Shloka 170
Śuka’s Guṇa-Transcendence and Vyāsa’s Consolation (शुकगति-वर्णनम्)
नियमो होषु वर्णेषु यतीनां शून्यवासिता । शून्यमावेशयन्त्या च मया कि कस्य दूषितम्,इन सभी वर्णोमें यह नियम प्रसिद्ध है कि संन्यासियोंको एकान्त स्थानमें रहना चाहिये। मैंने भी आपके शून्य शरीरमें निवास करके किसकी किस वस्तुको दूषित कर दिया है?
niyamo hoṣu varṇeṣu yatīnāṁ śūnyavāsitā | śūnyam āveśayantyā ca mayā kiṁ kasya dūṣitam ||
Bhīṣma sprach: „Diese Regel ist in allen Ständen wohlbekannt: Entsagende (yati) sollen in Abgeschiedenheit wohnen. Wenn dem so ist, wessen Besitz—was von irgendwem—habe ich denn dadurch wirklich befleckt, dass ich in deinen ‘leeren’ Körper eingegangen bin und darin verweilte?“
भीष्य उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse appeals to a recognized dharmic norm: a renunciant’s discipline includes living in seclusion. On that basis, Bhīṣma argues that entering an ‘empty’ body (i.e., one lacking a rightful personal claim) does not constitute moral pollution or violation of another’s property—raising the ethical question of what counts as true defilement: physical contact or wrongful appropriation.
Bhīṣma is responding defensively in a moral-legal register. He cites a generally accepted rule about ascetics and solitude, then uses it to justify his own act of ‘dwelling’ in an ‘empty’ body, challenging the listener to specify who has been harmed or what has been tainted by his presence.