Śuka’s Guṇa-Transcendence and Vyāsa’s Consolation (शुकगति-वर्णनम्)
परस्त्रीके स्पर्शका अनुभव करनेके कारण आप गार्हस्थ्यधर्मसे तो गिर गये और दुर्बोध एवं दुर्लभ मोक्ष भी नहीं पा सके, अतः केवल मोक्षकी बात करते हुए आप गार्हस्थ्य और मोक्ष दोनोंके बीचमें लटक रहे हैं ।।
bhīṣma uvāca | parastrīke sparśakā anubhava karaneke kāraṇa āpa gārhasthyadharmase to gir gaye aura durbodha evaṃ durlabha mokṣa bhī nahīṃ pā sake, ataḥ kevala mokṣakī bāta karate hue āpa gārhasthya aura mokṣa donoṃke bīcameṃ laṭaka rahe haiṃ || na hi muktasya muktena jñasy-aikatva-pṛthaktvayoḥ | bhāvābhāva-samāyoge jāyate varṇa-saṅkaraḥ || jīvanmukta jñānīkā jīvanmukta jñānīke sātha, aikatvakā pṛthaktvake sātha tathā bhāva (ātmā) kā abhāva (prakṛti) ke sātha saṃyoga honepara varṇa-saṅkaratākī utpatti nahīṃ ho sakatī |
毗湿摩说道:“由于你沉溺于触碰他人之妻的欲行,你已从居家之法(家住者之责)坠落;然而你也未能证得那艰难而稀有的解脱。于是你只会谈论解脱,却悬在居家之道与莫克沙之间。因为所谓‘种姓混杂’(varṇa-saṅkara)不可能由一位已解脱的智者与另一位已解脱的智者相交而生;也不可能由一与异的关系而生;亦不可能由有与无的结合而生。”
भीष्य उवाच
Bhishma criticizes moral inconsistency: one who violates householder ethics (e.g., illicit contact with another’s wife) cannot claim the authority of renunciation or liberation. He also asserts that true liberated knowers do not generate social or metaphysical ‘confusion’; liberation and right knowledge are marked by clarity, not disorder.
In the Shanti Parva’s instruction-setting, Bhishma addresses a questioner in a didactic tone, rebuking him for ethical lapse and for speaking of moksha without fulfilling either the discipline of household life or the rigor of genuine liberation.