अध्याय १ — न्यग्रोधवनोपवेशनम् तथा द्रौणिनिश्चयः
Night at the Banyan and Drauṇi’s Resolve
तं जना बहु मन्यन्ते ये च शास्त्रविशारदा: । “यदि छलसे काम लूँ तो अवश्य मेरे अभीष्ट मनोरथकी सिद्धि हो सकती है। शत्रुओंका महान् संहार भी तभी सम्भव होगा। जहाँ सिद्धि मिलनेमें संदेह हो
taṁ janā bahu manyante ye ca śāstraviśāradāḥ | yadi chalase kāma lūṁ to avaśya mama abhīṣṭa-manorathasya siddhiḥ śakyā | śatrūṇāṁ mahān saṁhāro 'pi tadaiva sambhavaḥ | yatra siddhi-lābhe saṁśayaḥ syāt, tasyāpekṣayā tad-upāyasyāvalambanaṁ śreyaḥ yatra saṁśayāya sthānaṁ na syāt | sādhāraṇā janāḥ śāstrajñāś ca tam eva adhikaṁ ādaraṁ kurvanti || yac cāpy atra bhaved vācyaṁ garhitaṁ lokaninditam
Sañjaya disse: “Muitos, inclusive os versados nos tratados, sustentam esta opinião: ‘Se eu recorrer ao engano para cumprir meu intento, o propósito que desejo poderá certamente ser alcançado. Só então será possível realizar um grande morticínio dos inimigos. Quando há dúvida quanto a obter êxito, é melhor adotar o meio em que não haja lugar para a incerteza. Tanto o povo comum quanto as autoridades eruditas mostram maior respeito por tal caminho.’ E, no entanto, neste assunto, tudo o que possa ser dito como censurável e condenado pelo mundo…”
संजय उवाच
The verse highlights a tension between pragmatic success and moral legitimacy: many—both common people and learned authorities—may endorse a sure means to victory (even deception), yet such speech or conduct can still be blameworthy and socially condemned. It frames the ethical problem of choosing effective strategy versus righteous conduct.
Sañjaya reports a line of reasoning that justifies adopting deception as a reliable strategy to achieve one’s objective and destroy enemies, emphasizing certainty of success. The verse then pivots toward the counterpoint—acknowledging that what is said or done here may be censured and condemned—setting up the moral scrutiny surrounding the actions in the Sauptika episode.