Shloka 37
वालिवधः — Vālī’s Fall and Dharma-Accusation
Kiṣkindhā Sarga 17
अधार्यं चर्म मे सद्भी रोमाण्यस्थि च वर्जितम्।अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि त्वद्विधैर्धर्मचारिभिः।।
adhāryaṃ carma me sadbhi romāṇy asthi ca varjitam | abhakṣyāṇi ca māṃsāni tvadvidhair dharmacāribhiḥ ||
Tấm da của ta, người hiền đức không nên mặc; lông của ta, cho đến cả xương cốt, cũng bị cấm dùng. Thịt ta nữa, đối với những bậc hành trì Chánh pháp như ngài, cũng không đáng ăn.
'My skin is not fit to be worn by the virtuous, my hair and bones are also prohibited from any use. My flesh is also not at all fit to be eaten by righteous people like you;
FAQs
Dharma is tied to regulated conduct: even where killing animals might be allowed in some contexts, the use/consumption must follow prescribed norms; Vāli argues his killing yields no dharmic purpose.
Vāli claims that as a ‘pañcanakha’ creature his body is not meant for righteous use (wearing/eating), so Rāma’s killing cannot be justified as lawful hunting.
Adherence to rule-bound righteousness—acting with knowledge of what is permitted (vihita) and forbidden (niṣiddha).