333. Pratyasannah is explained by Nilakantha in a different way. I think, his interpretation is far-fetched.
334. i.e., who knows when truth becomes as harmful as untruth, and untruth becomes as righteous as truth.
335. Vide ante, Karna Parva.
336. Alludes to ante, Karna Parva. The Rishi, by pointing out the place where certain innocent persons had concealed themselves while flying from a company of robbers, incurred the sin of murder.
337. The allusion is to the story of an owl going to heaven for having, with his beaks, broken a thousand eggs laid by a she-serpent of deadly poison. The Burdwan Pundits have made nonsense of the first line of verse 8. There is no connection between the first and the second lines of this verse. K.P. Singha has rendered it correctly.
338. This refers to the well-known definition of Dharma ascribed to Vasishtha, viz., “That which is laid down in the Srutis and Smritis is Dharma.” The defect of this definition is that the Srutis and the Smritis do not include every duty. Hence Vasishtha was obliged to add that where these are silent, the examples and practices of the good ought to be the guides of men, etc.
339. The Burdwan translator has made a mess of verse 21. K.P. Singha quietly leaves it out. The act is, Swakaryastu is Swakariastu, meaning ‘let the appropriator be.’
340. The construction is elliptical. Yah samayam chikrashet tat kurvit.
341. The meaning is that though born in a low race, that is no reason why I should act like a low person. It is conduct that determines the race and not the race that determines conduct. There may be pious persons therefore, in every race. The Burdwan version of this line is simply ridiculous,
342. Yatram means, as explained by the commentator, the duties of government.
343. Nilakantha explains aparasadhanah as aparasa adhanah, i.e., without rasa or affection and without dhana or wealth. This is very far-fetched.
344. Perhaps the sense is that men of vigorous understanding think all states to be equal.
345. The true policy, therefore, is to wait for the time when the foe
becomes weak.
346. Mridustikshnena is better than Mridutikshnena.
347. A bird that is identified by Dr. Wilson with the Parra Jacana.
348. In India, the commonest form of verbal abuse among ignorant men and women is ‘Do thou meet with death,’ or, ‘Go thou to Yama’s house.’ What Bhishma says is that as these words are uttered in vain, even so the verbal accusations of wicked men prove perfectly abortive.
349. The Burdwan Pundits have totally misunderstood the first line of this verse. K.P. Singha has rendered it correctly.
350. A dog is an unclean animal in Hindu estimation.
351. The antithesis consists, as pointed out by Nilakantha, is this, viz., the man of high birth, even if ruined undeservedly, would not injure his master. The man however, that is of low birth, would become the foe of oven a kind master if only a few words of censure be addressed to him.
352. Nilakantha explains that na nirddandvah means na nishparigrahah.
353. i.e., ‘speak in brief of them, or give us an abridgment of thy elaborate discourses.’
354. i.e., as the commentator explains, keenness, when he punishes and harmlessness when he shows favour.
355. i.e., ‘should assume the qualities (such as keenness, etc.), necessary for his object.’ K.P. Singha’s version of the last line of 8 is erroneous. The Burdwan version is right.
356. Vrihadvrikshamivasravat is explained by Nilakantha as Vrihantak Vrikshah Yatra; asravat is explained as rasamprasravat. I think Vrihadvriksham may be taken as a full-grown Palmyra (1) tree. The sense is that as men always draw the juice from a full-grown tree and ‘lot from a young one, even so the king should take care as to how taxes should be laid upon subjects that are unable to bear them.
357. i.e., by tempering with the governors of the citadels and the garrisons of his foes, as the commentator explains.
358. i.e., that king who is vain and covetous.
359. Whether it belongs to himself or to any other person.
360. The sense seems to be that a king should always be guided by the precepts of the science of king-craft without depending upon chance.
361. i.e., he who earns religious merit is sure to obtain such regions; and as great merit may be acquired by properly discharging kingly duties one may, by such conduct, win much felicity hereafter.
362. Vyavahara is vi and avahara, hence that through which all kinds of misappropriation are stopped. It is a name applied to Law and administration of justice.
363. The commentator, in a long note, gives very fanciful explanations touching every one of these peculiarities of form. He understands Mrigaraja to mean the black antelope. I cannot reject the obvious meaning of the word. The object of the poet is simply to create a form that is frightful.
364. These are Righteousness, Law, Chastisement, God, and Living Creature.
365. The nearest approach in English to what is meant here by Vyavahara is Law. Three kinds of Vyavahara or Law are here spoken of. The first is the ordinary Law, according to which the disputes of litigants are decided, it includes booth civil and criminal law, it is quaintly described here as Vattripratyayalakskana, i.e., ‘characterised by a belief in either of two litigant parties.’ When a suit, civil or criminal, is instituted, the king or those that act in the king’s name must call for Evidence and decide the matter by believing either of the two parties. Then follows restoration or punishment. In either case, it is a form of Chastisement The second kind of Vyavahara or Law is the ecclesiastical law of the Vedas. These are the precepts or injunctions laid down in those sacred books for regulating every part of human duty. The third kind of Vyavahara or Law is the particular customs of families or races. It is also called kulachara. Where Kulachara is not inconsistent or in open variance with the established civil or criminal Law, or is not opposed to the spirit of the ecclesiastical law as laid down in the Vedas, it is upheld. (Even the British courts of law uphold Kulachara, interpreting it very strictly). What Bhishma says here is that even Kulachara should not be regarded as inconsistent with the scriptures (Vedas and Smritis).
366. In the verse 52 Bhishma says that the first kind of Vyavahara or Law, i.e., the ordinary civil and criminal law of a realm, must be regarded as resting on the king. But as this kind of law has the Veda for its soul and has originally flowed from Brahman, a king incurs no sin by administering it and by inflicting chastisement in its administration. The purport in brief, of verse 54 is that Manu and others, in speaking of Morality and duty have said that it is as binding as the ordinary law that is administered by kings.
