Shloka 3
Udyoga-parva Adhyāya 27 — Saṃjaya’s Counsel on Dharma, Desire, and the Non-Perishing of Karma
एवं तथैवापदि लिड्रमेतद् धर्माधर्मो नित्यवृत्ती भजेताम् । आट्यं लिड्रं यस्य तस्य प्रमाण- मापद्धर्म संजय तं निबोध
evaṃ tathaivāpadi liṅgam etad dharmādharmau nityavṛttī bhajetām | āryaṃ liṅgaṃ yasya tasya pramāṇam āpaddharmaṃ saṃjaya taṃ nibodha ||
Yudhiṣṭhira said: “So too, in times of calamity, these very distinguishing marks of the social orders operate: what is ‘dharma’ for one order becomes ‘adharma’ for another. Though dharma and adharma are ordinarily fixed in their proper spheres, in distress they may appear to take on the features of other orders. Yet the defining mark that properly belongs to a person’s own station remains the true standard for that person. Therefore, Saṃjaya, understand from authoritative teaching what ‘āpaddharma’ (duty in crisis) really is.”
युधिछिर उवाच
Educational Q&A
Dharma is normally defined by stable role-based standards, but in emergencies (āpada) conduct can appear to shift; still, one’s own defining duty remains the primary measure, and ‘āpaddharma’ must be understood through authoritative guidance rather than convenience.
In the Udyoga Parva’s deliberative context, Yudhiṣṭhira addresses Saṃjaya and reflects on how moral duty is judged—especially under crisis—distinguishing ordinary varṇa-marks from emergency ethics and urging a principled understanding of āpaddharma.