Shloka 6.83.29
त्र्यशीतितमः सर्गः (Sarga 83) — Hanumān Reports Sītā’s ‘Slaying’; Rāma Collapses; Lakṣmaṇa’s Counter-Discourse on Dharma and Artha
यदिधर्मोभवेद्भूतअधर्मोवापरन्तप ।न स्महत्वामुनिंवज्रीकुर्यादिज्यांशतक्रतुः ।।6.83.29।।
yadi dharmo bhaved bhūta adharmo vā parantapa | na sma hatvā muniṃ vajrī kuryād ijyāṃ śata-kratuḥ ||6.83.29||
If dharma truly prevailed—or if adharma did—O scorcher of foes, then Indra, wielder of the thunderbolt, would not have killed a sage and yet performed sacrifice as ‘Śatakratu’.
"Indra killed an ascetic (Viswarupa) and did fire sacrifice. If dharma alone is his duty, he could have done hundreds of fire sacrifices and not have killed the ascetic. If adharma is duty he would have killed the ascetic and not done fire sacrifice."
The verse argues that real-world (and mythic) conduct mixes seemingly contradictory acts; therefore dharma cannot be reduced to a simplistic, uniform rule.
To persuade Rāma, the speaker cites Indra as an example of a figure associated with sacrifice who also commits violence, implying that outcomes and duties are morally complex.
Argumentative intelligence—using precedent and exempla to critique moral absolutism.