Footnotes

Tapas-kshetra because Kuru, the common ancestor of the rival houses, performed his ascetic austerities there. Since Kuru's time, many ascetics took up their abode there.
Some texts have Duddharsham for Durddharshas.
Literally, "gives heat".
'Varna' is used here in the sense of races and not castes.
This sloka is variously read. For bhauman in the first line some texts read bhimam which I have adopted. For sahasa in the second line some texts have rajasa, and then aditye (locative) for 'adityas'.
The Bombay text is evidently faulty here; it repeats the second half of the 7th sloka, making the second half of the 25th the first half of the 24th.
i.e., stragglers should not be slain.
Literally, "confiding."
The Bombay text has Castropanayishu; the Bengal texts have Castropojibishu.
Rather, "have their periods run out."
The Bombay text reads pralahshaye for prajashaye. I have adopted the former.
Both the Bengal and the Bombay editions have Kukkuran for Kukkutan as the Burdwan Pundits correct it. A bitch producing dogs and bitches would be no anomaly.
Unlike the Bengal editions, the Bombay edition correctly includes this sloka, or rather half sloka, within the 17th, making the 17th a triplet instead of a couplet. For the well-known word Dhishthitas however, the Bombay text has Vishthitas.
The Bombay text reads Paricchanna for Paricchinna. The former is better.
Vaisase is explained by Nilakantha as Virodhe. Conttavarta--a river having bloody eddies.
Conitam cchardayanniva. I have adopted Nilakantha's explanation. The Burdwan Pundits take it as referring to "weapons" instead of "hearers." The passage, however, may mean that the bird screams so frightfully as if it vomits blood. The only thing that militates against this interpretation is that cchardayan is a causal verb. In the Mahabharata, however, causal forms are frequently used without causal meaning.
This sloka is omitted in many editions, though it is certainly genuine. I have rendered it very freely, as otherwise it would be unintelligible. The fact is, three lunations twice meeting together in course of the same lunar fortnight is very rare. The lunar-fortnight (Paksha) being then reduced by two days, the day of full-moon or that of new moon, instead of being (as usual) the fifteenth day from the first lunation becomes the thirteenth day. Lunar-eclipses always occur on days of the full-moon, while solar-eclipses on those of the new moon. Such eclipses, therefore, occurring on days removed from the days of the first lunation by thirteen instead of (as usual) fifteen days, are very extraordinary occurrences.
Vishamam is battle or war, and akranda is weeping or productive of grief. The latter word may also mean a fierce battle. If understood in this sense, Vishamam may be taken as indicating hostility, or absence of peace.
Nilakantha explains this in a long note the substance of which is appended below. Kings are divided into three classes, viz., owners of elephants (Gajapati), owners of horses (Aswapati), and owners of men (Narapati). If an evil-omened planet (papa-graha) sheds its influence upon any of the nine constellations beginning with Aswini, it forebodes danger to Aswapatis; if on any of the nine beginning with Magha, it forebodes danger to Gajapatis; and if on any of the nine beginning with Mula, it forebodes danger to Narapatis. What Vyasa says here, therefore, is that one or another papa-graha has shed its influence upon one another of each of the three classes of constellations, thus foreboding danger to all classes of kings.
Vide note ante.
Aparvani, i.e., not on Parva days or days of full-moon and new-moon as ordinarily coming. The Bombay edition, after aparvani, reads grahenau tau. A better reading unquestionably grastavetau, as many Bengal texts have.
Pratisrotas; strict grammar would require pratisrotasas; the meaning is that those that flowed east to west now flow west to east, &c. For kurddanti some texts have narddanti which is certainly better. Kurddanti means play or sport; wells playing like bulls would be unmeaning, unless the sport is accompanied by bellowing.
The Burdwan Pundits reads suskasani for sakrasani. The latter, however, is the true reading.
The original is very obscure. Uluka is explained by Nilakantha as a brand (used for want of lambs). The line, however, is elliptical. The Burdwan Pundits introduce an entirely new line.
Mahabhuta is swelling greatly.
Parena is explained by Nilakantha as atisayena.
Some of the Bengal texts read anugraham (making the initial a silent after maharshe, in the vocative case). There can be no doubt however, that this is incorrect. The true reading is nadharmam which I have adopted. The Bombay text reads na cha dharmam. The introduction of the article cha needlessly makes the line incorrect as to metre.
The second line of the 67th sloka is very obscure. I have followed Nilakantha in translating it thus. The sense seems to be, that when crows hover behind an army, that is an auspicious sign; while it is an inauspicious sign if they are seen ahead. I am not sure that Nilakantha is right in taking the pronoun ye as referring to even crows.
Such as "don't fight, for you will be dead men soon." &c.
Nilakantha explains these five species thus: trees such as the peepul; gulma (shrub), as kusa, kasa, &c., growing from a clump underneath; creepers, such as all plants growing upon the soil but requiring some support to twine round; Valli, those that creep on the earth and live for a year only, such, as the gourd, the pumpkin, etc., and lastly, Trina, such as grass and all plants that are stemless, having only their barks and leaves.
When Gayatri, or Brahma or the Universe, is mentioned, these twenty-four are indicated, five of which exist independently, the remaining nineteen being the result of five in those various proportions.
I have rendered 4 and 5 a little too freely. The language of the original is very terse.
Samyam is homogeneity. The allusion is to the state of the universe before creation, when there exists nothing but a homogeneous mass or Brahma alone. The first compound of the 2nd line is read differently. The Burdwan Pandits and the Bombay edition read anyonyam (in the accusative); many of the Bengal texts read anyonyena (in the instrumental). The meaning is scarcely affected by this difference of reading.
The order of destruction is that earth merges into water, water into fire, fire into air, and air into space. And so the order of birth is that from space arises air, from air arises fire, from fire arises water, and from water arises earth.
Nilakantha explains the last six slokas as having an esoteric meaning. By Sudarsana he understands the mind. The rest is explained consistently. Interpretations, however, are not rare among commentators seeking to put sense in non-sense.
The Bombay text reads Varsha parvatas for parvatas samas.
For Pinaddha occurring in the Bengal texts, the Bombay edition reads Vichitra.
The Bengal texts add a line here which is properly omitted in the Bombay edition.
After the 10th occurs a line in the Bengal text which is evidently vicious.
Day of the full-moon and that of the new-moon.
The Bengal texts, except the Burdwan one, have divi for Daityas, of course, the latter reading is correct.
The Bombay text has Sarvatas (which is better) for Sarvata in the Bengal texts.
in the first line of
the Bengal texts read Sirasas (ablative) for Sikhhrat of the Bombay edition. In the last line of
also, the Bombay text has plavantiva-pravegena for the Bengal reading patatyajapravegena. No material difference of meaning arises if one or the other is accepted.
Alluding to the tradition of Siva's holding Ganga on his head and for which the great god is sometimes called Gangadhara.
This word occurs in various forms, Ketumala and Ketumali being two others.
The Bombay edition reads tu for cha after Jamvukhanda. The meaning becomes changed.
The sacred stream Ganga is believed to have three currents. In heaven the current is called Mandakini; on earth, it is called Ganga; and in the subterraneous world it is called Bhogavati.
The Bengal texts, excepting the Burdwan one, incorrectly read Sakram for Satram.
The correct reading is Gatimanti. Many of the Bengal texts incorrectly read matimanti, which is unmeaning.
Many of the Bengal texts incorrectly read Merorapyyantaram for Merorathottaram.
This sloka beginning with mani and ending with prabham is omitted in the Bombay text, I don't think rightly. If anything that seems to be a repetition is to be omitted.
i.e. "have fallen away from a celestial state."
In sloka
the Bengal texts read Bhayanakas for mahavalas. In
Mudhabhishekas for Purvabhishekas is substituted in the Bombay text. In 1 again the Bombay text reads Subhas for drumas.
The Bengal texts have Chandrabhasa for Chandraprabha. The difference is not material.
Both the Burdwan and the Bombay editions read Panchashat (five and six). The Bengal texts generally have panchasat (fifty).
The Bombay edition reads Tasmat-sritigamatas param. The Bengal texts read Yasmat-sringamatas param. The Bengal reading is better. The Asiatic Society's edition contains a misprint. The meaning is, "Because Sringa (jewelled mountain of that name), therefore superior." I have rendered it somewhat freely.
They are but portions of the same Supreme Being.
i.e. mountains forming boundaries of divisions.
The Bombay text reads Ikshula and Krimi for "Ikshumlavi" occurring in Bengal texts.
The Bengal texts have Gandakincha mahanadim. The Bombay text reads Vandanancha mahanadim with a cha immediately before. The Burdwan Pandits read Chandanancha mahanadim.
The Bombay texts read Tridiva for Nischita; this is incorrect, for Tridiva occurs in the Bombay text itself a little before. The name Lohatarini occurs in various forms.
For Vetravati, the Bengal texts read Chandrabhaga. Both Chandrabhaga and Vetravati, however occur before.
Kamadhuk is that species of kine which always yield milk.
Nilakantha explains this in this way. The gods depend on sacrifices performed by human beings; and as regards human beings, their food is supplied by the Earth. Superior and inferior creatures, therefore, are all supported by the earth; the Earth then is their refuge. The word Earth in these slokas is sometimes used to signify the world and sometimes the element of that name.
I render the last line a little too freely. If the saying is intended to be general, the translation should run thus: "Up to this day there is no man whose desires can be satiated."
The Bombay text reads Kimanyat Kathayami te. The Bengal reading is Kimanyat srotumicchasi.
The Bombay text reads Tatas parena; the Bengal reading is Tatas purvena. I adopt the former.
Probably this mythical account of Sakadwipa embodies some vague tradition current in ancient India of some republic in Eastern Asia or Oceanic Asia (further east in the Pacific). Accustomed as the Hindus were to kingly form of government, a government without a king, would strike them exactly in the way described in the last two slokas.
The second line of the 3rd sloka is read variously. The Bombay edition incorrectly reads 'Parvataccha' etc. etc.; the Bengal reading is evameva etc. etc. The Bengal reading is better, although the true reading, I apprehend, is Evametais &c., &c.
Vamanaka and Vamana are the same words the final ka being a suffix causing no difference of meaning. So Andhakaraka and Andhakara are the same.
Dig-gaja, i.e. an elephant supporting the globe. There are four such in Hindu mythology or ten according to some accounts.
i.e., with the juice trickling down from their cheeks and mouth. In the season of rut, a peculiar kind of juice issues from several parts of an elephant's body. It is believed to be the temporal-juice. The stronger and fierce the elephant, the greater the quantity of the juice that issues out its body.
Tasya (singular of Tad) and sa (masculine singular of Tad) both refer to the four elephants, Gaja-chatushtaya in singular.
Asamyadha lit. "Unbound" or "unrestrained," i.e. freely or irregularly.
It is a remarkable fact that the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle was roughly known to the ancient Hindus. The circumference is nearly, as stated here, three times and a half of the diameter. The next ratio, of course, is slightly less, being three and one-seventh.
The first word of this sloka is variously read. 'Yathadishtam' is the Bengal reading, while the Bombay reading 'Yathoddishtam.' If the latter reading were adopted, the meaning would be as indicated (in the Sastras). The second line literally rendered, is "pacify thy son Duryodhana." But how Dhritarashtra is to pacify his son having listened to the geographical digression, is not easy to see.
For Sadhusattamas of the Bengal texts, the Bombay edition reads Sadhusammatas. I adopt the last.
The last word in the first line of the 11th sloka, in the Bengal texts, is 'Pravriha.' In the Bombay edition it is 'Anikaha.' The difference in meaning is immaterial.
The first half of the first line, in the Bengal texts, is read as 'Kathamascha me putra', the Bombay text reads 'Kathamascha me Yoddha'. If the latter reading be adopted, the meaning would be--"Tell me how my warriors were," etc. etc.
In the second line of sloka
for 'kim na asinmanastada' (what was the state of mind of our men) the Bombay text reads 'Kimu asinmanastava' (what was the state of your mind)?
The Plural pronouns 'ye' in the second line of the 8th sloka (changed into 'ya' by rule of Sandhi because coming before tenam) is read 'ke' (or 'ka') by the Burdwan Pundits. I think the correction a happy one. Nilakantha would take 7 and 8 and the first half of 9 as a complete sentence reading 'Asya twama antike' (thou wert near him) for 'Asyaram antike' (smiting or shooting arrows near).
Some of the Bengal texts have Panchalanam for Pandavanam.
The form of the 2nd line is a negative interrogative, implying,--'I hope the Kurus did not abandon him.'
This comparison, lengthy as it is, is not sustained throughout with the usual felicity of Vyasa. In several parts it is undoubtedly faulty. Slight variation of reading also occur here and there, without affecting the sense materially.
Gachchhato durgam gatim. The Bombay edition reads Gachchhanto etc., etc. The meaning then would be--"who protected the wings, themselves making the last painful journey?"
The Burdwan Pundits make Mahavalas an adjective of Putras. A better construction would be to take it as referring to Bhishma.
Ghatayitwa is, literally, causing to be slain.
The words "high-souled" and also "through whose boon bestowed of me" occur in the 9th sloka following.
Vyotthiopatti vijananam, Vyutthita is a very doubtful word.
Literally, "in Indra's abodes," i.e. Amaravati.
A Kshatriya falling bravely in fight at once goes to the highest regions of bliss.
Nilakantha in a long note explains that Magha Vishayagas Somas cannot mean that Soma or the Moon entered the constellation called Magha. He quotes numerous slokas scattered throughout the Mahabharata that throw light, directly or indirectly, on the question of the opening day of the battle, and shows that all these lead to a different conclusion. What is meant by the Moon approaching the region of the Pitris is that those who fall in battle immediately ascend to heaven; of course, they have first to go to the region of Pitris. Thence they have to go to the lunar region for obtaining celestial bodies. All this implies a little delay. Here, however, in the case of those that would fall on the field of Kurukshetra, they would not have to incur even such a little delay. Chandramas or Soma approached the region of Pitris so that the fallen warriors might have celestial bodies very soon, without, in fact, any necessity, on their part, to incur the delay of a journey to the lunar region prior to their ascension to heaven with resplendent bodies.
There are nine planets in all the Pauranic astronomy. Of these Rahu and Ketu are regarded Upagrahas, and hence, of grahas there are only seven. Thus Nilakantha, and the Burdwan pundits have made a mess of this line.
The Bengal texts read Bhanumanudito divi. The Bombay reading is Bhanumanudito Ravis. If the latter be adopted, Bhanuman would be an adjective of Ravis.
Purvais Purvatarais is literally--"They of old and still older times"; for Sanatanas some editions read Srutijas (qualifying panthas). Srutija means arising from the Srutis or as laid down in the Srutis.
Chamupatis is the Bengal reading. The Bombay text reads Chamupari. If the latter reading be adopted, the meaning would be, "at the head of the (Kuru) army."
The Bengal editions read 'Magadhascha ripum yayau.' The Bombay text reads 'Magadhasya Kripo-yayau.' If the latter reading be adopted, the meaning would be "and guiding the very van of the Magadha troops Kripa went."
The Bengal reading is Saradabhraghana-prakshyam. The Bombay reading is 'Sharadamvudhara-prakshyam.'
Vasavartinas is nominative, masculine, plural, referring to cars, &c.; the Burdwan Pundits take it as a genitive singular qualifying tasya, and they render it, therefore, as "of that subordinate of Duryodhana." This is evidently incorrect.
Machines, perhaps catapults.
'Vyuha' is an array of troops in a certain form. Many such will be spoken of in this and the other 'parvas' devoted to the battle.
The Bombay edition reads Yamunantara for Yamunantare of the Bengal texts. The difference in meaning is not very material.
The Bengal texts read Syandamana; the Bombay reading is Spandamana. Both imply "moving", only the motion in the latter case is slower, perhaps, than in the former.
The word used is Dayadas lit., taker of (one's) wealth.
The Bombay text is here faulty. Darsay swamahavalam is scarcely correct. The Bengal reading is 'Darsayan sumahavalam.'
Literally, "with rent cheeks and mouth."
The Bombay reading is certainly faulty here. For Chalanta iva parvatas it reads Jimuta iva varashikas, although it makes the previous line begin Ksharantaiva Jimuta.
A parigha is a thick club mounted with iron. The comparison is very feeble, for Bhima's mace, in the popular estimation, is much heavier and stouter than any parigha manufactured for human combatants. Prachakarsha is, lit. dragged. I think, however, the root krish must be taken here in the sense of crush.
The name Vajra implies either a hard needle for boring diamonds and gems, or the thunder-bolt. In this sloka the word Vajra is used as associated with the thunder and therefore, as thunder is accompanied by lightning so the bows of the warriors are the lightning-marks of this particular Vajra.
The word is Uttaradhus which seems to be very doubtful.
Yenarjunastena, Yena is yatra and tena is tatra, as Nilakantha rightly explains. The meaning is--"who would be there where Arjuna would be."
The Bengal texts read Dharmenikena chanagha which is evidently faulty, remembering that the words are Brahman's to Indra and the celestials. The Bombay reading is Dharmenaivodyamena cha which I have adopted.
The sense is that they, viz., the gods, who accepted Krishna's lead, or selected him for their leader, became victorious. The Bengal reading is evidently superior, viz., Anu Krishna literally "behind Krishna," i.e., "with Krishna in the front," or "with Krishna as a leader." The Bombay reading is Katham Krishna. If this were adopted, the meaning would be, "How O Krishna, shall we conquer?" I do not understand how victory should be theirs who answered in this way. Of course, the answer implies modesty. But modesty is not the sole requisite of victory, nor is modesty inculcated here as the chief means of victory.
The Bengal texts read Kanchana-bhanda-yuktam. The Bombay reading is much better, being Kanchanabhanda-yoktam; again, for Nagakulasya the Bombay edition reads Nagapurasya, Nilakantha notices the latter reading.
The Bengal reading is Mahindram (king of earth, or king); the Bombay reading is Mahendram (the great Indra). Without iva any word to that effect, Mahendram would be ungrammatical.
The Bengal texts read, and as I think, correctly, Stutavanta enam. The Bombay reading is Srutavanta enam. In the case of regenerate Rishis and Siddhas it is scarcely necessary to say that they are conversant with the Srutis.
The Bengal reading Sahasrani for Savastrani is correct. I adopt the latter.
This is how I understand this verse, and I am supported by the Burdwan Pundits. Nilakantha, it seems, thinks that the car had a thousand wheels resembling a thousand suns.
Verse
is read variously. As the last word of the first line, I read Achakarsha for raraksha, and accordingly I take that as a genitive and not an ablative particle.
I follow Nilakantha in rendering many of the names occurring in this and the succeeding slokas. I retain, however, those names that are of doubtful etymology, as also those that are very common.
Every scholar knows the derivation of this word as given in this sloka of Kalidasa (in his Kumara Sambhavam) Umeti matra tapasonishiddha paschadumakhyam Sumukhi Jagama.
Both Swaha and Swadha are mantras of high efficacy. Kala and Kastha are divisions of time. Saraswati implies speech.
Sankhye is explained by Nilakantha to be Samyak Khyanam Prakasana Yasmin; hence Atmanatma-vivekarupa Samadhi.
The text of the Gita has come down to us without, it may be ventured to be stated, any interpolation. The difference of reading are few and far between. For Jayadratha some texts read tathaivacha.
The words Aparyaptam and Paryaptam have exercised all commentators. If paryaptam is sufficient (as it certainly is), aparyaptam may mean either more or less than sufficient. The context, however, would seem to show that Duryodhana addressed his preceptor in alarm and not with confidence of success, I, therefore, take aparyaptam to be less than sufficient.
It has been observed before that Schlegel renders the names of these conches as Gigantea, Theodotes, Arundinca, Triumpphatrix, Dulcisona, and Gemmiflora, and that Professor Wilson approves of them.
It seems a fashion to doubt the etymology of this word, as if commentators of the learning of Sreedhara and Sankara, Anandagiri and Nilakantha even upon a question of derivation and grammar can really be set aside in favour of anything that may occur in the Petersburgh lexicon. Hrishikesa means the lord of the senses.
Ranasamudyame may also mean "at the outset of battle."
The meaning is that even for the sake of such a rich reward in prospect I would not kill persons so dear and near to me. I would much rather suffer them strike me, myself not returning their blows.
The word is atatayinas.
Most editions read savandhavam "with (their) kinsmen or friends," I think, however, that swa (own) for (with) is the correct reading. K. T. Telang adopts it in his translation published in Vol. VIII of the Sacred Books of the East.
In some editions this lesson is stated to be "Arjuna's grief." The description of the lesson again is given in fewer words.
The commentators betray their ingenuity by emphasizing the word ishubhis (with arrows), explaining, "how can I encounter them with arrows whom I cannot encounter with even harsh words?"
Arthakaman is an adjective qualifying Gurun. Some commentators particularly Sreedhara, suggest that it may, instead, qualify bhogan. The meaning, however, in that case would be far-fetched.
Sreedhara explains that Karpanya is compassion (for kinsmen), and dosha is the fear of sin (for destroying a race). The first compound, therefore, according to him, means,--"My nature affected by both compassion and fear of sin," etc. It is better, however, to take Karpanya itself as a dosha (taint or fault). K. T. Telang understands it in this way. Upahata, however, is affected and not contaminated.
What Arjuna says here is that "Even if I obtain such a kingdom on Earth, even if I obtain the very kingship of the gods, I do not yet see that will dispel that grief which will overtake me if I slay my preceptor and kinsmen." Telang's version is slightly ambiguous.
The Bengal texts have Parantapa with a Visarga, thus implying that it refers to Gudakesa. The Bombay edition prints it without the Visarga, implying that it is in the vocative case, referring to Dhritarashtra, the listener.
One of the most useful rules in translating from one language into another is to use identical words for identical expressions in the original. In translating, however, from a language like Sanskrit which abounds in synonyms, this is not always practicable without ambiguity. As an example, the word used in
is Dhira; that used in
is Pandita. There can be little doubt, however, that Pandita and Dhira have exactly the same meaning.
Amritatwa is really emancipation or non-liability to repeated death or repeated rebirth. To render it as "immortality" is, perhaps, a little slovenly, for every soul is immortal, and this particular section inculcates it.
Sat and asat are the two words which must be distinctly understood as they occur often in Hindu philosophy. Sat is explained as the real, i.e., the soul, or anything as real and permanent as the soul. Asat is the reverse of this, i.e., the unreal or the Non-soul. What is said here by Krishna is that the unreal has no existence; the real, again can have no non-existence. Is not this a sort of cosmothetic idealism?
Most texts read Yudhaya Yujyaswa. A manuscript belonging to a friend of mine has the correction in red-ink, Yudhaya Yudhaya Yudhaywa. It accords so well with the spirit of the lesson sought to be inculcated here that I make no scruple to adopt it.
A life in this world that is subject to decay and death. So say all the commentators.
What Krishna seeks to inculcate here is the simple truth that persons who believe in the Vedas and their ordinances laying down specific acts for the attainment of a heaven of pleasure and power, cannot have the devotion without which there cannot be final emancipation which only is the highest bliss. The performance of Vedic rites may lead to heaven of pleasure and power, but what is that heaven worth? True emancipation is something else which must be obtained by devotion, by pure contemplation. In rendering Janma-Karma-phalapradam I have followed Sankara. Sreedhara and other commentators explain it differently.
This sloka has been variously rendered by various translators. It is the same that occurs in the Sanat-Sujata Parva of the Udyoga. (Vide Udyoga Parva, Section XLV). Both Sreedhara and Sankara (and I may mention Anandagiri also) explain it in this way. Shortly stated, the meaning is that to an instructed Brahmana (Brahma-knowing person and not a Brahmana by birth), his knowledge (of self or Brahma) teaches him that which is obtainable from all the Vedas, just as a man wanting to bathe or drink may find a tank or well as useful to him as a large reservoir of water occupying an extensive area. Nilakantha explains it in a different way.
Srotavyasya Srutasyacha is literally 'of the hearable and the heard', i.e., "what you may or will hear, and what you have heard." European translators of the Gita view in these words a rejection of the Vedas by the author. It is amusing to see how confidently they dogmatise upon this point, rejecting the authority of Sankara, Sreedhara, Anandagiri, and the whole host of Indian commentators. As K. T. Telang, however, has answered the point elaborately, nothing more need be said here.
One may abstain, either from choice or inability to procure them, from the objects of enjoyment. Until, however, the very desire to enjoy is suppressed, one cannot be said to have attained to steadiness of mind. Of Aristotle's saying that he is a voluptuary who pines at his own abstinence, and the Christian doctrine of sin being in the wish, mere abstinence from the act constitutes no merit.
The particle 'he' in the second line is explained by both Sankara and Anandagiri as equivalent to Yasmat. The meaning becomes certainly clearer by taking the word in this sense. The 'he', however, may also be taken as implying the sense of "indeed."
Buddhi in the first line is explained by Sreedhara as Aintavishayak buddhi. Bhavanta Sreedhara explains, is Dhyanam; and Sankara as Atmajnanabhinivesas. K. T. Telang renders Bhavana as perseverance. I do not think this is correct.
Sankara, Anandagiri, and Nilakantha explain this sloka thus. Sreedhara explains it otherwise. The latter supposes the pronouns yat and tat to mean a particular sense among the Charatam indriyanam. If Sreedhara's interpretation be correct, the meaning would be--"That (one sense) amongst the senses moving (among their objects) which the mind follows, (that one sense) tosseth the mind's (or the man's) understanding about like the wind tossing a (drunken boatman's) boat on the waters." The parenthetical words are introduced by Sreedhara himself. It may not be out of place to mention here that so far as Bengal, Mithila and Benares are concerned, the authority of Sreedhara is regarded as supreme.
The vulgar, being spiritually dark, are engaged in worldly pursuits. The sage in spiritual light is dead to the latter.
Prakritijais Gunas is explained by Sreedhara as qualities born of one's nature such as Ragadveshadi. Sankara thinks that they are the qualities or attributes of primal matter (which enters into the composition of every self) such as Satwa, Rajas, and Tamas.
"Apply to work", i.e. to work as prescribed in the scriptures. Thus says Sankara. "To morning and evening prayers, etc." says Sreedhara.
Sacrifices Vishnu's self as declared by the Srutis; work for sacrifice, therefore, is work for Vishnu's sake or gratification. For the sake of that i.e., for sacrifice's, or Vishnu's sake. So say all the commentators.
Bhavaya is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as Vradhaya or make grow. Perhaps, "rear" is the nearest approach to it in English. K. T. Telang renders it, 'please.' The idea is eminently Indian. The gods are fed by sacrifices, and in return they feed men by sending rain. The Asuras again who warred with the gods warred with sacrifices.
Parjjanya is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as rain. It means also the clouds or the origin of rain.
The word in the original that is rendered in the Vedas is Brahma. It may mean the Supreme Soul. Of course, in Brahmanic literature, the Vedas are Brahma and Brahma is the Vedas, but still in the second line of
there is no necessity of taking Brahma as equivalent to the Vedas. I do not think Telang is accurate in his rendering of this line.
The wheel referred to is what has been said before, viz., from the Vedas are work, from work is rain, from rain is food, from food are creatures, from creatures again work and so back to the Vedas.
The sense seems to be, as explained by the commentators, that such a man earns no merit by action, nor sin by inaction or omission. Nor is there anybody from the Supreme Being to the lowest creature on whom he depends for anything.
The example set by the great is always catching. Itaras, here, is Vulgar and not "other". Kurute which I have rendered as "maketh" is used in the sense of "regardeth." Pramanam, however, may not necessarily mean something else that is set up as an ideal. It may refer to the actions themselves of the great men set up by them as a standard.
Sreedhara would connect "in the three worlds" with what follows. I follow Sankara and the natural order of words.
The word rendered "nature" is prakriti. It really implies "primal matter."
The second line, literally rendered, is "deeming that qualities engage in qualities." The first "qualities" imply the senses, and the second, the objects of the senses. The purport is that one knowing the distinction referred to, never thinks that his soul is the actor, for that which is work is only the result of the senses being applied to their objects.
Guna-karmashu is explained by Sankara as works of the qualities, or works done by them. Sreedhara explains the compound as "qualities and (their) works."
Devoting all work to me, i.e., in the belief that all you do is for me or my sake.
The senses, as regards their diverse objects in the world, are either drawn towards them or repelled by them. These likes and dislikes (in the case of men who, of course, only act according to their nature) stand in the way of their emancipation, if men submit to them.
Desire, if not gratified, results in wrath. Thus say the commentators.
Prajahi is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as parityaja (cast off).
He is the Supreme Soul or Being.
There can be little doubt that what Krishna says here is that no form of worship is unacceptable to him. Whatever the manner of the worship, it is I who is worshipped. After K. T. Telang's exhaustive and effective reply to Dr. Lorinser's strange hypothesis of the Gita having been composed under Christian influences, it is scarcely necessary to add that such toleration would ill accord with the theory of the Christian authorship of the poem.
i.e., both inactive and undecaying. Work implies exertion, and, therefore, loss of energy. In me there is no action, no loss of energy and therefore, no decay.
'Kama-sankalpa vivarjjitas.' i.e., freed from kama (desire of fruit) and sankalpa--the consequent will or determination to do. Thus both Sreedhara and Sankara.
Chitta the mind and atma in this connection is the senses. Thus both Sreedhara and Sankara.
Sacrifice means here the Supreme Soul. What is done for the sake of sacrifice is done for procuring emancipation.
What is meant by this is that in the case of such a person complete identification with Brahma takes place, and when such an identification has taken place, action is destroyed.
I.e., offering up sacrifice itself as a sacrifice to the Brahma fire, they cast off all action.
Offering up the senses to the fire of restraint means restraining the senses for the practice of Yoga. Offering up the objects of the senses means non-attachment to those objects.
Suspending the functions of life for contemplation or Yoga.
In these cases the sacrifices consist in the giving away of wealth, in the ascetic austerities themselves, in meditation, in study, etc. Sreedhara explains the first compound of the second line differently. According to him, it means not study and knowledge, but the knowledge from study.
All these are different kinds of Yoga, or the different stages of Yoga practice.
i.e., knowledge being attained, the fruits of action are attained by, at least, their end being compassed.
Sankhya is renunciation of action, while Yoga is devotion through action.
The grammatical form of the word Yoga as here employed is exceptional.
The first atman is explained as the soul, the second as the body, by all the commentators.
Taking means taking anything with the hands.
Water when thrown over a lotus-leaf escapes without soaking or drenching the leaf at all.
Telang renders Pura as city, of course, the body having two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth, and two openings for excretions, is meant.
Such men are exempted from the obligation of re-birth. Leaving this body they merge into the Supreme Soul.
The word is Swapacha meaning a member of the lowest caste.
"Brahma is faultless and equable"; so Sreedhara and others,--"since faultless equality is Brahma."
The sense is that they are at one with Brahma both here and hereafter.
Renouncer and devotee Sannyasin and Yogin.
Which spring from desire.
Self in this sloka is explained by the commentators as mind. The mind, unless controlled, cannot lead to devotion.
Chitta and atma are explained by the commentators as "mind and body."
Fixed on one's own self, i.e., withdrawn from all objects of sense. Thus Sankara.
Nischayena is explained by Sankara as equivalent to "with preservence" or steadily. Sreedhara explains it as equal to "with the certitude of knowledge acquired by instruction."
Mriti-grahitaya Buddhya is, as explained by Sankara and others "with understanding controlled by patience." K. T. Telang renders it "with firm resolve coupled with courage."
i.e. I am always visible to him, and he too is always within my sight and I am always kind to him.
i.e. how its stable existence may be secured, the mind being by nature ever restless.
Fallen off from both, i.e., from heaven (through work) and absorption into Brahma (through devotion).
Without leaving anything, i.e., entirely.
The Divine-Word i.e., the Vedas. So great is the efficacy of devotion that one merely enquiring of it transcends him who conforms to the rites of the Vedas.
Only some one, i.e., very few. Few perfection, i.e., for knowledge of self. Thus all the commentators.
The last word of the first line of this sloka is param (higher) and not aparam with the initial a silent owing to the rules of Sandhi. Many of the Bengal texts have aparam, not excepting the latest one printed at Calcutta.
Kama which I have rendered desire is explained by Sreedhara as the wish for an unattained object; and raga as the longing or thirst for more. The second Kama is explained as desires of the class of love or lust.
Daivi is explained by Sankara as divine; by Sreedhara as marvellous.
The divine desires are about sons, fame, victory over enemies, etc., regulations, such as fasts etc.; their own nature, i.e., disposition as dependent on the acts of their past lives. Thus all the commentators.
The worshipper obtains his desires, thinking he gets them from the godhead he worships. It is however, that gives him those.
The divinities being perishable, myself imperishable. What these obtain is perishable. What my worshippers obtain is imperishable.
The ignorant, without knowledge of my transcendent essence take me to be no higher than that what is indicated in my human and other incarnate manifestations. Thus Sreedhara.
Adhyatman is explained as all that by which Brahman is to be attained. All actions mean the whole course of duties and practices leading to the knowledge of Brahman.
The three words occurring in this sloka and explained in the next section, forming as they do the subject of a question by Arjuna.
Bhava is production, and Udbhava is growth or development. Thus Sreedhara.
All the doors, i.e., the senses. Confining the mind within the heart, i.e., withdrawing the mind from all external objects. Murdhni is explained by Sreedhara to mean here "between the eyebrows."
All these regions being destructible and liable to re-birth, those that live there are equally liable to death and re-birth.
The meaning, as explained by Sreedhara, is that such persons are said to know all, and not those whose knowledge is bounded by the course of the sun and the moon.
In this round of births and deaths, the creatures themselves are not free agents, being all the while subject to the influence of Karma, as explained by the commentators.
The commentators explain the word fire, the light, day, &c., as several godheads presiding over particular times.
The atmosphere occupies space without affecting it or its nature. So all things are in the Supreme Being without affecting him.
My nature, i.e., the unmanifest principle or primal essence.
Prakriti which I render "nature" is explained by the commentators as Karma, the influence of Karma or action being universal in setting the form of a particular entity at the time of its creation.
This reason, i.e., my supervision.
Sreedhara says that these are different modes of worship; "with reverence and ever devoted" grammatically refers to each of the three classes of worshippers indicated.
Performing the sacrifice of knowledge, i.e., believing Vasudeva to be everything. In many forms, i.e., as Brahman, Rudra, etc.
Mantra is the sacred verse or verses used for invoking godheads, and for other purposes.
Hence they have to come back, explains Sreedhara.
Prayatatmanas is explained as Suddhachittasya.
Iman lokan (this mortal world), Sreedhara says, may mean "this form of royal saint that thou hast." This is far-fetched.
Telang renders Paramam 'excellent'; Mr. John Davies, 'all important'. The meaning is referring to the 'Supreme Soul'.
Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain Sarvassas as "in every way". i.e., as creator, as guide, &c.
Prajas offspring, including, as Sankara says, both mobile, and immobile, therefore, not mankind alone.
Bhava-samanwitas is explained by Sreedhara as "full of love", which K. T. Telang accepts. Sankara explains it as "endued with penetration into the knowledge of the Supreme object."
Tityam, ever, is connected with what follows and not what precedes. Thus Sreedhara. Mr. Davies connects it with Kathayantas.
K. T. Telang renders buddhi-yogam as knowledge; Mr. Davies, as mental devotion and Sankara, "devotion by special insight."
To know thee fully is impossible. In what particular forms or manifestations, therefore, shall I think of thee? The word Bhava in the second line is rendered "entities" by K. T. Telang, and "form of being" by Mr. Davies.
Vistarasya evidently refers (as explained by all the commentators) to Vibhutinam. It is a question of grammar and not of doctrine that there can be any difference of opinion. Mr. Davies, however, renders it "of (my) greatness." This is inaccurate.
The Adityas are the solar deities, twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve months of the year. The Maruts are the wind-gods, whose chief is Marichi.
The Rudras are a class of destructive gods, eleven in number. The Vasus are an inferior class of deities, eight in number. The lord of treasures is Kuvera.
The Japa-sacrifice is the sacrifice by meditation which is superior to all sacrifices.
Kamadhuk, the wish-giving cow called Surabhi. The cause of re-production, i.e., I am not the mere carnal passion, but that passion which procreates or is crowned with fruit.
In
Vasuki is called the chief of the Sarpas (serpents); in
Ananta is spoken of as the chief of the Nagas. The latter are Sarpas as well. Sreedhara says that the distinction lies in the fact of the Nagas being without poison. This is hardly correct.
Pavatam may also mean "of those that have motion." Rama is Dasaratha's son, the hero of Valmiki's poem. Ganga is called Jahnavi because she was, after having been drunk up, let out by the ascetic Jahnu through his knee.
Mr. Davies renders Vedas 'Pravadatam' as "the speech of those that speak." K. T. Telang renders it "the argument of controversialists."
A, or rather the sound of A as in full, is the initial letter of the Sanskrit alphabet. Of compounds, the Dwanda, or the copulative compound, is enumerated first. In other respects again, the Dwanda is the best kind of compound for the words forming it are co-ordinate, without one being dependent on the other or others.
The Vrihat-saman is said to be the best, because it leads to emancipation at once. Thus Sankara. The Margasirsha is the month from the middle of February to the middle of March. Productive of flowers, i.e., the Spring.
Mr. Davies renders the last line of this verse as "I have established in continuance all this universe by one part myself." This is both obscure and inaccurate.
Adhyatman, i.e., the relation between the Supreme and the individual soul. This my delusion, i.e., about my being the slayer.
Avyayam is that which has no decay. Ordinarily, it may be rendered "eternal." Telang renders it "inexhaustible". Elsewhere I have rendered it as "understanding."
Ekastham, lit. "all in one". i.e., collected together.
Devam is explained by Sreedhara as Dyotanatmakam i.e., endued with splendour. Mr. Davies renders it resplendent; but Telang renders it "deity."
Pra-vibhaktam-anekadha (divided diversely) is an adjective of Jagat. See Sreedhara. Both Mr. Davies and Telang seem to take it as a predicate in contra-distinction to Ekastham. This is scarcely correct.
Verse
is read differently. For Twam Surasangha, some texts read twa-Asurasanghas. Then again for Stuvanti in the second line some read Vikshate.
Pravritti is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as Chesta, i.e., movements or acts. Mr. Davies is, I think, not correct in taking it to mean "evolved or developed form."
Kala here is death. Mr. Davies renders it Time, following some other translators. Pravriddha is not (as Mr. Davies renders it) "old" or "very old," but swelling or fully developed. Then again, Mr. Davies commits a ludicrous blunder in rendering Rite twam as "Except thee." This is one of those idioms at which a foreigner is sure to stumble who has only the lexicons for his guide. What Krishna says is not that all would perish save Arjuna, but that without Arjuna (i.e., even if he did not fight) all would perish.
Nidhanam is either refuge or support or abode or receptacle. Mr. Davies incorrectly renders it "treasure-house."
Sankara accepts the reading Gururgariyan, Sreedhara takes it as Gururgariyan. In either case the difference in meaning is not material.
Sankara connects Adhyayana with Veda and Yajna. This seems to be right explanation.
Ata urddham is 'after this,' or 'hereafter on high' as Mr. Davies renders it.
Although the limitation "for fruit" does not occur in the text, yet, it is evident, it should be understood. Krishna does not recommend the total abandonment of actions, but abandonment for their fruit. Mr. Davies renders arambha as "enterprise."
The learned, i.e., they that are themselves acquainted with is Kshetra and what not. As explained by Krishna himself below, Kshetra is Matter, and Kshetrajna is Soul.
Dukha-dosha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as a Dwanda compound.
Vivikta is explained by the commentators as Suddha or Chittaprasadakara. There can be no doubt, however, that it is in opposition to Janasamsadi following. Hence I render it "lonely".
The object of the knowledge of truth is the dispelling of ignorance and the acquisition of happiness.
Nor having eyes, etc., yet seeing, etc.; without attributes, yet having or enjoying all that the attributes give.
All modifications, i.e., of material forms; all qualities, i.e., pleasure, pain, etc. The word rendered "nature" is Prakriti (primal matter), and that rendered "spirit" is Purusha (the active principle). Vikarna and Gunan include all material forms and attributes of the soul.
Karya-karana-karttritwa is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara to mean "the capacity of working (residing) in the body and the senses." K. T. Telang adopts this. Mr. Davies in his text has "in the activity of the organs of action." In course of his philological notes, however, he gives the correct rendering. 'Is said to be' is explained by Sreedhara as referring to Kapila and others.
It is the embodied spirit only that can enjoy the qualities of Nature. Then again, the kind of connection it has with those qualities settles its birth in good or evil wombs.
Mr. Davies misunderstands the grammatical connection of the words in the second line of this verse. K. T. Telang, following Sreedhara, says, the word should be rendered "approver."
What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines.
Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge.
Sarvatra in the second line is explained by Sreedhara as "in every body, superior and inferior." Grammatically it may mean also, "in every part of the body." Such a theory, however, of the seat of the soul would be contrary to all Hindu ideas.
Bhuta-Prakriti-moksha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as moksha or deliverance from the prakriti (nature) of bhutas' or entities. It is true knowledge that effects such deliverance. Mr. Davies renders it "deliverance of beings from Nature." This is evidently incorrect. "Beings" is not synonymous with self or soul.
Itas is explained by Sreedhara as "from the fetters of this body."
Sreedhara makes mahat an adjective of yoni; Sankara makes it an adjective of Brahma. K. T. Telang follows Sankara.
Happiness and knowledge are attributes of the mind, not of the soul. Hence, when attached to the soul, they are as fetters from which the soul should be freed.
Deha samudbhava is explained by the commentators as having their "samudbhava or parinama in deha." It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound.
Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects.
Pratishtha is explained by Sankara as "something on which another (here Brahma) stays or rests." Sreedhara explains it as Pratima. Telang following Sreedhara, renders it "embodiment;" Mr. Davies, as "seat." Amritasya and Avyayasya are taken separately by the commentators.
The 'Aswattha' is the sacred Indian fig tree, here emblematical of the course of worldly life. Its roots are above; those roots are the Supreme Being. Its branches are below, these being the inferior deities. Its leaves are the sacred hymns of the Vedas, i.e., as leaves keep the tree alive and even conduce to its fruits, so the Vedas support this tree and lead to salvation.
Upwards and downwards i.e., from the highest to the lowest of created things. Enlarged by the qualities, i.e., the qualities appearing as the body, the senses, etc. The sprouts are the objects of sense, being attached to the senses themselves as sprouts to branches. The roots extending downwards are the desires for diverse enjoyments. Thus Telang, following the commentators.
Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain.
"Atmani" in the first line is "in the body" as explained by Sreedhara and others: "in the understanding" as explained by Sankara. It seems, however, to be used in the general senses of "themselves", without particular reference to either body or understanding. An Akritatman is one whose soul is not made or formed; generally, "a person of unsubdued passions."
There can be no question that Soma here means the moon and not the Soma juice quaffed in sacrifices, or sap. It is the moon that supports, nourishes all herbs and numerous passages may be quoted from Hindu sacred literature to show this. Mr. Davies, therefore, clearly errs in rendering Soma as "the savoury juice."
The four kinds of food are: that which is masticated, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.
Apohanam is loss or removal. It is a well-known word and its application here is very natural. I am memory and knowledge (to those that use them for virtuous acts). I am the loss of these faculties (to those that engage in unrighteous acts). Mr. Davies erroneously renders it as "The power of reason."
Kutashtha is rendered by K. T. Telang as "the unconcerned one", by Mr. Davies as "the lord on high." I incline to the scholiasts who explain it as "the uniform or the unchangeable one."
Sarvabhavena is explained by Sankara by Sarvatma-chintaya (thinking Me to be the soul of everything). Sreedhara explains it as Sarvaprakarena. Why may it not mean "with the whole soul" or "with excess of love."
I adopt Sankara's explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka. Sreedhara explains it differently.
Prabritti I render "inclination" and Nivritti as "disinclination." The inclination is, as all the commentators explain, towards righteous actions, and the disinclination, consequently, is about all unrighteous actions. K. T. Telang renders these words as "action" and "inaction". Mr. Davies, following the French version of Burnouf, takes them to mean "the creation and its end."
Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.
'That' evidently refers to sacrifice, penance, and gift, in the clause before. The commentators, however, suggest that it may, besides, refer to Brahma. I am myself not sure that it does not refer to Brahma.
What the author wishes to lay down in these verses is that the words OM, TAT, and SAT, have each their respective uses. When used as directed here, such use cures the defects of the respective actions to which they are applied, it being understood that all three denote Brahma.
Sanyasa I render Renunciation. K. T. Telang does the same. Mr. Davies renders it "abstention." So 'Tyaga' I render "abandonment." Mr. Davies renders it "renunciation." What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow.
Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood.
I have used "when" for "whatever" to make the sentence grammatical.
Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate. Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as "prosperous" and "unprosperous;" for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered "talented" which has not the sanction of good usage.
That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.
Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion.
The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds--Prana, etc. The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses. The deities have no place in Kapila's system. Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila's and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated. Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to "among" or "with these." I think, however, it means, "are here", i.e., are enumerated here, or, in this connection.
Hath no feeling of egoism, i.e., doth not regard himself as the doer, sullied, i.e., by the taint of desire of fruit.
Mr. Davies, I think, is right in rendering Samgrahas as "complement." K. T. Telang renders it as equivalent to "in brief."
In the enunciation of qualities i.e., in the Sankhya system.
Full of affections, i.e., for children, etc., as Sreedhara.
Prakrita which I have rendered "without discernment" following Sreedhara, may be, as Mr. Davies renders it, but "malicious."
Mr. Davies makes "unswerving" an adjective of 'devotion.' This is wrong, for Avyabhicharinya (unswerving) is a feminine instrumental, and must qualify Dhritya.
Atma-budhi-prasadajam. K. T. Telang, following an alternative explanation offered by Sankara, renders it "clear knowledge of the self." Mr. Davies renders the "serenity of one's own mind." I follow Sreedhara.
Asamsayas is the reading that occurs in every text, and not Asamsayam. Mr. Davies, therefore, is incorrect in rendering it "doubtless" and making it an adverb qualifying "come to me."
Bhuti is explained by Sreedhara as gradual abhivridhhi, i.e., growth or greatness. Niti is explained as Nyaya or justice.
Varayudham is according to Nilakantha, the excellent bow. Yena in verse 8 is equivalent to Yatra.
What Bhishma says is this: I am bound by the Kauravas and, therefore, I am not a free agent. Obliged I am to battle against you. Yet I am saying, "What do you ask of me?" as if I could really give you what you might ask. My words, therefore, are without meaning, or vain, like those of a eunuch. Klivavat is explained by Nilakantha as Kataravat. Even in that case, the sense would be the same.
The Bengal reading is evidently incorrect. The Bombay text reads Raja for Vacoa.
Nilakantha thinks that vigatakalmashas refers to Drona; the meaning he suggests is "Tell me with pure heart etc., etc.," I think Nilakantha is not right.
The sense of the first line is that because I am bound by the Kauravas with their wealth, therefore, I am obliged to make this reservation in the matter of granting thee thy wishes. That reservation really nullifies my promise.
Paran is explained by Nilakantha as "superior" qualifying Ripun.
Vritosmi is the reading of the Bengal texts, better than Vaddhosmi of the Bombay edition, and bhristomi of the Burdwan text. Salya was not bound to the Kauravas like Bhishma or Drona or Kripa by pensions, but gratified by the reception granted to him by Duryodhana in secret, he, generously agreed to aid the latter even against his own sister's sons and their step-brothers.
For Puskalan the Bombay text reads Pushkaran which means a kind of drum.
For rajan in the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 5th verse, the Bombay text reads hyasan which I adopt.
Maha samucchrave is explained by Nilakantha as Mahasamprahare.
Literally, "showing himself in an awful form."
Subhadra's son Abhimanyu.
These fences were made of iguana skins and cased the hands of the bowmen up to a few inches of the elbow-joint.
Nimitta is explained by Nilakantha as the mark of object aimed at. Drona was the preceptor in arms of almost all the Bharata princes.
With two Bhallas Abhimanyu cut off his adversary's standard; with one, one of the protectors of his car-wheels: and with another, his charioteer. Thus Nilakantha. A Parshni is altogether a different person from a Sarathi. Hence Nilakantha is assuredly right.
'Angaraka' is the planet Mars, and 'Sukra' i.e. Venus.
Prativindhya was Yudhishthira's son by Draupadi.
Maghavat is Indra, the chief of the celestials.
The word used in the original is Viparitam lit. contrary. The sense seems to be that car men fought on foot, cavalry soldiers on elephants, warriors on elephants from horseback, &c. The very character of the forces was altered.
i.e., though repulsed, these frequently rallied, and occupied the same ground as before.
The last half of the 7th with the 8th forms one sentence. It is certainly pleonastic. Ranavaranais of the Bengal texts is preferable to the Bombay reading Varavaranais. Toranas are the wooden edifices placed on the backs of elephants for the protection and comfort of the riders. These are called in India Hawdas.
Many of the Bengal texts read Avinitas. The correct reading, as in the Bombay text, is Abhinitas. Aprabhinna is literally "unrent," i.e. with the temporal juice not trickling down. This juice emanates from several parts of the elephant's body when the season of rut comes. To avoid a cumbrous periphrasis, which again would be unintelligible to the European reader, I have given the sense only.
For the Bengal reading 'Mahaprajna' the Bombay text reads 'Mahaprasas.'
Rathat and not Rathan is the reading that I adopt.
The Bengal reading 'narvarakshaye' seems to be better than 'Mahavirakshaye' of the Bombay text.
Talaketu is lit. Palmyra-bannered. Without using such compounds, the 'brevity' of the sentences cannot be maintained.
Karshni is Krishna's or Arjuna's son Abhimanyu. Arjuna was sometimes called Krishna.
Laghavamargasya is a mis-reading for Laghavamargastham'; then again chapi is incorrect, the correct reading chapam as in the Bombay text.
The Bengal reading is 'Suaris Vritascha Sainyena'. The Bombay reading (which I do not adopt) is 'Vritastu Sarva Sainyena.'
Nine slokas and a half, from the second half of the 43rd verse to the 52nd verse (as above), are omitted in the Bengal texts. These, however, occur subsequently in section
following. The fact is, the whole of the passage in this section and the
verses in the following section, and the first
verses in the section
are regarded as an interpolation. In those sections of the Udyoga Parvam where the Rathas and the Atirathas, &c, are counted by Bhishma, no mention is made of any warrior of the name of Sweta. The Burdwan Pundits omit these passages altogether. I myself believe them to be an interpolation. Occurring, however, as it does in both the Bengal and the Bombay texts, I cannot omit in the English version.
The Bombay text reads 'Yavana nihatam,' which is better.
I adopt the Bombay reading of the 22nd verse.
'Swayam' in some of the Bengal texts is a misprint for 'Kshayam'.
Chakrapani is Vishnu armed with the discus.
For 'Yuthan' which gives no meaning, I read 'Yodhas'. The Bengal reading 'muktvagnimiva daruna' is better than the Bombay reading 'muktam ripumishu darunam.'
The Bombay reading 'jivitam dustyajam' is better than the Bengal reading 'jivam taduttham', if it has any meaning.
In the first line of 71st verse, the word is not 'Laghu' but 'alaghu', the initial 'a' being only silent according to the rule of Sandhi. Though omitted in the Bengal texts, it occurs in the Bombay edition.
'Ghoram', 'ugram', 'mahabhayam', are pleonastic.
In the first line of
for Maheswara (meaning Siva) the Bombay text reads Dhaneswara (meaning Kuvera, the lord of treasures). For also 'Bhimainipatitiya' in the second line the Bombay text reads 'Bhishma inipainya'.
The transgression of which Dhritarashtra alludes is the slaughter by Bhishma from his car, of Sweta who was then a combatant on foot. Or, it may be the very slaughter of Sweta, who was dear to the Pandavas and which act would, the king thought, provoke them more.
Verses 4 to 7 are exceedingly difficult. I am not sure that I have understood them correctly. They are of the nature of Vyasakutas, i.e., deliberate obscurities for puzzling Ganesa, who acted as the scribe, for enabling Vyasa to gain time for compositions. In verse 4 'Pitus' means uncle's and not father's; so also 'durga decam' in verse 6 means entanglements, like Duryodhana's hostility with the Gandharvas on the occasion of the tale of cattle. In verse 7 of the Bengal reading is Yudhishthiram bhaktya. The Bombay reading which I adopt, is Yudhishthire bhaktas. In
the purushadhamas are Sakuni and Karna. &c.
As both operations are useless, so are these thy regrets.
The sense is that Arjuna representing one force, and Bhishma another, the two forces seemed to mingle, into one another, like one bolt of heaven against another, as one may say.
Aplavas and Alpave are both correct.
In the first line of the 14th verse Aviseshana seems to be incorrect. The Bombay text reads Avaseshena which I adopt.
The correct reading is Vishnu, and not Jishnu as in many of the Bengal texts.
Indrayudha is Indra's bow or the rainbow. Akasaga (literally a ranger of the skies) is a bird. The vapoury edifices and forms, constantly melting away and reappearing in new shapes, are called Gandharvanagar as (lit. towns of the Gandharvas or celestial choiristers).
The Bengal reading is Savayambhuriva bhanuna which I have adopted. The Bombay reading is Merurivabhanuna, which means "like the mountain Meru with Sun." It is difficult to make a choice between the two.
The Bombay text differs in many respects from the Bengal texts as regards the positions assigned to the several warriors and races in the Pandava host. It is impossible to settle the true readings. I have, therefore, without any attempt at correction, followed the Bengal text.
The last word of the 28th verse is 'Ratheshu cha', and not 'Dhajeshu cha' for umbrellas could not possibly be fastened to standards.
This identical verse occurs in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita (vide, Verse
Chap.
of this Parvan, ante). There following the commentators, particularly Sreedhara, I have rendered Aparyaptam and Paryaptam as less than sufficient and sufficient. It would seem, however, that that is erroneous.
For these names, vide note in page ante, Bhishma Parva.
The 26th verse in the Bengal texts consists of three lines. In the Bombay texts, the half-sloka about Artayani does not occur.
In the first line of the 5th verse, the true reading is avidhata and not amarshanam.
In the first line of
the correct reading is Prishna and not Pritana.
'Samuchchhritam' or 'Samutthitam,' meaning risen, is scarcely a happy adjective here.
'Parshni' is the wing or side of a car-warrior. The last word of this verse is not 'Satpurushochitam' but 'Satparushairvritam'.
'Kovdara' is the species of ebony called Bauhinia Variegata.
The Bombay reading 'Vegavattaram' is better. Literally, it means, 'capable of imparting a greater impetus.' To avoid such periphrasis I render it 'tougher'.
The sense is that all these were entirely shrouded by Arjuna's arrows.
The true reading is Charmanam and not Varmanam: also bhumipa and bhutale.
i.e., is about to set.
For 'Satyatha tena' the Bombay text reads 'Satyasandhena'. I follow the Bengal reading.
What these were it is difficult to determine. The Bombay reading is different. For Indrajala they read Indrakila which is as unknown as the other.
The Vaitarani is the fabulous river that separate this world from the next.
In the first line of the 5th, for 'rajna' of the Bengal texts the Bombay text reads 'gupta'. I follow the Bengal reading which is better.
In the second line of the 6th, for sasars sena the Bombay reading is sena mahogra which is better. I adopt it.
I adopt the Bengal reading Vyapta and not Vyala.
The word Saravarani in the text is rendered by K. P. Singha as quivers. Nilakantha explains it as coats of mail. There can be no doubt, however, that the Burdwan Pundits render it correctly as shields.
In the first line of 19th, the Bengal reading Saykanam is a mistake. The true reading is Saditanam.
Salya is called Artayani after the name of his father.
These were Kshuras (arrows with heads like razors), kshurapras, (arrows with horseshoe heads), bhallas (broad-headed arrows), and anjalikas (arrows with crescent-shaped-heads).
i.e., the universal destroyer armed with his bow.
Gory mace wet with &c. the original is pleonastic.
The Bengal reading parantapa is a mistake for kathanchana.
'Kimpaca' is a species of cucurbitaceous plant. To avoid periphrasis I render it poison.
Aklishtakarman literally means one who is not tired with what he does; hence, one who easily achieves the highest feats. When applied to Krishna or any divine personage it means one who does everything by a fiat of his will, without being dependent on means like ordinary persons. It may also mean one of pure or white deeds.
Literally "be a perpetuator (son) of Yadu's race!"
The Bengal reading is Sa vai devas. The Bombay reading is Purvadevas.
The Three-stepped Lord, Vishnu became vamana or the dwarf for robbing the Asura Vali of his dominions. Disguised in that shape he asked of Vali three steps of land. Vali, smiling at the littleness of what was asked, gave it. But when the dwarf expanded his form and covered the heavens and the earth with only two steps of his, no space could be found for the third step. Vali was forthwith seized and bound as a promise-breaker, and sent to reside in the nether regions.
Word of command.
i.e., really existent among all things.
A fabulous aquatic animal resembling an alligator.
Formed after the shape of the hawk.
The Bengal reading is 'Yudhi sandhaya'. The Bombay reading is 'pratisamvarya'. I adopt the latter.
Literally, "made a fierce battle."
The Bengal reading Gooranamatitejasa is what I adopt. The Bombay reading, Ghoranamapnitaujasam involves a useless hyperbole. Of course, atitejasa qualifies dhanusha in the next line.
Kandigbhutas lit. "not knowing which point of the compass was which."
In the second line of
the Bombay text incorrectly reads Arjunam for Pandavas.
In the first line of
the Bengal reading is Mahabhujas. The correct reading seems to be (as in the Bombay text) Mahadhvajas.
The last half of the second line of
in the Bengal text is vicious. I adopt the Bombay reading.
The pronoun 'sa' in the first line of 8 refers to Yuyudhana. Burdwan Pundits erroneously take it as referring to Duryodhana, being misled by the words Kurunam Kirtivardhanas.
The Bombay reading asaniparabhan (which I adopt) is better than the Bengal reading asaniswanan, for in connection with yamadanda immediately preceding the latter would be incongruous, if not unmeaning.
An additional verse occurs here in connection with the slaughter of Satyaki's sons, in the Bombay texts. The Bengal texts omit it.
Ekayangatas is lit. "intently."
Literally, "hence his thoughts were so."
Suchimukha is literally "needle-mouthed." It is a wedge-like column with the thin or pointed end turned towards the side of the enemy.
The Bombay reading, which I adopt, is visravat in the beginning of the 2nd line. The Bengal reading is visramvat, meaning "from motives of affectionate enquiry". It may also mean "from confidence," though not in this connection.
The last word of 4 is read differently in the Bengal texts viz., Rathanghas, instead of, as in the Bombay edition, Maharathas.
Vimana the nominative singular of Vamanas refers to Gangasutas. The Burdwan Pundits wrongly translate it "with mind unmoved." I am not aware of any other reading.
The last verse is read variously. But the Bombay and the Bengal texts have faults of their own. The first word is ugranadam (Bengal) and not ugranagam (Bombay). The Vahuvarnarupam (Bombay) is correct, and not Vahuvarnarutam (Bengal). The last word of the first line is Samudirnamevam (Bombay), and not Samudirnavarnam (Bengal).
Differently read in the Bengal texts, viz., Somadatta with the Saindhavas.
The Bengal reading Rathas in the first line of 6 is a mistake; should be, as in the Bombay text, tatha.
The last word of the first line of
is amitan in the Bengal texts. The Bombay reading is Varmitan. I prefer the Bengal reading.
Satyaki was Arjuna's disciple in arms. Vijaya was another name of Arjuna.
Divakaram prapya, lit, 'reaching the path of the sun,' i.e., while coursing through the sky.
The meaning seems to be that Salya was pleased in witnessing the skill of his sister's sons, while the twins themselves were pleased in displaying that skill before one who was related to them through their mother.
The Burdwan Pundits render this verse by carelessly taking, Viryavat as an adjective of saram. It qualifies Sahadeva. The reading Viryavat occurs in no text.
Lit. "This one no longer is" i.e., 'alive'.
The original is Vichnvantas (a practical) meaning 'plucking as flowers'.
These, in Hindu physiology, are the three humours of the body always contending for mastery over the vital forces.
Bhima had vowed to slay the sons of Dhritarashtra; therefore, Abhimanyu liked not to falsify his uncle's vow by himself slaying any of them.
Instead of yat in the beginning of the second line, yada would be better. None of the printed text, however, have yada.
In the first line of
the Bengal reading is Satam. I prefer the Bombay reading which is atyantam. For, again, paryayasya in the beginning of the second line, the Bombay text reads anayassa which is better.
The Bombay reading which I adopt is ajnayamanas cha. The Bengal reading seems to be incorrect.
Vipralapapavidham is literally "force from unreasoning declamation." The Bombay reading is vicious.
The meaning seems to be that the arrows shot by Yudhishthira were cut off by Bhishma, in numberless distinct sets, taking each set at a time.
i.e., just before setting.
Krishna-sarathis (Bombay); the Bengal reading is Vanaradhvajas.
The true reading, I think, is that of the Bombay text, viz., namabhis. The Bengal reading is manobhis. How can persons challenge each other mentally, although they may single out their antagonists so?
Nagas, which may mean both stones and trees. In either case, the comparison would apply.
His pledge, viz., that in battle he would slay all the sons of Dhritarashtra.
The Bengal reading is tatas kruddhar. The Bombay reading is vachas kruram. I adopt the latter.
The last word of this verse in the Bengal text is Sanjaya; in the Bombay text, it is Samyuge. The latter seems to be the true reading, for after Sanjaya in the first line, its repetition in the second is useless.
The last word of the 4th verse is anivartinam. In the Bengal texts it is sumahatmanam.
The last word of the first line of 8 is Vichetasa and not (as in the Bengal texts, including the Burdwan edition) Viseshatas which would scarcely have any meaning.
I have expanded the first line of
as a closely literal version would scarcely be intelligent to the general reader. The sense is that the evil consequences, that have now overtaken thee, arose even then when the beneficial counsels of Vidura were first rejected.
The Bengal reading Dwidhabhutais is incorrect. It should be, as in the Bombay text, tridhabhutais.
In the Bengal texts, tava in the first line is incorrect. It should be tatra (Bombay).
Steeds that are described as Nadijas would literally mean "those born in rivers." The Punjab, or some other country watered by many rivers is meant.
Literally, "in soil belonging to another." The original is parakshetre.
Vayuvega-samsparsam, literally, "the contact (of whose dash or collision) resembles that of the wind in force." The meaning, therefore, is that those chargers dashed against hostile division with the fury of the tempest.
In the first line of
the true reading is Survamarmajna, and not Sarvadharmajna.
The last word of the second line is variously read. The Bengal reading is Mahadwijas, probably implying Garuda, the prince of birds. I have adopted the Bombay reading.
i.e., with temporal juice trickling down.
The duty consisted in not retreating from the field.
i.e., the rescue of the king.
In the second line of
the Bengal reading saravarshena is incorrect. The Bombay reading Rathavansena is what I follow.
The Bengal reading hayais in the instrumental plural is incorrect. The Bombay text reads hayas (nom. plural). This is correct.
Literally, 'divided in twain'.
Mountains, in Hindu mythology, had wings, till they were shorn of these by Indra with his thunder. Only Mainaka, the son of Himavat, saved himself by a timely flight. To this day he conceals himself within the ocean.
The Bengal reading of the first line of this verse is vicious. The true reading is parswaistudaritairanye. Both parsa and darita should be (as here) in the instrumental plural, and anye should be in the nom. plural.
The correct reading, as settled by the Burdwan Pundits, is Hataroha vyodrisyanta. Some texts have Hayaroha which is incorrect.
"Blinded cheeks." The Sanskrit word is madandha. Literally rendered, it would be "juice-blind". This can scarcely be intelligible to the general European reader. Hence the long-winded adjectival clause I have used.
The first line is evidently pleonastic. Sanskrit, however, being very copious, repetitions can scarcely be marked at the first glance. Literally rendered, the original is--"Juice-blind and excited with rage." 'Juice-blind,' I have explained elsewhere.
The word I render "muskets" is nalika sometime ago the Bharata (a Bengali periodical of Calcutta edited by Babu Dwijendra Nath Tagore) in a paper on Hindu weapons of warfare from certain quotations from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, argued that the nalika must have been some kind of musket vomiting bullets of iron in consequence of some kind of explosive force. The Rishis discouraged use of nalika, declaring them to be barbarous and fit only for kings that would come in the Kali age.
Padarakshan lit., those that protected the feet (for any warrior of note). These always stood at the flanks and rear of the warrior they protected. In the case of car-warriors these were called chakra-rakshas (protectors of the wheels). So we have Parshni-rakshas and Prishata-rakshas, &c.
In the first line of the 3rd verse, the Bengal reading is bhayam. The true reading, however, is khayam.
In the second line of 8th, for the Bengal reading, vachaymasa yodhanam, the Bombay reading is yachtacha Suyodhanam. This is better. The Bengal reading has no meaning.
Literally, "when its impetuosity is stirred up by the wind."
The Bengal reading, which I adopt is sardula iva vegavan. The Bombay reading is sardula iva darpitas.
In the first line of
the Bombay reading pragrihya is better than the Bengal reading visrijya.
Literally, hundred-slayers; supposed to be a kind of rockets.
Some of the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 6th, incorrectly read sa-run for Sakram.
The Bengal reading atmana, the last word of the verse, seems to be a mistake. The Bombay text gives the right word, which is aimanas (genitive). Sarvatobhadra seems to have been a kind of square array in which the troops faced all the points of the compass.
In the Bengal texts, savdas in the first line is vicious. The true reading seems to be sahkhan, as in the Bombay edition. Then again in Kunjaran (Bengal), the Bombay text reads Pushkaran which is unquestionably correct.
The Bengal reading vanya-nagendra is better than the Bombay reading gandha-nagendra.
In Hindu mythology, solar eclipses are caused by Rahu's attempts at swallowing the Sun.
Budha is Mercury, and Sukra is Venus.
Both the Bombay and the Bengal texts repeat Chamarais in the second line of 24th. This is certainly erroneous. The Burdwan Pundits read it tomarais. This is correct.
In the second line of 30th, the correct reading is Rathas (nom. plural) and not Rathan. So in the first line of 31st, the word is turangas (nom. plural) and not turangan.
Lit. "reached him with shafts etc."
Both the Bengal and the Bombay printed texts are in fault regarding the word Pandupurvaja. The Bombay text makes it a nom. plural. The Bengal text makes it an accusative singular. There can be no doubt that the Burdwan Pundits are right in taking it as a vocative.
That you know me to be invincible is a fortunate circumstance, for if you had not known this, you would have fought on for days together and thus caused a tremendous destruction of creatures. By your coming to know, that destruction may be stopped.
The adjective Vahu in the first line of
qualifies rathinas in the second line. The last of the verse is a nom. sing. and not a vocative.
The Bengal texts read mahasuram in the second line of the verse. This seems to be vicious. A latter reading would be mahasuram (the great Asura). The Bombay text reads rane suram. I adopt the last.
i.e. Thou art still a woman though the sex hath been changed.
Literally, "will not get or obtain you."
There can be no doubt that (in the second line of
corresponding with the first line of
of the Bombay text), Arjuni should be a nominative, and not an accusative. The Bombay reading, therefore, is vicious. The Burdwan Pundits also err in taking that word as occurring in the accusative form.
I think Yatavrata had better be read Yatavratam. It would then mean Bhishma.
Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts are confusing here. I follow the text as settled by the Burdwan Pundits. If the erudition of the Burdwan Pundits be rejected,
would read as, "Virata, at the head of his forces, encountered Jayadratha supported by his own troops, and also Vardhaskhemi's heir, O Chastiser of foes." This would be evidently wrong.
This Susarman was not the king of the Trigartas but another person who was on the Pandava side.
Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts have Rathanika. The correct reading as settled by the Burdwan Pundits, is Gajanika.
Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts read Arjunas in the second line of
The Burdwan Pundits are for correcting it as Arjunam. I do not think the correction happy.
In the second line of
for Satanika, the true reading, is Sahanikan.
After the 60th verse, three lines occur in the Bombay edition as follows,--"And many elephants, with standards on their backs, were seen to fly away in all directions. And many Kshatriyas, O monarch, armed with maces and darts and bows, were seen lying prostrate on the field."
The Bengal texts read Evam etc.; the Bombay reading is samam, I adopt the former reading. "Set their hearts upon the region of Brahma," i.e., fought on, resolved to win the highest heaven by bravery or death in battle.
The Bengal reading of this verse is vicious. In the first line, lokasya is incorrect and unmeaning, the correct word being vakyasa. In the second line, again, for Prishtha-ascha samantatas, the correct reading is Prisharaischa samantatas.
Brahma-danda literally means a Brahmana's rod--bamboo-stick. In consequence of the Brahmana's ascetic power, this thin rod (symbolical of the Brahmana's power of chastisement) is infinitely more powerful than even Indra's bolt. The latter can strike only one, but the former can smite whole countries, and entire races from generation to generation. With only his Brahma-danda Vasishtha baffled all the mighty and celestial weapons of Viswamitra vide, Ramayana, section
Valakanda.
Instead of "the Salwas, the Sayas, and the Trigartas," the Bombay text reads, "the Trigartas depending on (king) Salwa." I have not, however, met with any Trigartas under Salwa's rule, that race having, at this time, Susarman for their ruler.
Indraddhwaja was a pole, decked with banners, created in honour of Indra. The festival attracted considerable crowds.
The second line of
in the Bengal text is vicious. I adopt the Bombay reading, which is Kururajasya tarkitas. Literally rendered the second line is "the destruction of the Kuru king was inferred."
By bravery on the field of battle, which, according to the Hindu scriptures, is always thus rewarded.

Add new comment

You are here

Search this site