(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.
367. Jataharamadisat may also mean 'ordered the removal of his matted
locks'--in other words, 'had a shame.'
368. i.e., to acknowledge thee as a tutor.
369. 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.
370. Though Sula is mentioned, yet it is Vishnu and not Mahadeva, that is
implied. Generally the word means any weapon.
371. 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.
Pages:
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765