Shloka 17
राजधर्मः, दण्डनीतिः, कर्तृत्व-विचारः च
Royal Duty, Lawful Discipline, and the Question of Agency
अथापि पुरुष: कर्ता कर्मणो: शुभपापयो: । न परो विद्यते तस्मादेवमेतच्छुभं कृतम्,(२) यदि कहो पुण्य और पापकर्मोंका कर्ता उसे करनेवाला पुरुष ही है, दूसरा कोई (ईश्वर) नहीं तो ऐसा माननेपर भी तुमने यह शुभ कर्म ही किया है; क्योंकि तुम्हारे द्वारा पापियों और उनके समर्थकोंका ही वध हुआ है, इसके सिवा, उनके प्रारब्धका फल ही उन्हें इस रूपमें मिला है तुम तो निमित्तमात्र हो
athāpi puruṣaḥ kartā karmaṇoḥ śubhapāpayoḥ | na paro vidyate tasmād evam etac chubhaṃ kṛtam ||
Vyāsa disse: “Mesmo que se sustente que o indivíduo, e somente ele, é o autor das ações —meritórias e pecaminosas— e que não há outro agente (como Deus) além dele, ainda assim, neste caso, realizaste um feito justo. Pois os que foram mortos eram pecadores e apoiadores de pecadores; e, ademais, o que lhes sobreveio dessa forma foi apenas a frutificação do próprio karma passado, já destinado. Tu foste apenas a causa instrumental.”
व्यास उवाच
Educational Q&A
Even under a view that denies a separate divine agent and treats the individual as the sole doer, moral evaluation still applies: the act can be righteous when it removes wrongdoers, while the slain also receive the fruition of their own past karma; the warrior functions as an instrument in that unfolding.
Vyāsa addresses a moral doubt about responsibility for killing in conflict. He reassures the listener that the deed was auspicious because the targets were sinners and their allies, and because their fate corresponded to their own karmic destiny, with the killer serving as a mere instrument.