364.  These are Righteousness, Law, Chastisement, God, and Living Creature.

365.  The nearest approach in English to what is meant here by Vyavahara is Law.  Three kinds of Vyavahara or Law are here spoken of.  The first is the ordinary Law, according to which the disputes of litigants are decided, it includes booth civil and criminal law, it is quaintly described here as Vattripratyayalakskana, i.e., ’characterised by a belief in either of two litigant parties.’  When a suit, civil or criminal, is instituted, the king or those that act in the king’s name must call for Evidence and decide the matter by believing either of the two parties.  Then follows restoration or punishment.  In either case, it is a form of Chastisement The second kind of Vyavahara or Law is the ecclesiastical law of the Vedas.  These are the precepts or injunctions laid down in those sacred books for regulating every part of human duty.  The third kind of Vyavahara or Law is the particular customs of families or races.  It is also called kulachara.  Where Kulachara is not inconsistent or in open variance with the established civil or criminal Law, or is not opposed to the spirit of the ecclesiastical law as laid down in the Vedas, it is upheld. (Even the British courts of law uphold Kulachara, interpreting it very strictly).  What Bhishma says here is that even Kulachara should not be regarded as inconsistent with the scriptures (Vedas and Smritis).

366.  In the verse 52 Bhishma says that the first kind of Vyavahara or Law, i.e., the ordinary civil and criminal law of a realm, must be regarded as resting on the king.  But as this kind of law has the Veda for its soul and has originally flowed from Brahman, a king incurs no sin by administering it and by inflicting chastisement in its administration.  The purport in brief, of verse 54 is that Manu and others, in speaking of Morality and duty have said that it is as binding as the ordinary law that is administered by kings.

367.  Jataharamadisat may also mean ’ordered the removal of his matted locks’—­in other words, ‘had a shame.’

368. i.e., to acknowledge thee as a tutor.

369.  The sense is that inasmuch as the Grandsire, who was the governor of the universe, assumed the mild and peaceful aspect of a sacrificer, Chastisement which had dwelt in his furious form could no longer exist.

370.  Though Sula is mentioned, yet it is Vishnu and not Mahadeva, that is implied.  Generally the word means any weapon.

371.  The whole account contains more than one inconsistency.  The commentator is silent.  I think the inconsistencies are incapable of being explained.  It is very probable that there have been interpolations in the passage.  Verse 34 is probably an interpolation, as also verse 36.

372. i.e., Self-denial or discipline.

373.  I have not the faintest idea of what is intended by these verses, viz., 43 and 51.  Nilakantha is silent.  It is very doubtful if they have really any meaning.