Shloka 19
Dambhodbhava, Nara-Nārāyaṇa, and the Counsel to Abandon Hubris
Udyoga-parva 94
यत्र भीष्मश्न द्रोणश्न॒ कृप: कर्णो विविंशति: । अश्रत्थामा विकर्णश्न॒ सोमदत्तो5थ बाह्विक:,भरतश्रेष्ठ! जिस पक्षमें भीष्म, द्रोणाचार्य, कृपाचार्य, कर्ण, विविंशति, अअश्वत्थामा, विकर्ण, सोमदत्त, बाह्लिक, सिन्धुराज जयद्रथ, कलिंगराज, काम्बोजनरेश सुदक्षिण तथा युधिष्ठिर, भीमसेन, अर्जुन, नकुल-सहदेव, महातेजस्वी सात्यकि तथा महारथी युयुत्सु हों; उस पक्षके योद्धाओंसे कौन विपरीत बुद्धिवाला राजा युद्ध कर सकता है?
yatra bhīṣmaś ca droṇaś ca kṛpaḥ karṇo viviṁśatiḥ | aśvatthāmā vikarṇaś ca somadatto 'tha bāhlikaḥ ||
Sinabi ni Vaiśampāyana: “O pinakadakila sa angkan ni Bharata! Sa panig na kinaroroonan nina Bhīṣma at Droṇa, kasama sina Kṛpa, Karṇa, Viviṁśati, Aśvatthāmā, Vikarṇa, Somadatta, at Bāhlika—sinong haring may baluktot na paghatol ang pipiling makidigma laban sa mga mandirigmang ganyan ang dangal?”
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse highlights the ethical and practical irrationality of initiating war against a side strengthened by eminent elders and master-warriors. It implies that such a choice reflects distorted judgment (viparīta-buddhi), where pride and attachment override dharma-informed counsel.
Vaiśampāyana enumerates leading Kuru-side champions—Bhīṣma, Droṇa, and others—to emphasize the overwhelming martial authority present on that side. The rhetorical question frames the impending conflict as a consequence of misguided royal decision-making rather than necessity.