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 ||
ビーシュマは言った。「この掟はあらゆる身分において知られている。出家の行者（ヤティ）は独り静寂に住むべし、と。ならば、わたしがそなたの『空なる』身体に入り、そこに住したことで、いったい誰の何を汚したというのか。」
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.