Shloka 4
Ādi Parva, Adhyāya 180 — Svayaṃvara-Virodha and Pāṇḍava Parākrama
Draupadī Episode
अशिष्टानां नियन्ता हि शिष्टानां परिरक्षिता । स्थाने रोष: प्रयुक्त: स्यान्नूपै: सर्वजिगीषुभि:
aurva uvāca |
aśiṣṭānāṁ niyantā hi śiṣṭānāṁ parirakṣitā |
sthāne roṣaḥ prayuktaḥ syān nṛpaiḥ sarvajigīṣubhiḥ ||
na hi taṁ vārayāmāsa vasiṣṭho rakṣasāṁ vadhāt |
dvitīyām asya mā bhāḍukṣa pratijñām iti niścayāt ||
ອູຣະວະ ກ່າວວ່າ: «ຄວາມໂກດເມື່ອນໍາໃຊ້ໃນເວລາອັນສົມຄວນ—ໂດຍສະເພາະສໍາລັບກະສັດຜູ້ປາຖະໜາຊະນະທົ່ວທັງ—ຈະເປັນເຄື່ອງຂັດຂວາງຜູ້ບໍ່ມີລະບຽບ ແລະເປັນເກາະປ້ອງກັນຜູ້ມີວິໄນແລະຜູ້ຊອບທໍາ.» ດັ່ງນັ້ນ ວະສິດຖະ ຈຶ່ງບໍ່ໄດ້ຫ້າມເຂົາຈາກການຂ້າພວກຣາກຊະສະ ເພາະໄດ້ຕັ້ງໃຈວ່າ: «ຂໍຢ່າໃຫ້ຂ້ອຍເຮັດໃຫ້ຄໍາປະຕິຍານຄັ້ງທີສອງຂອງເຂົາແຕກຫັກ.»
ऑर्व उवाच
Educational Q&A
Anger is not inherently condemned; when governed by dharma and used at the right time, it functions as legitimate royal force—restraining the wicked and safeguarding the righteous—while fidelity to vows remains a binding ethical constraint.
Aurva explains why Vasiṣṭha did not stop the slaying of the rākṣasas: Vasiṣṭha judged the action as timely and protective, and he also chose not to interfere in a way that would make the agent violate a second solemn vow.