Shloka 36
Adhyāya 196: Droṇa’s Conciliatory Counsel and Karṇa’s Suspicion of Counsel (मन्त्र-नय-विवादः)
कथं हि स्त्री कर्मणा ते महीतलात् समुत्तिछेदन्यतो दैवयोगात् । यस्या रूप॑ सोमसूर्यप्रकाशं गन्धश्चास्या: क्रोशमात्रात् प्रवाति,राजन! इस प्रकार ये पाण्डव प्रकट हुए हैं, जो पहले इन्द्र रह चुके हैं। यह दिव्यरूपा द्रौपदी वही स्वर्गलोककी लक्ष्मी है, जो पहलेसे ही इनकी पत्नी नियत हो चुकी है। महाराज! यदि इस कार्यमें देवताओंका सहयोग न होता तो तुम्हारे इस यज्ञकर्मद्वारा यज्ञवेदीकी भूमिसे ऐसी दिव्य नारी कैसे प्रकट हो सकती थी, जिसका रूप सूर्य और चन्द्रमाके समान प्रकाश बिखेर रहा है और जिसकी सुगन्ध एक कोसतक फैलती रहती है
kathaṁ hi strī karmaṇā te mahītalāt samuttiṣed anyato daivayogāt | yasyā rūpaṁ somasūryaprakāśaṁ gandhaś cāsyāḥ krośamātrāt pravāti, rājan ||
Vyāsa disse: “Ó rei, como poderia uma mulher assim surgir da terra por tua ação ritual, se não fosse por outra causa—pela conjunção do destino divino? Sua beleza brilha com o fulgor da lua e do sol, e sua fragrância se espalha por um krośa inteiro. Sabe, pois, que esta manifestação não é apenas fruto do esforço humano, mas a obra dos deuses e do destino por trás do rito.”
व्यास उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse contrasts human ritual effort with divine causality: extraordinary outcomes—especially those marked by superhuman signs—are presented as arising through daivayoga (destiny/divine arrangement), not merely through personal agency. It encourages humility about ritual power and recognition of a larger moral-cosmic order guiding events.
Vyāsa addresses the king and points to the wondrous signs of the woman’s manifestation—radiant beauty like sun and moon, fragrance spreading for a krośa—to argue that her appearance from the earth/altar-ground cannot be explained by the king’s rite alone; it must be supported by divine destiny, aligning with the surrounding account of Draupadī’s miraculous emergence.