Shloka 27
तथा मायां प्रयुड्चानमसहां ब्राह्मणब्रुवम् । माययैव विहन्याद् यो न युक्तं पार्थ तत्र किम्,कुन्तीनन्दन! जो ब्राह्मण कहलाकर भी दूसरोंके लिये मायाका प्रयोग करता हो और असहा हो उठा हो, उसे यदि कोई मायासे ही मार डाले तो इसमें अनुचित क्या है?
tathā māyāṃ prayuñjānam asahāṃ brāhmaṇabruvam | māyayāiva vihanyād yo na yuktaṃ pārtha tatra kim, kuntīnandana |
Dhṛṣṭadyumna said: 'If someone, though calling himself a brāhmaṇa, employs deceitful illusion against others and is intolerant and aggressive, then what impropriety is there, O Pārtha, O son of Kuntī, if he is struck down by illusion in return? When deception is chosen as a weapon, meeting it with the same becomes, in this context of war, a justified response.'
धष्टहुम्न उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse argues a principle of contextual ethics in warfare: when an opponent adopts deceit (māyā) and violates the expected conduct associated with a brāhmaṇa, countering him with the same stratagem is presented as not improper. It highlights reciprocity and the erosion of moral claims when one weaponizes deception.
Dhṛṣṭadyumna addresses Arjuna, justifying the idea that a person who claims brāhmaṇa status yet uses māyā against others may rightly be slain through māyā in return. The statement supports a tactical-ethical rationale within the escalating, rule-bending conditions of the Kurukṣetra war.