Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 15

Chapter 81: Trust, Allies, and the Qualifications of the King’s Artha-Secretary (अर्थसचिव)

तथैवात्युदकाद्‌ भीतस्तस्य भेदनमिच्छति । यमेवंलक्षणं विद्यात्‌ तममित्र विनिर्दिशेत्‌

tathaivātyudakād bhītastasya bhedanam icchati | yam evaṃlakṣaṇaṃ vidyāt tam amitraṃ vinirdiśet ||

Bhīṣma nói: “Cũng vậy, kẻ vì sợ hãi do nước dâng quá mức ứ đọng trong ruộng mình mà muốn phá bờ đê để tháo nước ra—hãy nhận biết kẻ ấy qua những dấu hiệu ấy và gọi hắn là kẻ thù. Bởi nếu chính người canh giữ biên giới của một vương quốc lại phá biên giới, tai họa có thể giáng xuống quốc độ; vì thế người ấy cũng phải bị xem là kẻ thù.”

तथाthus, in the same way
तथा:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootतथा
एवindeed, just
एव:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootएव
अति-उदकात्from excessive water
अति-उदकात्:
Apadana
TypeNoun
Rootअति-उदक
FormNeuter, Ablative, Singular
भीतःafraid
भीतः:
Karta
TypeAdjective
Rootभीत
FormMasculine, Nominative, Singular
तस्यof that (embankment/thing)
तस्य:
TypePronoun
Rootतद्
FormNeuter, Genitive, Singular
भेदनम्breaking, breach
भेदनम्:
Karma
TypeNoun
Rootभेदन
FormNeuter, Accusative, Singular
इच्छतिdesires, wishes
इच्छति:
TypeVerb
Rootइष्
FormPresent, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada
यम्whom
यम्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootयद्
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
एवम्-लक्षणम्having such a mark/characteristic
एवम्-लक्षणम्:
TypeAdjective
Rootएवम्-लक्षण
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
विद्यात्should know, would recognize
विद्यात्:
TypeVerb
Rootविद्
FormOptative, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada
तम्him
तम्:
Karma
TypePronoun
Rootतद्
FormMasculine, Accusative, Singular
अमित्रO enemy (address)
अमित्र:
TypeNoun
Rootअमित्र
FormMasculine, Vocative, Singular
विनिर्दिशेत्should point out/declare
विनिर्दिशेत्:
TypeVerb
Rootनि-√दिश्
FormOptative, Third, Singular, Parasmaipada

भीष्म उवाच

B
Bhishma
E
embankment/boundary (āḍ/setu/saṃdhi as implied)
F
field (kṣetra as implied)
E
excess water/flooding (ati-udaka)

Educational Q&A

A person entrusted with protecting boundaries or safeguards becomes especially dangerous if he himself breaches them; betrayal by a guardian is a clear sign of enmity and must be treated as a security threat.

Bhishma uses a practical agrarian analogy: when a field floods, a frightened farmer may want to break the embankment to release water. He applies this to governance—if a kingdom’s boundary-keeper breaks the boundary, it invites peril, so such a person should be identified as an enemy.