Book 12 edition notes 301–400

Skandha, Nilakantha thinks, means Samuha here.

i.e., the soldiers should be drawn up as to form a wedge-like appearance with a narrow head.

Kulinja has many meanings. Nilakantha think that the word, as used here, means 'snake.'

The object of these two verses is to indicate that a learned astrologer and a learned priest are certain means for procuring victories by warding off all calamities caused by unpropitious fate and the wrath of the gods.

If a single deer takes fright and runs in a particular direction, the whole herd follows it without knowing the cause. The simile is peculiarly appropriate in the case of large armies. Particularly of Asiatic hosts, if a single division takes to flight, the rest follows it. Fear is very contagious. The Bengal reading jangha is evidently incorrect. The Bombay reading is sangha. The Burdwan translators have attempted the impossible feat of finding sense by adhering to the incorrect reading. The fact is, they did not suspect the viciousness of the text.

I have endeavoured to give the very construction of the original. It is curious to see how the Burdwan Pundits have misunderstood the simple verse.

Samiti is explained by Nilakantha to mean battle, and vijasyasya as vijigishamanasya. Unless it be an instance of a cruce, vijasyasya can scarcely be understood in such a sense.

i.e., the king should try conciliation, sending at the same time an invading force, or making an armed demonstration. Such politic measures succeed in bringing about peace.

i.e., ascertaining everything regarding him.

The French had taken Alsace and Lorraine. That was an impolitic step, though, perhaps, Germany also, by taking back those provinces after they had been completely Frenchified, has committed the same mistake. Such injuries rankle in the heart and are never forgotten.

i.e., ruin him outright.

Brahma-dandah is the chastisement through the gods. When foes are not seen, i.e., when they are at a distance, the king should employ his priest to perform the rites of the Atharvan for bringing destruction upon them. In the case, however, of foes being seen, i.e., when they are near, he should move his troops without depending upon Atharvan rites.

Nipunam is explained by Nilakantha as Kusalam; and after drabhet pestum is understood.

The sixfold forces are foot, horse, elephants, cars, treasury, and traders following the camp.

I adopt Nilakantha's explanation of this verse. Loss of crops, etc. are the inevitable consequences of expeditions. The king, on such occasions, is obliged also to take particular care of the seven branches of administration. As these are all unpleasant, they should be avoided.

i.e., starts such subjects for conversation as do not arise naturally, for what he has in view is the proclaiming of the faults of other people, a topic in which he alone is interested and not his hearers.

In the Bengal texts there is an error of reading viz., Satru for Yatra in the first line of verse 3. The Burdwan Pundits repeat the error in their vernacular version. K.P. Singha, of course, avoids it.

The Bengal texts, in the second line of verse 7, contain an error, Saktincha is evidently a misreading for Sokancha. The Burdwan version, as a matter of course, repeats the error, while K.P. Singha avoids it.

i.e., though dispossessed of my kingdom, I cannot yet cast off the hope of recovering it.

i.e., he should think that his wealth has been given to him for the sake of friends and relatives and others. He will then succeed in practising charity.

Nilakantha explains Kusalah as niamatsarah and anyatra as Satrau. I do not follow him.

The Bengal texts read Vidhitsa dhanameva cha. This is evidently erroneous. The correct reading, as given in the Bombay text, is Vidhitsasadhanena cha. Both the Bengali versions are incorrect.

The Vilwa is the fruit of the Egle marmelos.

The sense seems to be that by causing thy foe to be attached to these things, the treasury of thy foe is likely to be exhausted. If this can be brought about, thy foe will soon be ruined.

i.e., for the ruler of Videhas.

Jitavat is explained by Nilakantha as prapta jaya.

The word is Gana. It literally means an assemblage. There can be no doubt that throughout this lesson the word has been employed to denote the aristocracy of wealth and blood that surround a throne.

If the king, moved by avarice, taxes them heavily, the aristocracy resent it and seek to pull down the king.

i.e., learned men of humility.

Probably, with the king.

The Burdwan Pundits make a mess of the last two verses. In 31, there is an incorrect reading in the Bengal texts. It is Pradhanaccha for pradanaccha. The Burdwan version repeats the error. K.P. Singha, of course, avoids it, but his version is rather incomplete.

Literally, "One should not follow that course of duty which they do not indicate. That again is duty which they command. This is settled."

Pratyasannah is explained by Nilakantha in a different way. I think, his interpretation is far-fetched.

i.e., who knows when truth becomes as harmful as untruth, and untruth becomes as righteous as truth.

Vide ante, Karna Parva.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

The construction is elliptical. Yah samayam chikrashet tat kurvit.

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.

Yatram means, as explained by the commentator, the duties of government.

Nilakantha explains aparasadhanah as aparasa adhanah, i.e., without rasa or affection and without dhana or wealth. This is very far-fetched.

Perhaps the sense is that men of vigorous understanding think all states to be equal.

The true policy, therefore, is to wait for the time when the foe becomes weak.

Mridustikshnena is better than Mridutikshnena.

A bird that is identified by Dr. Wilson with the Parra Jacana.

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.

The Burdwan Pundits have totally misunderstood the first line of this verse. K.P. Singha has rendered it correctly.

A dog is an unclean animal in Hindu estimation.

The antithesis consists, as pointed out by Nilakantha, in 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 even a kind master if only a few words of censure be addressed to him.

Nilakantha explains that na nirddandvah means na nishparigrahah.

i.e., 'speak in brief of them, or give us an abridgment of thy elaborate discourses.'

i.e., as the commentator explains, keenness, when he punishes and harmlessness when he shows favour.

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.

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 tree. The sense is that as men always draw the juice from a full-grown tree and not 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.

i.e., by tampering with the governors of the citadels and the garrisons of his foes, as the commentator explains.

i.e., that king who is vain and covetous.

Whether it belongs to himself or to any other person.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These are Righteousness, Law, Chastisement, God, and Living Creature.

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 both 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).

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.

Jataharamadisat may also mean 'ordered the removal of his matted locks'--in other words, 'had a shave.'

i.e., to acknowledge thee as a tutor.

The sense is that inasmuch as the Grandsire, who was the governor of the universe, assumed the mild and peaceful aspect of a sacrificer, Chastisement which had dwelt in his furious form could no longer exist.

Though Sula is mentioned, yet it is Vishnu and not Mahadeva, that is implied. Generally the word means any weapon.

The whole account contains more than one inconsistency. The commentator is silent. I think the inconsistencies are incapable of being explained. It is very probable that there have been interpolations in the passage. Verse 34 is probably an interpolation, as also verse 36.

i.e., Self-denial or discipline.

I have not the faintest idea of what is intended by these verses, viz., 43 and 51. Nilakantha is silent. It is very doubtful if they have really any meaning.

The commentator illustrates this by the action of a virtuous husband seeking congress with his wedded wife in the proper season. There is religious merit in the performance of the rites known by the name of Garbhadhana; there is pleasure in the act itself; and lastly, wealth or profit in the form of a son is also acquired.

There are three qualities or attributes that characterise human acts, viz., Goodness, Passion, and Darkness. Vide the latter sections of the Bhagavadgita. Such Virtue and Wealth and Pleasure, therefore, are not very high objects of pursuit. Things possessing the attribute of Goodness only are worthy of pursuit.

i.e., one should seek virtue for only compassing purity of soul; Wealth in order that one may spend it in acts undertaken without desire of fruit; and Pleasure for only supporting the body.

Dharmadinkamanaishthikan, i.e., having Dharma for the first and Karna for the last, hence Virtue, Wealth and Pleasure.

Pisitaudanam is food mixed with pounded meat; a kind of Pilau, or, perhaps, Kabab.

Vagagravidyanam is explained by Nilakantha to mean persons whose learning is at the end of their tongues and not buried in books; hence, persons of sharp memory.

The asker wishes to rob Prahlada of his conduct.

This lake is at a great height on the Himalayas.

The spirits of those two immortal sages are supposed to dwell for ever, in that retreat in the enjoyment of true happiness.

i.e., Hope is slender; while things unconnected with Hope are the reverse.

The sense is that such persons should always be distrusted. Yet there are men who hope for good from them. Such hope, the sage says, is slenderer than his slender body.

The word maya repeated in verses 14 to 18 is explained by Nilakantha as having the sense of mattah. The meaning, of course, is very plain. Yet the Burdwan translator has strangely misunderstood it. K.P. Singha, of course, gives an accurate version.

For the king's disregard of the sage in former days.

The distress, which Yudhishthira felt at the thought of the slaughter in battle.

i.e., this is not a subject upon which one can or should discourse before miscellaneous audiences.

i.e., by ingenious contrivances a king may succeed in filling his treasury, or his best ingenuity and calculations may fail.

i.e., with a pure heart.

i.e., when the season of distress is over.

i.e., under ordinary situations of circumstances.

i.e., he should perform expiations and do good to them whom he has injured, so that these may not remain discontented with him.

He should not seek to rescue the merit of other or of himself, i.e., he should not, at such times, refrain from any act that may injure his own merit or that of others; in other words, he may disregard all considerations about the religious merits of others and of himself His sole concern at such a time should be to save himself, that is, his life.

Sankhalikhitam, i.e., that which is written on the forehead by the Ordainer.

Literally, "cause to be removed."

The army and the criminal courts.

The commentator explains it in the following way. The ordinary texts, without exceptions of any kind, laid down for seasons of distress, permit a king to fill his treasury by levying heavy contributions on both his own subjects and those of hostile kingdoms. An ordinary king, at such a time, acts in this way. A king, however, that is endued with intelligence, while levying such contributions, takes care to levy them upon those that are wicked and punishable among his own subjects and among the subjects of other kingdoms, and refrains from molesting the good. Compare the conduct of Warren Hastings in exacting a heavy tribute, when his own treasury was empty, from Cheyt Singh, whose unfriendliness for the British power was a matter of notoriety.

The sense seems to be that there are persons who hold that priests and Brahmanas should never be punished or taxed. This is the eternal usage, and, therefore, this is morality. Others who approve of the conduct of Sankha towards his brother Likhita on the occasion of the latter's appropriating a few fruits belonging to the former, are of a different opinion. The latter class of persons Bhishma says, are as sincere as the former in their opinion. They cannot be blamed for holding that even priests and Brahmanas may be punished when offending.

Duty depending on all the four foundations, i.e., as laid down in the Vedas; as laid down in the Smritis; as sanctioned by ancient usages and customs; and as approved by the heart or one's own conscience.