‘nigraha’ (restraint/punishment) and ‘anugraha’ (favor/grace), then external status alone cannot be the decisive cause of moksha; the true criterion must lie deeper—in inner detachment, knowledge, and freedom from ego and attachment.

What is happening in the narrative?

In the Shanti Parva’s reflective discourse on dharma and liberation, King Janaka speaks as a philosophical interlocutor. He questions a renunciant-centered view of moksha by pointing out that the functional marks of authority—restraining and favoring—can be seen in both kings and ascetics, and he asks for the real reason why one is said to be freed while the other is not.