त॑ गत्वा दशतां कश्चिद् भुजड़: स मरिष्यति । तस्मिन् मृते यज्ञकारे क्रतु:ः स न भविष्यति,“अथवा जो उस यज्ञके आचार्य होंगे, जिन्हें सर्पयज्ञकी विधिका ज्ञान हो और जो राजाके कार्य एवं हितमें लगे रहते हों, उन्हें कोई सर्प जाकर डँस ले। फिर वे मर जायाँगे। यज्ञ करानेवाले आचार्यके मर जानेपर वह यज्ञ अपने-आप बंद हो जायगा
taṁ gatvā daśatāṁ kaścid bhujaṅgaḥ sa mariṣyati | tasmin mṛte yajñakāre kratuḥ sa na bhaviṣyati ||
Śeṣa said: “Let some serpent go and bite him; he will die. When that officiating priest (the performer of the sacrifice) is dead, that sacrificial rite will not proceed—indeed, the sacrifice will come to a halt.” The counsel underscores a grim tactic: to stop a harmful undertaking, strike at the knowledgeable agent who sustains it, rather than at the rite itself.
शेष उवाच
The verse highlights the dependence of ritual action on competent human agency: when the knowledgeable officiant is removed, the rite collapses. Ethically, it also exposes a darker logic—seeking to end a feared or harmful enterprise by targeting its enabler—inviting reflection on means versus ends (dharma versus expediency).
Śeṣa proposes a concrete countermeasure: have a serpent bite and kill the priest who is conducting (or will conduct) the sacrifice; once the yajñakāra dies, the kratu (sacrificial performance) cannot continue and will cease.