Shloka 333
अवध्यत्वाच्च पाण्डूनां स्त्रीभावाच्च शिखण्डिन: । “भगवान् सम्पूर्ण लोकोंके लिये अजेय हैं; ऐसा मेरा विश्वास है। इस समय मैं दो कारणोंका आश्रय लेकर पाण्डवोंसे युद्ध नहीं करूँगा। एक तो ये पाण्डुकी संतान होनेके कारण मेरे लिये अवध्य हैं और दूसरे मेरे सामने शिखण्डी आ गया है, जो पहले स्त्री था
avadhyatvācca pāṇḍūnāṃ strībhāvācca śikhaṇḍinaḥ | “bhagavān sampūrṇa-lokebhyo 'jeyaḥ; iti me viśvāsaḥ | asmin kāle ahaṃ dvābhyāṃ kāraṇābhyām āśritya pāṇḍavaiḥ saha yuddhaṃ na kariṣyāmi | ekaṃ tu ete pāṇḍu-kī-santānāḥ mama avadhyāḥ, dvitīyaṃ ca mama purataḥ śikhaṇḍī āgataḥ, yaḥ pūrvaṃ strī āsīt”
Sañjaya said: “Because the sons of Pāṇḍu are not to be slain by me, and because Śikhaṇḍin was once a woman, I hold this conviction: the Lord is unconquerable for all the worlds. At this moment, taking refuge in these two reasons, I will not fight the Pāṇḍavas. First, as Pāṇḍu’s descendants they are inviolable to me; and second, Śikhaṇḍin stands before me—one who formerly had a woman’s state.”
संजय उवाच
Educational Q&A
Even amid war, dharma is constrained by vows and moral limits: one must not strike those deemed ‘avadhya’ (not to be slain), and personal ethical commitments can override tactical advantage. The passage also frames events under a higher divine order—‘the Lord is unconquerable’—suggesting that human outcomes ultimately unfold within a larger providential sovereignty.
The speaker reports a refusal to engage the Pāṇḍavas in combat at that moment, citing two reasons: the Pāṇḍavas are regarded as inviolable to him because they are Pāṇḍu’s sons, and Śikhaṇḍin—who was formerly female—stands before him, triggering a moral restraint against fighting. This sets up a key battlefield dynamic where Śikhaṇḍin’s presence affects a great warrior’s willingness to fight.