Shloka 170
Śuka’s Guṇa-Transcendence and Vyāsa’s Consolation (शुकगति-वर्णनम्)
नियमो होषु वर्णेषु यतीनां शून्यवासिता । शून्यमावेशयन्त्या च मया कि कस्य दूषितम्
niyamo hoṣu varṇeṣu yatīnāṁ śūnyavāsitā | śūnyam āveśayantyā ca mayā kiṁ kasya dūṣitam ||
Bhīṣma dit : «Cette règle est connue de tous les ordres : les renonçants doivent demeurer dans la solitude. Dès lors, en entrant et en demeurant dans ton corps “vide”, quel bien—quelle possession de quiconque—ai-je donc réellement souillé ?»
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.