<ol>
<li>Literally, like an oration teeming with unrefined expressions.</li>
<li>i.e., deprived of robes and ornaments because of her widowhood.</li>
<li>A Sarabha is a fabulous animal of eight legs supposed to be stronger than the lion.</li>
<li>The sense seems to be, that when such an one hath been slain, what is there on earth that is not subject to destruction? Ye, should, therefore, grieve for your wealth, children etc. as things already gone.</li>
<li>There is a slight difference of reading in this sloka as it occurs in the Bombay text. The sense seems to be, that since everything is destined to die, why should I fear to do my duty.</li>
<li>The last line is read incorrectly, I think, in the Bombay text.</li>
<li>The second fine of </li><li>is read incorrectly in the Bengal text. Instead of tathapi the true reading (as in the Bombay edition) is tavapi.</li>
<li>Kula-samhanana-jnana, i.e., 'knowledge of Kula,' as also of samhanana, which latter, as Nilakantha explains, means the body. A knowledge of the body, of vital and other limbs, was possessed by every accomplished warrior who wanted to smite effectually.</li>
<li>i.e., who will feel it humiliating for him to walk behind Drona?</li>
<li>A substantial difference of reading occurs here between the Bengal and the Bombay texts. Both have defects of their own. It seems to me that Drona, as leader, proceeded in the van. Karna, when described as proceeding at the head of all bowmen, must be taken marching at the head of the whole rear guard. In the case, his position would be immediately behind Drona's.</li>
<li>Lit, "placed army to their right," i.e., these birds wheeled to the left of thy host, which is an evil omen.</li>
<li>The first line of </li><li>is read with a slight variation in the Bengal text. The words 'nothing could be seen save Drona's arrows' are added here to make the sense clear.</li>
<li>Probably, a ready instrument.</li>
<li>The sense seems to be that having carefully attained Arjuna in arms he has got the fruit of his care and labour in the form of defeat and death at the hands of, or, at least, through, his own pupil.</li>
<li>This sentence comprises </li><li>8 and the first line of </li><li>I have followed the exact order of the original. The peculiarity of the Sanskrit construction is that the Nominative Pronoun is made to stand in apposition with a noun in the objective case. The whole of this Section contains many such sentences.</li>
<li></li><li>and </li><li>also refer to Ajatasatru.</li>
<li>Ghatotkacha was the son of Hidimva by Bhimasena. Rakshasi women bring forth the very day they conceive, and their offspring attain to youth the very day they are born!</li>
<li>Hayaraja, lit., the prince of steeds. He was an Asura, otherwise called Kesi, in the form of a steed.</li>
<li>i.e., without weapons of any kind.</li>
<li>Kaliprasanna Singha, in his Bengali translation, makes a mess of this Sloka.</li>
<li>Jarasandha, the powerful king of the Magadhas, and the sworn foe of Krishna, was slain by Bhima through Krishna's instigation.</li>
<li>viz., the transplantation of the Parijata from Amaravati to the earth.</li>
<li>Though gods, they have taken their births as men, and, they must achieve their objects by human means. It is for this that they do not, by a fiat only of their will, destroy this host.</li>
<li>The Bengal Texts read this verse incorrectly. For Prataptam, the correct reading is satatam; and for anukarinas, the correct word is asukarinas.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading is Sura-vyala. The Bombay texts reads Sulav-yala. I adopt the latter. Vajinas, in Prani-vaji-nishevitam, is explained by Nilakantha to mean fowl or bird.</li>
<li>It is evident that the very minuteness with which the comparison is sought to be sustained, destroys the effect. Regarding the repetition, they are just such as one may expect to find in verses composed extempore.</li>
<li>This verse is read incorrectly in the Bengal texts. For hayan read Dhanus.</li>
<li>The word "heroic" occurs in the next verse.</li>
<li>The word in the original are Sampata, Abhighata, and Nipata.</li>
<li>Nishka, literally, a golden coin, whose weight is diversely stated by diverse authorities.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bengal reading which is Vidhayaivam. The Bombay reading is Vihayainam, meaning 'leaving Yudhishthira.'</li>
<li>Soldiers sworn to conquer or die. Instead of using a long-winded phrase each time the word occurs, it is better to repeat it in this form.</li>
<li>The second line reads differently in the Bombay text.</li>
<li>It seems that the text here is vicious. It certainly requires settling. One complete Sloka seems to be wanting.</li>
<li>The second line of this verse is certainly vicious.</li>
<li>Ekacharas is explained by Nilakantha as 'unable to bear the sight of others of their species,' i.e., walking by themselves, or solitarily or singly. Some of the vernacular translators are for taking this word as implying the Rhinoceros.</li>
<li>Literally, 'thought in his mind that his hour was come.'</li>
<li>Literally, 'half-moon-shaped.'</li>
<li>Cruel because it was a Brahmana with whom Satanika was fighting.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading Vahupellava is a mistake. The correct reading is Vahupannaga as in the Bombay text.</li>
<li>Using even these as implements for striking, for Bhima's might was superhuman.</li>
<li>Hemadandais is a mistake of the Bengal texts for Hemabhandiers.</li>
<li>The first line of </li><li>is vicious as it occurs in the Bengal texts. The Bombay reading is correct.</li>
<li>This seems to be a repetition of the 6th verse.</li>
<li>i.e., not to abandon their comrades in distress.</li>
<li>The last word of the first line of </li><li>is vicious as printed in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>The custom, when one warrior attacked another, was invariably to give his name and lineage before striking.</li>
<li>All the printed texts, not excepting that of Bombay, read Drupadeyas. There can be no doubt, however, that it should be Draupadeyas.</li>
<li>The first line of </li><li>is read incorrectly in the Bengal texts. I follow the Bombay reading.</li>
<li>After </li><li>occurs a complete sloka in the Bombay text which does not appear to be genuine.</li>
<li>The second line of </li><li>is omitted in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>The Bengali translators have made a mess of these two verses. Among others, K. P. Singha makes Ruchiparvan follow Bhima and suppose Suvarchas to be some Pandava warrior who slew Ruchiparvan. The reading Suvarchas is vicious. The correct reading is Suparva, meaning, as Nilakantha explains, "of beautiful limbs." Parvatapati is Bhagadatta himself.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading abhitas is incorrect. It should be Kshubitas.</li>
<li>I render </li><li>and </li><li>rather freely, as otherwise the sense would not be clear.</li>
<li>The Bengal texts read,--"he is either the first or the second, on the earth, I think."</li>
<li>The Bombay reading paritas is vicious. The Bengal texts read twaritas.</li>
<li>The Bengal texts read the second line differently. Lokam (accusative). For Gharmancubhis the Bengal reading is Gharmamvubhis. Nilakantha explains that varsha (whence varshika) means season. Hence Nigadavarshikau masau would mean the two months of summer. If the Bengal reading were adopted, the meaning would be "like summer and the rainy seasons afflicting the world with sweat and rain."</li>
<li>The Bengal reading Samprapte is vicious. The Bombay reading Sambhrante is evidently correct.</li>
<li>I render 5 a little freely, and expand it slightly to make the sense clear.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading Purvabhilashi is better than Purvabhilbhashi. Between Nila and Aswatthaman existed a rivalry since some time.</li>
<li>The word in the original is dhumaketu. Elsewhere I have rendered it comet. It would seem, however, that is wrong. In such passages the word is used in its literal sense, viz., "(an article) having smoke for its mark," hence fire.</li>
<li>The first half of the first line of </li><li>seems to be grammatically connected with 20.</li>
<li>The last half of the second line of 4 is vicious as occuring in the Bengal texts. The correct reading is ayuduha-viarada.</li>
<li>Janghas, etc., are diverse limbs of cars used in battle.</li>
<li>The second half of the second line of 2 is vicious in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>I omit the names as they occur in the text. These are: (</li><li>Kshurupras, i.e., arrows sharp as razors, (</li><li>Vatsadantas, i.e., arrows having heads like the calf-tooth, (</li><li>Vipathas, i.e., long arrows having stout bodies, (</li><li>Narachas, long arrows; Ardhachandrabhais, i.e., looking like shafts furnished with heads of the form of the half-moon; it is an adjective qualifying Narachis, (</li><li>Anjalikas were broad-headed shafts.</li>
<li>There are the names of diverse kinds of drums small and large.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading of the 1st line of 4.</li>
<li>The fruit being the present encounter with Abhimanyu in which Duhsasana, according to Abhimanyu, shall have to lay down his life.</li>
<li>Pravanddiva is explained by Nilakantha as nimnadeeam prapya. The meaning seems to be, as I have put it, "like an elephant in a low land, i.e., land covered with mud and water."</li>
<li>These words occur in </li><li>lower down.</li>
<li>These are limbs of cars.</li>
<li>The Bombay reading is slightly different.</li>
<li>Literally, "like another son of the Lord of Treasure".</li>
<li>I confess I do not understand what the meaning is of asiva vachvz Srijatam. The rendering I offer is tentative.</li>
<li>I follow the numbering of the Bengal texts. </li><li>consists of three lines.</li>
<li>I expand the 5th a little to make the sense clear.</li>
<li>I expand the 5th a little to make the sense clear.</li>
<li>In the first fine of </li><li>the correct reading is Karnanchapy akarot kradha, etc., the reading in the Bengal text is vicious and unmeaning.</li>
<li>Bengal text read Taru-tringani i.e., tree-tops.</li>
<li>The correct reading is Mahavalan Mahavalat.</li>
<li>The Bombay reading which I accept, is Valabudhischa. Of course Bengal reading is Avalabudhischa.</li>
<li>During the days of mourning a person is regarded as unclean, being unable to perform his ordinary worship and other religious rites. After the obsequies are performed the mourning is ended, he is supposed to be cleansed.</li>
<li>The first line of 6 is read differently in the Bombay edition. The Bengal reading, however, seems to me to be preferable.</li>
<li>Both the Bengal and Bombay editions, in the first line of </li><li>read prita, i.e., gratified. There can be no doubt, however, that the correct reading is Bhita, i.e., affrighted, as I have put it. I find that some of the Bengali translators have also made this correction.</li>
<li>Devas, in the first line of </li><li>means the senses, Vrittas, as explained by Nilakantha, means Vritavantus.</li>
<li>Verse </li><li>as occuring in both the Bengal and the Bombay text, requires corrections, </li><li>is incomplete. For the words tada Raja, therefore, I read Sokam tyaja, as suggested by K. P. Singha. Then the Visarga after Yudhishthira must be dropped to make it a vocative. Similarly, Pandavas in </li><li>should be Pandava, a vocative and not a nominative, upakramat should be upakrama. The last two corrections are made in the Bombay text. The fact, is, are </li><li>to </li><li>the words of Vyasa, or of Sanjaya? Evidently, it is Vyasa that speaks, and, hence the necessity of the corrections noted.</li>
<li>I follow Nilakantha in rendering these two verses.</li>
<li>Of golden excreta.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading is Samvartam. The Bombay text makes Samvarta a nominative. I have adopted the Bengal reading. If the Bombay reading be accepted, the meaning would be that Samvarta himself, piqued with Vrihaspati, caused Marutta to perform a sacrifice. K. P. Singha makes a ludicrous blunder in supposing Samvarta to have been a kind of sacrifice.</li>
<li>The word in the original Atavika, literally meaning one dwelling in the woods. It is very generally used in the sense of thieves or robbers, thus showing that these depredators from the earliest times, had the woods and the forests for their home.</li>
<li>Vahinyas rivers. Swairinyas, open to every body. The Bengal reading is abhavan; the Bombay reading Vyatahan. If the former reading be adopted, it would mean the rivers were of liquid gold.</li>
<li>i.e., sacrifices ordained for Kshatriyas.</li>
<li>Siksha, one of the six branches of Vedas; it may be called the orthoepy of the Vedas. Akshara, letters of the alphabet. The sense seems to be that these Brahmanas were good readers of the Vedas.</li>
<li>The word in the original Murddhabhishikta, which literally means one whose coronal locks have undergone the ceremony of the sacred investiture. Hence, it is used to denote Kshatriyas or persons of the royal order.</li>
<li>Havisha mudamavahat; or havisham udam avahat, which would mean, he poured libations unto Indra as copious as water.</li>
<li>Because juniors pre-deceased their seniors. The causative form of akarayan is a license.</li>
<li>The four kinds of creatures that owned Rama's sway were (</li><li>those that were oviparous, (</li><li>those that were viviparous, (</li><li>those born of filth, and (</li><li>the vegetables.</li>
<li>These were ghats for facilitating access to the sacred stream.</li>
<li>Both 5 and 6 are difficult slokas. But for Nilakantha I could never have understood their sense. The reading Jalaughena, occuring in both the Bengal and the Bombay editions, is a mistake for Janaughena. The construction of 5 is this: Dakshina Bhuyasirdadat: tena hetuna Janaughena akaranta. The story of the salvation of Bhagiratha's ancestors is a beautiful myth. King Sagara (whence Sagara or the Ocean) had sixty thousand sons. They were all reduced to ashes by the curse of the sage Kapila, an incarnation of Vishnu himself. Bhagiratha, a remote descendant, caused the sacred Ganga to roll over the spot where the ashes of his ancestors lay, and thus procured their salvation.</li>
<li>The correct reading is Valguvadinas, and not the form in the genitive plural.</li>
<li>In the Bombay edition some verses occur after the 3rd.</li>
<li>Literally "Having me for his sustainer."</li>
<li>Instead of Suna, the Bombay text gives Puru.</li>
<li>The Bengal text reads this verse differently.</li>
<li>The words in italics are names of Indian confectionery, prepared with wheat or barley, milk, and sugar or honey.</li>
<li>These are the methods by which he sought knowledge of the Vedas.</li>
<li>Nakshatra-dakshina is explained by Nilakantha as Nakshatra vihitro-Dakshina.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading of the second line of the second verse is vicious. At any rate, the Bombay reading is better.</li>
<li>Animals slain in sacrifices are believed to go to heaven.</li>
<li>Identified with the modern Chumbal.</li>
<li>A kind of vessel used by Brahmanas and others for begging.</li>
<li>Vaswoksara means made 'of gold.' It is a feminine adjective. The substantive is omitted. I think the passage may mean--'The city of Rantideva is made of gold.'</li>
<li>A Vyama is the space between the two arms extended at their furthest.</li>
<li>Literally, a Kshatriya is one that rescues another from wounds and injuries.</li>
<li>A raja is one who enjoys the affection of his people, and with whom they are delighted.</li>
<li>The bow of Siva, otherwise called Pinaka.</li>
<li>Aklishtakarman, literally, one who is never fatigued with work; hence one capable of obtaining the results of action by a mere fiat of the will. It may also mean, of unspotted acts.</li>
<li>Parthivas, i.e., relating to the earth.</li>
<li>The first line of the verse, I think, has been correctly explained by Nilakantha. The paraphrase is ya imam bhumim sukham kurvan adyam i.e. adyam yugam anuparyeti sma.</li>
<li>The Bombay text adds some verses here which do not occur in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>K. P. Sinha makes a ludicrous blunder in reading this line.</li>
<li>Sannahikas, i.e., clad in mail.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading Dwijaidhitam is certainly better than the Bombay reading Dwijochitam although Nilakantha explains uchitam as abhimatam.</li>
<li>Twilight is herself the goddess who is supposed to be adored by certain prayers and on the occasion.</li>
<li>These slaps mark the cadences.</li>
<li>Literally, 'in crossing.'</li>
<li>The Bengal reading Satyavrataiv in the first line of 9 is vicious. I adopt the Bombay reading Satyaratas, qualifying tara. To suppose that Krishna paid such a complement to the Kauravas as is implied by the Bengal reading is an absurdity.</li>
<li>i.e. added his voice to that of Jayadratha, requesting Drona to protect the latter.</li>
<li>A kind of car or vehicle.</li>
<li>Nilakantha supposes that tasmai here refers to the Three-eyed and not to Krishna. This seems to be right.</li>
<li>The second note of the Hindu gamut.</li>
<li>Vasavamiva is a mistake for Vasavasyeva.</li>
<li>Apavrittam is explained by Nilakantha as endangered or made doubtful. What Sanjaya says is that if it is not so, thou shalt then have to undergo the bitterness of ruling over the whole world bestowed upon thee by the Pandavas. Either the Pandavas will snatch away thy kingdom or make thee ruler of the whole after slaying thy sons. Either of these alternatives would be bitter to thee.</li>
<li>The original is pleonastic.</li>
<li>This verse obviously needs correction. Instead of "golden coats of mail," I think some such correction is needed, viz. coats of mail, of black iron, decked with gold and dyed with blood, etc.</li>
<li>The original is pleonastic.</li>
<li>This Sloka occurs in all the texts. It would seem, therefore, that Sanjaya was not always a witness only of the battle for narrating what he saw to Dhritarashtra, but sometimes at least he took part in the battle.</li>
<li>The words tatsainyanyabhyapujayan seem to be unmeaning in this connection. The Bengali translators, unable to do anything with them, have left them out.</li>
<li>The celestial weapons were forces dependent on mantras. Ordinary shafts, inspired with these mantras, were converted into celestial weapons.</li>
<li>In other words. Arjuna's car shot as quickly through the enemy as the arrows themselves sped from it.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading of the first line is vicious. The Bombay reading is Vamatkum Vipathum, Vanan. The first word means the froth in the mouth of the steeds.</li>
<li>i.e., his funeral obsequies. The vernacular translators do not see the intended joke.</li>
<li>I give the sense of this verse, without giving a closely literal version.</li>
<li>Avabhritha is the final bath undergone, on completion of as sacrifice by the person performing the sacrifice. The slaughter of Duryodhana would according to Krishna, be the avabhritha of the sacrifice of battle.</li>
<li>Praviddham means fallen down or loosened from its usual place. Thus Nilakantha.</li>
<li>Tripura means the three cities constructed by the Asura artificer Maya. The Asura, however, who owned those cities is also called Tripura. It was Mahadeva who destroyed the three cities with all their population vide the close of the Harivansa.</li>
<li>The true reading is alohita and not lohita. Arka here is crystal and not the sun. It was a silvern boar, which could not, evidently, be like the sun.</li>
<li>Owners of golden cars.</li>
<li>Nidas were niches or drivers boxes.</li>
<li>Many of the opening slokas of this section are nearly the same as those of section </li><li>of Bhishma Parva, vide ante. In a few instances I have adopted the readings of the Bombay edition.</li>
<li>I prefer the reading Samakulam to Jhashakulam.</li>
<li>i.e., using cars and elephants as weapons for destroying cars and elephants.</li>
<li>The fear behind them was from the Pandava army. The fear before them was from the car-warriors who had succeeded in penetrating the Kuru host.</li>
<li>Many of the Bengal texts have Calabhairiva. This is a mistake, the word being Calada, and not Calabha which would be unmeaning here.</li>
<li>I render the second line of 4 too freely. The sense seems to be that when two persons fight, one cannot say beforehand who will succeed. Both have chances of success, as, indeed, both have chances of defeat.</li>
<li>The genius of the two languages being entirely different, I give the sense of the first line of </li><li>separately, without seeking to connect it, in the assertive form, with the second half of 13.</li>
<li>Literally, 'disregard of Krishna.'</li>
<li>The Bombay reading, which I adopt, seems to be better than the Bengal one.</li>
<li>I think that both Vrikodaram and nisitais in this verse as given in the Bombay text are incorrect. I read Vrikodaras and navavhis following the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>The sense seems to be that Karna and Bhima were like fire and wind.</li>
<li>Verse </li><li>is a triplet. The second line is obscure. It seems that a line has been omitted.</li>
<li>Literally, mustered all his rage.</li>
<li>In the first line of the </li><li>the Bengal reading Ayastam is better than the Bombay reading Ayastas.</li>
<li>Literally, 'a mountain overgrown with medicinal herbs of great efficacy.' Of course, the allusion is to Hanumat's removal of Gandhamadana for the cure of Lakshmana.</li>
<li>i.e., the little indent caused by a cow's hoof.</li>
<li>The sense is that he that will slay me will always be victorious in battle, will always slay the warriors with whom he may be engaged in battle. Defeat will never be his.</li>
<li>Do not render </li><li>literally. Satyaki is called 'Satyavikrama,' i.e., 'of true prowess' or 'of prowess incapable of being baffled.' If he sustains a defeat today at Bhurisrava's hand, that title of his will be falsified. This is all that Krishna means.</li>
<li>Verse </li><li>is incomplete. I supply the words,--'Why then should I not protect' in order to make the meaning intelligible. The first line of </li><li>is grammatically connected with </li><li>To avoid an ugly construction I render it separately.</li>
<li>Literally, 'who could witness with indifference Satyaki reduced to that plight?'</li>
<li>Generally, to die, abstaining from all food. It is a method of freeing the soul from the body by Yoga.</li>
<li>Literally, 'near the place assigned for the sacrificial butter.'</li>
<li>Nilakantha explains chakram as Pratapam.</li>
<li>The second line of </li><li>I render a little freely to make the sense clearer.</li>
<li>A Kavandha is a headless trunk moving about as if endued with life. Tales are told of these headless beings drinking the blood of victims falling within their grasp.</li>
<li>The second of the seven notes of the Hindu gamut.</li>
<li>The printed editions and the manuscripts do not agree with one another in respect of the order and numbering of the last dozen verses. The Bombay edition omits a few of the verses.</li>
<li>Everything even the inanimate creation, exists and adores the Supreme deity.</li>
<li>This is a triplet in the Calcutta edition.</li>
<li>Literally, 'the fact of the Dhartarashtras having sunk (into distress).'</li>
<li>Literally, 'of persons whose coronal locks have undergone the sacred bath.'</li>
<li>Praluvdhas is explained by Nilakantha differently. He supposes that Duryodhana here characterises Sikhandin to be a deceitful fowler or hunter in consequence of the deceit with which he caused Bhishma's fall. This is far-fetched.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading.</li>
<li>The Bombay edition reads this verse differently and introduces another after it which does not occur in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>I am not sure whether I have rendered the 31st and the first half of 32nd correctly. The vernacular translators have made a mess of the passage. The difficulty lies with Surhittamais. I take it to mean that Duryodhana says, 'Karna, Sakuni, Duhsasana, with myself, had taken thee, O preceptor, for a friend, and had engaged thee in this battle. We did not, however, then know that thou art an enemy in disguise.'</li>
<li>i.e., 'he should, by every means in his power, avenge himself on the Somakas, those enemies of mine.'</li>
<li>This is a triplet in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>I render the second line freely, following Nilakantha.</li>
<li>Literally, 'with shafts resembling his rays.'</li>
<li>Or, 'as a lake overgrown with lotuses is agitated on every side by an elephant.'</li>
<li>Sixteen lines, occurring after this in the Bombay edition, have been omitted in the Calcutta edition.</li>
<li>Drums of diverse kinds and sizes.</li>
<li>The Bombay reading is apalavam and not viplatam.</li>
<li>This is a triplet in all the editions.</li>
<li>The brother of the Kalinga prince.</li>
<li>Patanipam is explained by Nilakantha as something that causes the patana or downfall of a person hence sin. [There is no reference for this note in the body of this page, so I have placed it in a likely location.--JBH]</li>
<li>A nalwa measured four hundred cubits.</li>
<li>Nilakantha explains that there were Pisachas.</li>
<li>Aswatthaman and the Pandavas were like brothers, for both were disciples of Drona. Ghatotkacha, therefore, having been Bhima's son was Aswatthaman's brother's son.</li>
<li>i.e., the weapon endued with the force of the thunder.</li>
<li>Different species of Rakshasas.</li>
<li>Tripura, belonging to an Asura of the same.</li>
<li>Asani literally means the thunder. Probably, some kind of iron mace.</li>
<li>The Bengal texts read Utkrisha-vikramas. The correct reading seems to be Aklivhtavikramas. Then again Sahanujam seems to be inaccurate. I follow the Bombay reading Sahanugam.</li>
<li>Achyuta, when used as a proper noun, refers to Krishna. It means of unfading glory and 'the immortal.'</li>
<li>Slight differences are observable between the Bengal and the Bombay texts as regards the last three verses.</li>
<li>This is a triplet.</li>
<li>This is a triplet.</li>
<li>In the second line of </li><li>utsedha and not udvrita is the true reading. So also kanchit and not kinchit. The paraphrase, according to Nilakantha, in kanchit dhanurdharam na ganayan, etc.</li>
<li></li><li>is a triplet.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading sudakshinas at the end of </li><li>dose not seem to be correct. I adopt the Bombay reading sudarnnam.</li>
<li>The Bombay edition reads the first line of 3 differently. The Bengal reading is also defective. The correct reading seems to be Rathanaga instead of Naranaga.</li>
<li>This is a Triplet.</li>
<li>Instead of mattagaje, the Bombay edition reads tatragaje.</li>
<li>There seems to be a mistake in this sloka in its reference to the Pandavas. The reading, however, that occurs in all the printed edition, is the same. In one manuscript I find Kamrava-yodhavurgais (which I adopt) for Pandava-Kauraveyais.</li>
<li>The second line of </li><li>as it occurs in the Bengal texts, is adopted by me. A slight difference of reading occurs between the Bengal and the Bombay editions.</li>
<li>As regards almost every one of these slokas, differences of reading are observable between the Bengal texts and the Bombay edition. The readings of the Bombay edition are almost uniformly better. Then, again, many of those verses are disfigured with syntactical pleonasms and other grave errors. Abounding with tiresome repetitions that scarcely attract notice amid the variety of synonyms with which the language of the original abounds and amid also the melodious flow of the rhythm, the defects become glaring in translation. At the latter, however, of faithfulness, I have been obliged to sacrifice elegance, in rendering this section.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading tatha loka is incorrect. The Bombay text correctly reads tadaloka. Then also, instead of the Bengal reading rajasacaa samavrite (which is faulty), the true reading is raja tamasa vrite.</li>
<li>Lokanamabhave is explained by Nilakantha as pralaya-kale.</li>
<li>A different reading occurs in the Bombay edition.</li>
<li>Nalikas, as used here, appear to have been some species of shafts. In an earlier note, relying on other authorities, I took it to mean some kind of air-gun.</li>
<li>Vaikartana may also mean one who has peeled off his skin of natural armour. To preserve dramatic propriety, the Hindu commentators explain it in this sense when it occurs in any such passage, for the real origin of Karna, viz., his procreation by the deity of the sun, became known after his death.</li>
<li>The second line of 9 is read differently in the Calcutta edition. I adopt the Bombay reading.</li>
<li>In the second line of </li><li>Avyayatturnam instead of Maharaja is the correct reading.</li>
<li>This sloka seems to be a vicious one.</li>
<li>Yena and tena here are equal to yatra and tatra.</li>
<li>In the first line of </li><li>Vaganais and not Vanaganan is the true reading.</li>
<li>The second line of </li><li>is read differently in the Calcutta edition. In consequence also of some differences between two printed editions, </li><li>of the Calcutta text is </li><li>of the Bombay text.</li>
<li>In the Bengal texts this is a triplet.</li>
<li>It is for this that I see thee with this head as a tribute.</li>
<li>An arani is a cubit measuring from the elbow to the end of the little figure.</li>
<li>Both reading, viz., asaktam and asaktam are correct. The former means 'engaged', the latter, 'to the measure of his might!'</li>
<li>The second line of </li><li>is differently in the Bombay edition.</li>
<li>Rakshasas at certain hours were believed to be inspired with greater strength.</li>
<li>Mainaka the son of Himavat, has a hundred heads.</li>
<li>i.e., they thought they obtained a new lease of life.</li>
<li>Literally means, "united by Jara."</li>
<li>Nilakantha thinks that Sagadaya in one word, meaning 'deprived of the both Rakshasas and the mace.' This is far-fetched.</li>
<li>Fire being the mouth of the celestials, without fire, the celestials become mouthless. Thus Nilakantha.</li>
<li>This is a triplet in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li></li><li>is a triplet in the Bengal texts.</li>
<li>Triyama, literally, consisting of three Yamas, a Yama being a watch of three hours. The first hour and a half of the night and the last hour and a half, being regarded as twilight, the night, truly as such, with the ancient Hindoos, consisted of only nine hours.</li>
<li>Literally, 'of a thousand Yamas.'</li>
<li>The moon is called the lord of lilies because the water-lily is seen to bloom at moonrise, just as the sun is called the lord of the lotuses because the lotus blooms at sun-rise. The direction presided over by Indra means the East.</li>
<li>Dasatakasha-kkupa means the Kakup or direction presided by him of a thousand eyes; hence the East.</li>
<li>Instead of Vrishodara, the Bombay text reads Vrishottama, which I adopt.</li>
<li>In the first line of </li><li>the Bengal texts read Rajanam probably referring to Drupada. The correct reading, however, is Rujendra in the vocative case as in the Bombay edition.</li>
<li>I render this a little too freely. The form of the oath is, "Let that man lose, etc. whom Drona escapes today with life or whom Drona vanquishes today."</li>
<li>This, in the Bengal texts, is a triplet.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading of the first line of this verse.</li>
<li>All these arrows inflicted had wounds and could not be easily extracted. Shafts of crooked courses were condemned because the combatants could not easily baffle them, not knowing at whom they would fall.</li>
<li>This verse is omitted in the Bombay text. There can be no doubt, however, about its genuineness.</li>
<li>The celestial weapons were all living agents that appeared at the bidding of him who knew to invoke them. They abandoned, however, the person whose death was imminent, although invoked with the usual formulae.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading.</li>
<li>Deprived of both the worlds, having sustained a defeat, they lost this world, and flying away from the field, they committed a sin and lost the next world.</li>
<li>Celestial weapons were invoked with mantras, as explained in a previous note. They were forces which created all sorts of tangible weapons that the invoked desired. Here the Brahma weapon took the form of broad-headed arrows.</li>
<li>Dharmadhwajin literally means a person bearing the standard of virtue, hence, hypocrite, sanctimoniously talking only virtue and morality but acting differently.</li>
<li>I think the correct reading is aputrinas and not putrinas. If it is putrinas, literally rendered, the meaning is, 'Why should persons having children, feel any affection for the latter?' It the worthy of remark that the author of Venisamhara has bodily adopted this verse, putting it in the mouth of Aswatthaman when introduced in the third Act.</li>
<li>The last line of </li><li>is read differently in the Bombay edition. Nilakantha accepts that reading, and explains it in his gloss remarking that the grammatical solecism occuring in it is a license. The Bengal reading, however, is more apposite.</li>
<li>Literally, "the animals kept the Pandavas to their right."</li>
<li>Dasaratha's son Rama, during his exile, slew the monkey-chief Bali, the brother of Sugriva, while Bali was engaged with Sugriva in battle. Bali had not done any injury to Rama. That act has always been regarded as a stain on Rama.</li>
<li>I expand the original to make the sense clear.</li>
<li>The first line of the 23rd verse in the Bengal editions, is made the second line of that verse in the Bombay text. There seems to be a mistake, however, in both the texts. Vishnu slew Hiranyakasipu without allowing the latter to say anything unto him. Vide Vishnu Purana. If instead of Hiranyakasipu Harim, the rendering be Hiranyakasipu Haris, the line may then be connected with Bhima's speech, and the comparison would become more apposite.</li>
<li>The Nishadas were and to this day are the lowest caste in India.</li>
<li>The Bengal reading is vicious, I adopt the Bombay reading which is Surorgurunsha bhuyopi, meaning, "this preceptor again." The fact is, Arjuna was Satyaki's preceptor; Drona, therefore, was the latter's preceptor's preceptor.</li>
<li>Kimpurushas were fabled creatures, half men and steeds. Not a mountain but had its Kimpurushas, according to the Hindu belief. Yakshas were a sort of superhuman beings inhabiting inaccessible hills and mountains.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading of the 2nd line of </li><li>and think that Nilakantha explains it correctly.</li>
<li>I adopt the Bombay reading.</li>
<li>Nilakantha explains this to mean that when he became unconnected with the world, rising superior to everything connected with the world.</li>
<li>The terrible.</li>
<li>Amritasya yonim, literally, the origin or cause of immortality, i.e., he from whom immortality springs. Hence, as explained by Nilakantha, the phrase means the source of salvation, for those only that are emancipate became immortal as the Supreme Soul itself.</li>
<li>i.e., the five attributes perceivable by the five senses, with the five objects of Nature with which they are directly connected or in which they manifest themselves.</li>
<li>Having given it away to Rama, his disciple.</li>
<li>All these terms imply Death or the Destroyer.</li>
</ol>