Shloka 39
वालिवधः — Vālī’s Fall and Dharma-Accusation
Kiṣkindhā Sarga 17
चर्म चास्थि च मे राजन् नस्पृशन्ति मनीषिणः।।अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि सोऽहं पञ्चनखो हतः।
carma cāsthi ca me rājan na spṛśanti manīṣiṇaḥ | abhakṣyāṇi ca māṃsāni so 'haṃ pañcanakho hataḥ ||
O hari, ni hindi man lamang hinahawakan ng marurunong ang aking balat o mga buto; at ang aking laman ay hindi nararapat kainin—ngunit ako, isang nilalang na may limang kuko, ay napatay.
'O king! the learned do not even touch my skin or bone. They do not eat my flesh. While it is so, you have unnecessarily killed me, a five-nailed animal.
FAQs
Dharma demands proper grounds for violence; Vāli argues that killing without a legitimate purpose (such as sanctioned use) is ethically blameworthy.
Vāli concludes his dietary/hunting argument: since his body is not used by the righteous, the killing appears unjustified.
Non-violence constrained by necessity—violence must be justified, limited, and aligned with dharma.