293 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.
294 Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood.
295 I have used “when” for “whatever” to make the sentence grammatical.
296 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.
297 That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.
298 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.
299 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.
300 Hath no feeling of egoism, i.e., doth not regard himself as the doer, sullied, i.e., by the taint of desire of fruit.
301 Mr. Davies, I think, is right in rendering Samgrahas as “complement.” K. T. Telang renders it as equivalent to “in brief.”
302 In the enunciation of qualities i.e., in the Sankhya system.
303 Full of affections, i.e., for children, etc., as Sreedhara.
304 Prakrita which I have rendered “without discernment” following Sreedhara, may be, as Mr. Davies renders it, but “malicious.”
305 Mr. Davies makes “unswerving” an adjective of ‘devotion.’ This is wrong, for Avyabhicharinya (unswerving) is a feminine instrumental, and must qualify Dhritya.
306 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.
307 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.”
308 Bhuti is explained by Sreedhara as gradual abhivridhhi, i.e., growth or greatness. Niti is explained as Nyaya or justice.
309 Varayudham is according to Nilakantha, the excellent bow. Yena in verse 8 is equivalent to Yatra.
310 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.
311 The Bengal reading is evidently incorrect. The Bombay text reads Raja for Vacoa.
312 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.
313 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.
314 Paran is explained by Nilakantha as “superior” qualifying Ripun.
315 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.
316 For Puskalan the Bombay text reads Pushkaran which means a kind of drum.
317 For rajan in the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 5th verse, the Bombay text reads hyasan which I adopt.
318 Maha samucchrave is explained by Nilakantha as Mahasamprahare.
319 Literally, “showing himself in an awful form.”
320 Subhadra’s son Abhimanyu.
321 These fences were made of iguana skins and cased the hands of the bowmen up to a few inches of the elbow-joint.
322 Nimitta is explained by Nilakantha as the mark of object aimed at. Drona was the preceptor in arms of almost all the Bharata princes.
323 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.
324 ‘Angaraka’ is the planet Mars, and ‘Sukra’ i.e. Venus.
325 Prativindhya was Yudhishthira’s son by Draupadi.
326 Maghavat is Indra, the chief of the celestials.
327 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.
328 i.e., though repulsed, these frequently rallied, and occupied the same ground as before.
329 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.
330 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.
331 For the Bengal reading ‘Mahaprajna’ the Bombay text reads ‘Mahaprasas.’
332 Rathat and not Rathan is the reading that I adopt.
333 The Bengal reading ‘narvarakshaye’ seems to be better than ‘Mahavirakshaye’ of the Bombay text.
334 Talaketu is lit. Palmyra-bannered. Without using such compounds, the ‘brevity’ of the sentences cannot be maintained.
335 Karshni is Krishna’s or Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu. Arjuna was sometimes called Krishna.
336 Laghavamargasya is a mis-reading for Laghavamargastham’; then again chapi is incorrect, the correct reading chapam as in the Bombay text.
337 The Bengal reading is ‘Suaris Vritascha Sainyena’. The Bombay reading (which I do not adopt) is ‘Vritastu Sarva Sainyena.’
338 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 46 following. The fact is, the whole of the passage in this section and the 116 verses in the following section, and the first 24 verses in the section 49, 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.
339 The Bombay text reads ‘Yavana nihatam,’ which is better.
340 I adopt the Bombay reading of the 22nd verse.
341 ‘Swayam’ in some of the Bengal texts is a misprint for
‘Kshayam’.
342 Chakrapani is Vishnu armed with the discus.
343 For ‘Yuthan’ which gives no meaning, I read ‘Yodhas’. The Bengal reading ‘muktvagnimiva daruna’ is better than the Bombay reading ‘muktam ripumishu darunam.’
344 The Bombay reading ‘jivitam dustyajam’ is better than the Bengal reading ‘jivam taduttham’, if it has any meaning.
345 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.
346 ‘Ghoram’, ‘ugram’, ‘mahabhayam’, are pleonastic.
347 In the first line of 87 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’.
348 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.
349 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 8, the purushadhamas are Sakuni and Karna. &c.
350 As both operations are useless, so are these thy regrets.
351 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.
352 Aplavas and Alpave are both correct.
353 In the first line of the 14th verse Aviseshana seems to be incorrect. The Bombay text reads Avaseshena which I adopt.
354 The correct reading is Vishnu, and not Jishnu as in many of the Bengal texts.
355 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).
356 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.
357 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.
358 The last word of the 28th verse is ‘Ratheshu cha’, and not ‘Dhajeshu cha’ for umbrellas could not possibly be fastened to standards.
359 This identical verse occurs in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita (vide, Verse 10, Chap. 25, 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.
360 For these names, vide note in page ante, Bhishma Parva.
361 The 26th verse in the Bengal texts consists of three lines. In the Bombay texts, the half-sloka about Artayani does not occur.
362 In the first line of the 5th verse, the true reading is avidhata and not amarshanam.
363 In the first line of 29, the correct reading is Prishna and not Pritana.
364 ‘Samuchchhritam’ or ‘Samutthitam,’ meaning risen, is scarcely a happy adjective here.
365 ‘Parshni’ is the wing or side of a car-warrior. The last word of this verse is not ‘Satpurushochitam’ but ‘Satparushairvritam’.
366 ‘Kovdara’ is the species of ebony called Bauhinia Variegata.
367 The Bombay reading ‘Vegavattaram’ is better. Literally, it means, ‘capable of imparting a greater impetus.’ To avoid such periphrasis I render it ‘tougher’.
368 The sense is that all these were entirely shrouded by Arjuna’s arrows.
369 The true reading is Charmanam and not Varmanam: also bhumipa and bhutale.
370 i.e., is about to set.
371 For ‘Satyatha tena’ the Bombay text reads ‘Satyasandhena’. I follow the Bengal reading.
372 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.
373 The Vaitarani is the fabulous river that separate this world from the next.
374 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.
375 In the second line of the 6th, for sasars sena the Bombay reading is sena mahogra which is better. I adopt it.
376 I adopt the Bengal reading Vyapta and not Vyala.
377 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.
378 In the first line of 19th, the Bengal reading Saykanam is a mistake. The true reading is Saditanam.
379 Salya is called Artayani after the name of his father.
380 These were Kshuras (arrows with heads like razors), kshurapras, (arrows with horseshoe heads), bhallas (broad-headed arrows), and anjalikas (arrows with crescent-shaped-heads).
381 i.e., the universal destroyer armed with his bow.
382 Gory mace wet with &c. the original is pleonastic.
383 The Bengal reading parantapa is a mistake for kathanchana.
384 ‘Kimpaca’ is a species of cucurbitaceous plant. To avoid periphrasis I render it poison.
385 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.
386 Literally “be a perpetuator (son) of Yadu’s race!”
387 The Bengal reading is Sa vai devas. The Bombay reading is Purvadevas.
388 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.
389 Word of command.
390 i.e., really existent among all things.
391 A fabulous aquatic animal resembling an alligator.
392 Formed after the shape of the hawk.
393 The Bengal reading is ‘Yudhi sandhaya’. The Bombay reading is ‘pratisamvarya’. I adopt the latter.
394 Literally, “made a fierce battle.”
395 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.
396 Kandigbhutas lit. “not knowing which point of the compass was which.”
397 In the second line of 17, the Bombay text incorrectly reads Arjunam for Pandavas.
398 In the first line of 32 the Bengal reading is Mahabhujas. The correct reading seems to be (as in the Bombay text) Mahadhvajas.
399 The last half of the second line of 35 in the Bengal text is vicious. I adopt the Bombay reading.
400 The pronoun ‘sa’ in the first line of 8 r
efers to Yuyudhana. Burdwan Pundits erroneously take it as referring to Duryodhana, being misled by the words Kurunam Kirtivardhanas.
401 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.
402 An additional verse occurs here in connection with the slaughter of Satyaki’s sons, in the Bombay texts. The Bengal texts omit it.
403 Ekayangatas is lit. “intently.”
404 Literally, “hence his thoughts were so.”
405 Suchimukha is literally “needle-mouthed.” It is a wedge-like column with the thin or pointed end turned towards the side of the enemy.
406 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.
407 The last word of 4 is read differently in the Bengal texts viz., Rathanghas, instead of, as in the Bombay edition, Maharathas.
408 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.
409 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).
410 Differently read in the Bengal texts, viz., Somadatta with the Saindhavas.
411 The Bengal reading Rathas in the first line of 6 is a mistake; should be, as in the Bombay text, tatha.
412 The last word of the first line of 36 is amitan in the Bengal texts. The Bombay reading is Varmitan. I prefer the Bengal reading.
413 Satyaki was Arjuna’s disciple in arms. Vijaya was another name of Arjuna.
The Sanskrit Epics Page 470