“’Thus every one meets with destruction, like the procrastinating fish, who from want of intelligence cannot divine the hour of danger.  That man, again, who regarding himself clever does not seek his own good in proper time, incurs great danger like the Sakula who had presence of mind.  Hence these two only, viz., he that has much forethought and he that has presence of mind, succeed in obtaining happiness.  He, however, that is procrastinating meets with destruction.  Diverse are the divisions of time, such as Kashtha, Kala, Muhurta, day, night, Lava, month, fortnight, the six seasons, Kalpa, year.  The divisions of the earth are called place.  Time cannot be seen.  As regards the success of any object or purpose, it is achieved or not achieved according to the manner in which the mind is set to think of it.  These two, viz., the person of forethought and the person of presence of mind, have been declared by the Rishis to be the foremost of men in all treatises on morality and profit and in those dealing with emancipation.  One, however, that does everything after reflection and scrutiny, one that avails oneself of proper means for the accomplishment of one’s objects, always succeeds in achieving much.  Those again that act with due regard to time and place succeed in winning results better than the mere man of foresight and the man of presence of mind.’”

SECTION CXXXVIII

“Yudhishthira said, ’Thou hast, O bull of Bharata’s race, said that that intelligence which provides against the future, as well as that which can meet present emergencies, is everywhere superior, while procrastination brings about destruction.  I desire, O grandsire, to hear of that superior intelligence aided by which a king, conversant with the scriptures and well versed with morality and profit, may not be stupefied even when surrounded by many foes.  I ask thee this, O chief of Kuru’s race!  It behoveth thee to discourse to me on I his.  I desire to hear everything, comfortable to what has been laid down in the scriptures, about the manner in which a king should conduct himself when he is assailed by many foes.  When a king falls into distress, a large number of foes, provoked by his past acts, range themselves against him and seek to vanquish him.  How may, a king, weak and alone, succeed in holding up his head when he is challenged on all sides by many powerful kings leagued together?  How does a king at such times make friends and foes?  How should he, O bull of Bharata’s race, behave at such a time towards both friends and foes?  When those that have indications of friends really become his foes, what should the king then do if he is to obtain happiness?  With whom should he make war and with whom should he make peace?  Even if he be strong, how should he behave in the midst of foes?  O scorcher of foes, this I regard to be the highest of all questions connected with the discharge of kingly duties.  There are few men for listening to the answer of this question and none to answer it save Santanu’s son, Bhishma, firmly wedded to truth and having all his senses under control.  O thou that art highly blessed reflect upon it and discourse to me on it!’