Shloka 53
Udyoga-parva Adhyāya 28: Dharmādharmalakṣaṇa in Āpad
Crisis-Discernment of Right and Wrong
दुर्योधन क्रोधमय विशाल वृक्षके समान है, कर्ण उस वृक्षका स्कन्ध, शकुनि शाखा और दुःशासन समृद्ध फल-पुष्प है। अज्ञानी राजा धृतराष्ट्र ही इसके मूल (जड़) हैं |। युधिष्ठिरो धर्ममयो महाद्रुम: स्कन्धो<र्जुनो भीमसेनो5स्य शाखा: । माद्रीपुत्रौ पुष्पफले समृद्धे मूलं त्वहं ब्रह्म च ब्राह्मणाश्न,युधिष्ठिर धर्ममय विशाल वृक्ष हैं। अर्जुन (उस वृक्षके) स्कन्ध, भीमसेन शाखा और माद्रीनन्दन नकुल-सहदेव इसके समृद्ध फल-पुष्प हैं। मैं, वेद और ब्राह्मण ही इस वृक्षके मूल (जड़) हैं
duryodhano krodhamayo mahādrumaḥ karṇaḥ skandhaḥ śakuniḥ śākhā duḥśāsanaḥ samṛddha-phala-puṣpaḥ | ajñāno rājā dhṛtarāṣṭra eva mūlaṃ || yudhiṣṭhiro dharmamayo mahādrumaḥ skandho 'rjuno bhīmasenasya śākhāḥ | mādrīputrau puṣphaphale samṛddhe mūlaṃ tv ahaṃ brahma ca brāhmaṇāś ca ||
Wika ni Vāyu: “Si Duryodhana ay tulad ng isang napakalaking punong hinubog ng poot; si Karṇa ang punò (punong-kahoy), si Śakuni ang sanga, at si Duḥśāsana ang masaganang bulaklak at bunga. Ang mangmang na haring Dhṛtarāṣṭra ang mismong ugat nito. Ngunit si Yudhiṣṭhira ay isang dakilang punong binuo ng dharma; si Arjuna ang punò, si Bhīmasena ang mga sanga, at ang mga anak ni Mādrī (Nakula at Sahadeva) ang mayamang pamumulaklak at pamumunga. Ang ugat ng punong iyon ay ako (Vāyu), kasama ang Veda, ang Brahman, at ang mga Brāhmaṇa.”
वायुदेव उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse contrasts two moral lineages through a tree-metaphor: one rooted in ignorance and anger (leading to destructive outcomes), and the other rooted in dharma and Vedic order (supporting righteous strength and flourishing). It implies that a ruler’s inner disposition and foundational counsel determine the ‘fruit’ borne by his house.
Vāyudeva speaks in Udyoga Parva while moral and political tensions are escalating toward war. He characterizes the Kaurava faction as a wrath-driven structure sustained by Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s blindness/ignorance, and the Pāṇḍavas as a dharma-driven structure supported by sacred authority (Veda, Brahman, Brāhmaṇas), highlighting why their causes diverge ethically.