Shloka 19
कालनिर्देशः शोकनिवारणं च
Instruction on Kāla and the Removal of Grief
अपेतं ब्राह्मण वृत्ताद् यो हन्यादाततायिनम् | न तेन ब्रह्महा स स्यान्मन्युस्तन्मन्युमृच्छति,जो ब्राह्मणोचित आचारसे भ्रष्ट होकर आततायी बन गया हो--हाथमें हथियार लेकर मारने आ रहा हो, ऐसे ब्राह्मणको मारनेसे ब्रह्महत्याका पाप नहीं लगता। क्रोध ही उसके क्रोधका सामना करता है
apetaṁ brāhmaṇa-vṛttād yo hanyād ātatāyinam | na tena brahmahā sa syān manyus tan-manyum ṛcchati ||
Vyāsa said: “If a man kills a brāhmaṇa who has fallen away from brahminical conduct and has become an ātatāyin—an armed aggressor coming to slay—he does not thereby incur the sin of brahmahatyā (killing a brāhmaṇa). In such a case, it is wrath that meets wrath: the aggressor’s violent intent is answered by the force required to stop it.”
व्यास उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse distinguishes status from conduct: when a brāhmaṇa abandons brahminical discipline and becomes an armed aggressor (ātatāyin), stopping him—even by killing—does not count as brahmahatyā. Moral culpability is tied to protecting life and upholding dharma against immediate lethal threat.
In the Śānti Parva’s dharma-discourse, Vyāsa addresses a legal-ethical doubt about violence: whether killing a brāhmaṇa can ever be justified. He answers that in the specific case of an ātatāyin attacking with weapons, the defender is not stained with the sin of killing a brāhmaṇa; the aggressor’s wrath is met by necessary counter-force.