na hi duṣṭoʾasti yaḥ kasyaciddveṣī na ca tuṣyati kasyacit | sa vṛkṣaḥ phalavānnaiva vṛkṣo duṣṭphalodayḥ ||
“A tree does not become bad because it is envious of someone or does not delight someone; it only becomes bad if it yields bad fruit.”
Structure
na hi duṣṭo asti yaḥ kasyacit dveṣī na ca tuṣyati kasyacit sa vṛkṣaḥ phala vā nnaiva vṛkṣaḥ duṣṭa-phala-udayaḥ
na hi (not indeed) duṣṭo (evil) asti (is) yaḥ (who) kasyacit (anyone's) dveṣī (enemy) na ca (and not) kasyacit (anyone's) tuṣyati (is pleased) saḥ (that) vṛkṣaḥ (tree) naiva (not) phala-vān (bearing good fruit) vṛkṣaḥ (tree) duṣṭa (bad) phala (fruit) udayaḥ (produces)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| hi | hi | indeclinable | — | for, indeed |
| duṣṭo | duṣṭaḥ | verb | √duṣ · past participle · third | corrupted, wicked |
| asti | asti | verb | √as · present · third | is |
| yaḥ | yaḥ | pronoun | nominative · singular · masculine | who |
| kasyacit | kasyacit | pronoun | genitive · singular · masculine | of someone |
| dveṣī | dveṣī | verb | √dviṣ · present · first | hates |
| na | na | indeclinable | — | not |
| ca | ca | indeclinable | — | and |
| tuṣyati | tuṣyati | verb | √tuṣ · present · third | is pleased |
| kasyacit | kasyacit | pronoun | genitive · singular · masculine | of someone |
| sa | saḥ | pronoun | nominative · singular · masculine | that |
| vṛkṣaḥ | vṛkṣaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | tree |
| phala | phala | noun | accusative · plural · neuter | fruits |
| vā | vā | indeclinable | — | or |
| nnaiva | naiva | indeclinable | — | not at all |
| vṛkṣaḥ | vṛkṣaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | tree |
| duṣṭa | duṣṭa | verb | √duṣ · past participle · third | corrupted |
| phala | phala | noun | nominative · singular · neuter | fruit |
| udayaḥ | udayaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | production, yield |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): This verse underscores the non-dual nature of reality, where the ultimate identity of the self (ātman) and the absolute (brahman) is beyond the realm of duality and action. According to Shankara, actions and their consequences (karma) are confined to the empirical realm, whereas the essential nature of the self remains untouched by such worldly considerations. The tree analogy highlights that true worth is not measured by external actions or reactions but by the inherent quality it embodies, much like the self's inherent freedom from the vicissitudes of the external world. In his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Shankara emphasizes that it is not the actions or their fruits that define the self, but rather the understanding of one's true nature that leads to liberation. This verse, in the context of Advaita, points to the irrelevance of external judgments and the importance of self-realization, aligning with Shankara's teaching that the ultimate reality is beyond human conceptions of good or bad.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava tradition, particularly through Rāmānujācārya, views this verse as emphasizing the importance of intent and purpose behind actions, as these are what truly define an individual's character. Ramanuja would interpret the 'fruit' of the tree as symbolic of the results of one's actions, driven by devotion (bhakti) to the divine. The tree that yields bad fruit represents one whose actions are devoid of this devotion, leading to spiritual stagnation. In contrast, a tree with good fruit signifies an individual whose actions and intentions are guided by a desire to serve and please God, thereby embodying the qualities of a true devotee. Madhvācārya, on the other hand, might interpret the verse through the lens of dualism, emphasizing the distinction between the devotee who acts selflessly and with love for God, and one who does not, highlighting the importance of discrimination (viveka) in spiritual life.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekananda and S. Radhakrishnan, proponents of Neo-Vedānta, would likely interpret this verse as advocating for a universal and practical message of selflessness and service. Vivekananda, in his lectures, often emphasized the need to look beyond external appearances and social expectations, focusing instead on the intrinsic worth and potential of each individual. He might see the tree as a metaphor for human beings, where the 'fruit' represents the impact one has on the world through their actions and character, rather than through external validation or criticism. Similarly, Radhakrishnan, with his emphasis on the harmony between the individual and the universal, could view this verse as highlighting the importance of aligning one's actions with the greater good, recognizing that true fulfillment and 'good fruit' come from contributing positively to society and the world, reflecting the ideals of universal brotherhood and service.