राजधर्मः, दण्डनीतिः, कर्तृत्व-विचारः च
Royal Duty, Lawful Discipline, and the Question of Agency
ईश्वरेण नियुक्तो हि साध्वसाधु च भारत । कुरुते पुरुष: कर्म फलमीश्वरगामि तत्,(१) भारत! यदि प्रेरक ईश्वरको कर्ता माना जाय तब तो यही कहना पड़ेगा कि ईश्वरसे प्रेरित होकर ही मनुष्य शुभ या अशुभ कर्म करता है; अतः उसका फल भी ईश्वरको ही मिलना चाहिये
īśvareṇa niyukto hi sādhv-asādhu ca bhārata | kurute puruṣaḥ karma phalam īśvara-gāmi tat ||
Вьяса сказал: «О Бхарата, если человек поистине побуждаем Господом, то и добро, и зло он совершает лишь по божественному побуждению; и тогда плод этих деяний должен был бы принадлежать самому Господу».
व्यास उवाच
The verse argues that if God is taken as the direct instigator of human actions, then moral agency shifts away from the person; consequently, the results (phala) of both good and evil deeds would logically belong to God. This is a critique of attributing all human action to divine compulsion, and it implicitly defends human responsibility in karma.
In the Śānti Parva’s reflective discourse on dharma and conduct, Vyāsa presents a philosophical point to the addressed Bhārata: he frames a logical consequence of the claim that God is the doer/impeller of human deeds, highlighting the ethical problem that would follow regarding ownership of karmic results.