Shloka 27
Nara-Nārāyaṇa Precedent and Bhīṣma’s Counsel on Kṛṣṇa–Arjuna; Karṇa’s Reply
त्रयाणामेव च मतं तत् त्वमेको5नुमन्यसे । रामेण चैव शप्तस्य कर्णस्य भरतर्षभ,भरतश्रेष्ठ! एक तुम्हीं ऐसे हो, जो कि परशुरामजीके द्वारा अभिशप्त खोटी जातिवाले सूतपुत्र कर्ण एवं सुबलपुत्र शकुनि तथा अपने नीच एवं पापात्मा भाई दुःशासन--इन तीनोंके मतका अनुमोदन एवं अनुसरण करते हो
trayāṇām eva ca mataṃ tat tvam eko 'numanyase | rāmeṇa caiva śaptasya karṇasya bharatarṣabha ||
毗湿摩波耶那说道：“噢，婆罗多族中的雄牛啊，唯有你一人赞同那三人的主张——尤其是迦尔纳的主张；他曾被罗摩（帕罗修罗摩）所诅咒。”此句责难的是一种有意的道德选择：不去听从更为明智、合乎达摩的劝言，反而与一小撮被指为可责之徒结盟，其指引被描绘为败德而招致毁灭。
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
Moral accountability in choosing whose counsel to follow: endorsing the advice of a small, ethically suspect group is portrayed as a conscious deviation from dharma, with grave consequences.
Vaiśaṃpāyana narrates a rebuke addressed to a Bharata prince/leader: he is singled out as the only one who supports the ‘view of the three,’ highlighting his alignment with Karṇa (noted here as cursed by Paraśurāma) and implying a broader pattern of siding with harmful counsel.