Vamana Purana — Skanda Slays Taraka & Mahisha, Shloka 96
Skanda’s Svastyayana and the Slaying of Taraka and Mahisha
श्रुत्वा कुमारवचनं भगवान्महर्षे कृत्वा मतिं स्वहृदये गुहमाह शक्रः मत्तो भवान् न मतिमान् वदसे किमर्थं वाक्यं शृणुष्व हरिणा गदितं हि पूर्वम् वम्प्_32.94 नैकस्यार्थे बहून् हन्यादिति शास्त्रेषु निश्चयः एकं हन्याद् बहुभ्योर्ऽथे न पापी तेन जायते 32.95 एतच्छ्रुत्वा मया पूर्वं समयस्थेन चाग्निज निहतो नमुचिः पूर्वं सोदरो ऽपि ममानुजः
śrutvā kumāravacanaṃ bhagavānmaharṣe kṛtvā matiṃ svahṛdaye guhamāha śakraḥ matto bhavān na matimān vadase kimarthaṃ vākyaṃ śṛṇuṣva hariṇā gaditaṃ hi pūrvam VamP_32.94 naikasyārthe bahūn hanyāditi śāstreṣu niścayaḥ ekaṃ hanyād bahubhyor'the na pāpī tena jāyate 32.95 etacchrutvā mayā pūrvaṃ samayasthena cāgnija nihato namuciḥ pūrvaṃ sodaro 'pi mamānujaḥ
Hearing the boy’s words, Śakra—pondering within his heart—said to the great sage: “You are not speaking wisely to me; for what reason? Listen to the statement formerly spoken by Hari. ‘In the śāstras it is settled: one should not kill many for the sake of one. One may kill one for the sake of many; by that he does not become sinful.’ Having heard this earlier, and abiding by the agreed condition, I formerly slew Namuci, O son of Fire; and earlier still, even my own younger brother.”
{ "primaryRasa": "shanta", "secondaryRasa": "vira", "rasaIntensity": 0, "emotionalArcPosition": "", "moodDescriptors": [] }
FAQs
It is a dharma-śāstra style proportionality rule: violence is condemned when it sacrifices the many for a private end, but it can be permitted when narrowly directed against a single aggressor to protect the many. The text frames this as a settled śāstric conclusion and as Hari’s prior teaching.
Namuci functions as a precedent case: Indra claims he previously killed Namuci while ‘abiding by the condition’ (samaya-stha), echoing the well-known motif that Namuci could not be slain by ‘wet or dry’ (or by day/night), prompting a conditional/technical solution. The Purāṇic point is that even demon-slaying must be made dharmically defensible through agreed constraints.
Not necessarily from the excerpt alone. ‘Agnija’ literally means ‘born of Agni/son of Fire’ and can be used as an epithet for Skanda, but it may also be a respectful address to a figure associated with Agni-lineage or fire-ritual context. Without the surrounding verses naming the interlocutor, the safest metadata is: an epithet invoking Agni, with Skanda as a possible (but not certain) identification.