Bhīṣma’s Fall, the Arrow-bed (śara-talpa), and the Establishment of Guard
अमड्ल्यध्वजश्नैव याज्ञसेनिर्महाबल: । न चामड्लिके तस्मिन् प्रहरेदापगासुत:
amaṅgala-dhvajaś caiva yājñasenir mahābalaḥ | na cāmaṅgalike tasmin prahared āpagā-sutaḥ ||
সঞ্জয় বললেন—আর দ্রুপদের সেই মহাবলী পুত্র শিখণ্ডী তার ধ্বজায় অমঙ্গলসূচক চিহ্ন ধারণ করে; অতএব গঙ্গাপুত্র ভীষ্ম সেই অমঙ্গল শিখণ্ডীর প্রতি কখনও আঘাত হানবেন না।
संजय उवाच
Even amid war, conduct is shaped by vows, codes of honor, and perceived dharmic restraints. Bhīṣma’s refusal to strike Śikhaṇḍin highlights how personal ethics and social-religious notions (such as auspiciousness/inauspiciousness and propriety of targets) can limit violence even on the battlefield.
Sañjaya explains to Dhṛtarāṣṭra that Śikhaṇḍin, Drupada’s child, bears an inauspicious emblem on his banner; consequently Bhīṣma (Gaṅgā’s son) will not attack him. This sets up a tactical and moral constraint affecting Bhīṣma’s actions in the Kurukṣetra war.