Shloka 4
Ādi Parva, Adhyāya 180 — Svayaṃvara-Virodha and Pāṇḍava Parākrama
Draupadī Episode
अशिष्टानां नियन्ता हि शिष्टानां परिरक्षिता । स्थाने रोष: प्रयुक्त: स्यान्नूपै: सर्वजिगीषुभि:,सबको जीतनेकी इच्छा रखनेवाले राजाओंद्वारा उचित अवसरपर प्रयोगमें लाया हुआ रोष दुष्टोंका दमन और साधु पुरुषोंकी रक्षा करनेवाला हो न हि तं वारयामास वसिष्ठो रक्षसां वधात् । द्वितीयामस्य मा भाडुक्ष॑ प्रतिज्ञामिति निश्चयात् उस समय महर्षि वसिष्ठने यह सोचकर कि इसकी दूसरी प्रतिज्ञाको न तोड़ूँ, उन्हें राक्षसोंके वधसे नहीं रोका
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 ||
Ūrva disse: “A ira, quando aplicada no tempo devido, torna-se—sobretudo para reis que desejam vencer a todos—freio para os indóceis e proteção para os disciplinados e justos.” Por isso Vasiṣṭha não o conteve de matar os rākṣasas, decidido: “Que eu não seja causa de se quebrar o seu segundo voto.”
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.