Shloka 70
न शूरस्य सखा क्लीब: सखिपूर्व किमिष्यते । न हि राज्ञामुदीर्णानामेवम्भूतैर्नरै: क्वचित्,द्विजश्रेष्ठ! तुम्हारे साथ पहले जो मेरी मित्रता थी, वह (साथ-साथ खेलने और अध्ययन करने आदि) स्वार्थको लेकर हुई थी। सच्ची बात यह है कि दरिद्र मनुष्य धनवान्का, मूर्ख विद्वान्कां और कायर शूरवीरका सखा नहीं हो सकता; अतः पहलेकी मित्रताका क्या भरोसा करते हो? मन्दमते! बड़े-बड़े राजाओंकी तुम्हारे-जैसे श्रीहीन और निर्धन मनुष्योंके साथ कभी मित्रता हो सकती है? जो श्रोत्रिय नहीं है, वह श्रोत्रियका; जो रथी नहीं है, वह रथीका तथा जो राजा नहीं है, वह राजाका मित्र नहीं हो सकता। फिर तुम मुझे जीर्ण-शीर्ण मित्रताका स्मरण क्यों दिलाते हो? मैंने अपने राज्यके लिये तुमसे कोई प्रतिज्ञा की थी, इसका मुझे कुछ भी स्मरण नहीं है
na śūrasya sakhā klībaḥ sakhipūrva kim iṣyate | na hi rājñām udīrṇānām evambhūtair naraiḥ kvacit, dvijaśreṣṭha |
Vaiśampāyana said: “A coward cannot truly be the friend of a hero—so what value is there in appealing to an old friendship? For mighty kings, once risen to power, do not anywhere form companionship with men of such a sort, O best of Brahmins. The bond you recall was only a former association of convenience; it cannot be relied upon as a moral claim upon the present. Social and ethical fitness must match: one who lacks learning cannot be the companion of the learned, one who is not a chariot-warrior cannot be the companion of a chariot-warrior, and one who is not a king cannot be the companion of a king. Therefore, why do you remind me of a worn-out friendship?”
वैशम्पायन उवाच
Educational Q&A
The verse frames friendship as requiring congruence of character and standing: courage with courage, learning with learning, and royal status with royal status. It critiques relying on past association as a binding moral claim when present circumstances and qualities are mismatched, highlighting how power and social rank reshape obligations.
Through Vaiśampāyana’s narration, a speaker rebuffs another’s appeal to an earlier friendship, arguing that such companionship was conditional and cannot compel support now. The rebuke is sharpened by contrasts—coward vs. hero, unlearned vs. learned, non-king vs. king—used to deny the legitimacy of the appeal.