Shloka 22
Purohita-Niyoga and the Brahma–Kṣatra Concord
Aila–Kaśyapa Saṃvāda
ऐल उवाच यदि दण्ड: स्पृशते5पुण्यपापं पापै: पापे क्रियमाणे विशेषात् । कस्य हेतो: सुकृतं नाम कुर्याद् दुष्कृतं वा कस्य हेतोर्न कुर्यात्,पुरूरवाने पूछा--यदि पापियोंद्वारा विशेषरूपसे पाप और पुण्यात्माओंद्वारा विशेषरूपसे पुण्य किये जानेपर पुण्य-पापसे रहित आत्माको भी दण्ड भोगना पड़ता है, तब किसलिये कोई पुण्य करे और किसलिये पाप न करे?
aila uvāca yadi daṇḍaḥ spṛśate ’puṇyapāpaṃ pāpaiḥ pāpe kriyamāṇe viśeṣāt | kasya hetoḥ sukṛtaṃ nāma kuryād duṣkṛtaṃ vā kasya hetoḥ na kuryāt ||
ഐലൻ (പുരൂരവൻ) ചോദിച്ചു—പാപികൾ പ്രത്യേകമായി പാപം ചെയ്യുമ്പോഴും, പുണ്യപാപങ്ങൾക്ക് അതീതനായ ആത്മാവിനെയും ദണ്ഡം സ്പർശിക്കുന്നുവെങ്കിൽ, പിന്നെ എന്തിനാണ് ആരെങ്കിലും സുകൃതം ചെയ്യേണ്ടത്? എന്തിനാണ് ദുഷ്കൃത്യം ഒഴിവാക്കേണ്ടത്?
ऐल उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames a classic ethical problem: if the results of punishment or suffering appear to strike even those who are not responsible (or who are beyond merit and sin), then the rational basis for choosing dharma (good action) over adharma (evil action) seems undermined. The passage functions as a challenge that later reasoning must answer—typically by clarifying how daṇḍa, karma, social order, and unseen causality operate, and why moral restraint remains meaningful.
Purūravas (Aila) voices a pointed doubt in a dialogue on dharma: he observes (or hypothesizes) that punishment can ‘touch’ even the blameless or transcendent, especially amid wrongdoing by sinners, and he asks why anyone should pursue merit or avoid sin under such conditions. This sets up a response about the logic of justice, responsibility, and the moral order.