471. The Burdwan translator, misled by the particle nah, supposes that this verse contains an injunction against the spoliation of a Sudra. The fact is, the nah here is equal to 'ours'.
472. Who has fasted for three whole days.
473. Aswastanavidhana is the rule of providing only for today without thinking of the morrow.
474. The sense, of course, is that if a Brahmana starves, that is due to the king having neglected his duty of providing for him.
475. I follow Nilakantha in rendering abrahmanam manyamanah. It may also mean 'regarding himself to be a fallen Brahmana (for the time being)'.
476. It should be noted that the word foeticide used in such texts frequently means all sins that are regarded as equivalent to foeticide. Hence, killing a Brahmana is foeticide, etc.
477. There is a material difference of reading in this verse. Following the Bengal texts, the above version is given. The Bombay text runs as follows: 'upon his body being burnt therewith, or by death, he becomes cleansed.' The Bombay text seems to be vicious. Drinking is regarded as one of the five heinous sins. The severer injunction contained in the Bengal texts seems therefore, to be the correct reading.
478. The true reading is nigacchati and not niyacchati. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood the word papam in this verse.
479. Nilakantha correctly explains the connection of Susamsitah.
480. Nilakantha explains that the question of Nakula excited the heart of Bhishma and caused a flow of blood through his wounds. Hence Bhishma compares himself to a hill of red-chalk.