Shloka 67
Āṇīmāṇḍavya–Upākhyāna
The Account of Āṇīmāṇḍavya and the Birth of Vidura
अनपत्यतैकपुत्रत्वमित्याहुर्धर्मवादिन: । (चक्षुरेकं च पुत्रश्न अस्ति नास्ति च भारत । चक्षुर्नाशे तनोरनाश: पुत्रनाशे कुलक्षय: ।।) अन्निहोत्रं त्रयीविद्यासंतानमपि चाक्षयम्
anapatyatā ekaputratvam ity āhur dharmavādinaḥ | (cakṣur ekaṃ ca putraś ca asti nāsti ca bhārata | cakṣur nāśe tanor anāśaḥ putranāśe kula-kṣayaḥ ||) agnihotraṃ trayī-vidyā santānam api cākṣayam
Dijo Vaiśampāyana: Los expositores del dharma declaran que la falta de hijos es como tener un solo hijo. Pues, oh Bhārata, el ojo y el hijo son, en cierto sentido, a la vez “presentes y ausentes”: si se pierde un ojo, el cuerpo aún permanece; pero si se pierde un hijo, la estirpe misma se arruina. Por ello, el rito del Agnihotra, el conocimiento de los tres Vedas y la descendencia se proclaman como apoyos imperecederos: medios por los cuales perduran la continuidad y el deber del cabeza de familia.
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse teaches that the continuity of lineage is a major dharmic concern: losing a son threatens the very survival of the family line, whereas losing an eye does not end the body. Hence progeny, along with Vedic learning and daily ritual (Agnihotra), is treated as an enduring pillar of household dharma.
Vaiśampāyana reports a traditional dharma-based reflection, addressing a ‘Bhārata’ listener, to emphasize why elders equate childlessness with having only one son and why they praise ritual, Vedic knowledge, and progeny as lasting supports for a family’s continuity.