Shloka 15
पाण्डोः प्रेतकार्य-सम्पादनम्
Pāṇḍu’s Funeral Rites and Public Mourning
प्रमाणदृष्टधर्भेण कथमस्मान् विगर्हसे । अगस्त्यस्याभिचारेण युष्माकं॑ विहितो वध:,महर्षि अगस्त्य एक सत्रमें दीक्षित थे, तब उन्होंने भी मृगया की थी। सभी देवताओंके हितके लिये उन्होंने सत्रमें विघ्न करनेवाले पशुओंको महान् वनमें खदेड़ दिया था। अगस्त्य ऋषिके उक्त हिंसाकर्मके अनुसार (मुझ क्षत्रियके लिये तो) तुम्हारा वध करना ही उचित है। मैं प्रमाणसिद्ध धर्मके अनुकूल बर्ताव करता हूँ, तो भी तुम क्यों मेरी निन्दा करते हो?
pramāṇadṛṣṭadharbhena katham asmān vigarhase | agastyasyābhicāreṇa yuṣmākaṁ vihito vadhaḥ ||
The deer said: “How can you condemn us when we act in accordance with a dharma established by valid authority and precedent? By the precedent of Agastya’s own action, your death has been ordained. For the welfare of the gods, the great sage Agastya—though consecrated for a sacrificial session—once engaged in the hunt and drove away the animals that were obstructing the rite into the great forest. In keeping with that sanctioned act of violence, it is proper for me, a kṣatriya, to slay you. If I am behaving in line with a dharma proven by authoritative example, why do you still censure me?”
मृग उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse foregrounds a classic Mahābhārata ethical tension: actions—especially violent ones—are defended by appealing to pramāṇa (authoritative sources) and dṛṣṭānta (precedent). It questions whether citing a revered sage’s exceptional act can automatically legitimize similar violence, and highlights how ‘dharma’ is argued through authority, context, and role-duty.
A deer speaks in self-defense (and counter-accusation), arguing that killing is justified because Agastya, even while consecrated for a sacrificial session, once hunted or drove away animals that obstructed the sacrifice for the gods’ benefit. Using that precedent, the deer claims the interlocutor’s death is ‘ordained’ and asks why it is being criticized despite acting according to an established dharma.