Shloka 4
Kośa, Bala, and Maryādā: Treasury, Capacity, and Enforceable Limits (कोश-बल-मर्यादा)
असंविहितराष्ट्स्य देशकालावजानत: । अप्राप्यं च भवेत् सान्त्वं भेदो वाप्पतिपीडनात् । जीवित त्वर्थहेतुर्वा तत्र कि सुकृतं भवेत्
asaṁvihita-rāṣṭrasya deśa-kālāvajānataḥ | aprāpyaṁ ca bhavet sāntvaṁ bhedo vā pīḍanāt | jīvita-tv-artha-hetur vā tatra kiṁ sukṛtaṁ bhavet ||
玉提士提罗说道：“对于那未能守护国土、又不知地利时机之人；对于那因遭极端压迫而连怀柔之策、离间之策都无法施行之人——究竟何道才算真正正确？他应当力保性命，还是应当保全财富之资？在此境地，何种作为才更善、更合乎达摩？”
युधिछिर उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames an ethical dilemma in rājadharma: when governance has failed and standard diplomatic tools (conciliation and division) are no longer workable due to severe oppression, one must discern what truly counts as ‘sukṛta’—the most right and welfare-producing action—balancing survival (jīvita) against material means and state-interest (artha).
In Śānti Parva’s discourse on kingship and conduct, Yudhiṣṭhira raises a practical question about policy under extreme duress: if a ruler has lost control and cannot apply sāma or bheda, should he prioritize protecting life or securing resources, and which choice is ethically preferable.