The Sanskrit Epics, page 468
94 The Bengal texts read Bhanumanudito divi. The Bombay reading is Bhanumanudito Ravis. If the latter be adopted, Bhanuman would be an adjective of Ravis.
95 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.
96 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.”
97 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.”
98 The Bengal reading is Saradabhraghana-prakshyam. The Bombay reading is ‘Sharadamvudhara-prakshyam.’
99 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.
100 Machines, perhaps catapults.
101 ‘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.
102 The Bombay edition reads Yamunantara for Yamunantare of the Bengal texts. The difference in meaning is not very material.
103 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.
104 The word used is Dayadas lit., taker of (one’s) wealth.
105 The Bombay text is here faulty. Darsay swamahavalam is scarcely correct. The Bengal reading is ‘Darsayan sumahavalam.’
106 Literally, “with rent cheeks and mouth.”
107 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.
108 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.
109 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.
110 The word is Uttaradhus which seems to be very doubtful.
111 Yenarjunastena, Yena is yatra and tena is tatra, as Nilakantha rightly explains. The meaning is— “who would be there where Arjuna would be.”
112 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.
113 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.
114 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.
115 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.
116 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.
117 The Bengal reading Sahasrani for Savastrani is correct. I adopt the latter.
118 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.
119 Verse 15 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.
120 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.
121 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.
122 Both Swaha and Swadha are mantras of high efficacy. Kala and Kastha are divisions of time. Saraswati implies speech.
123 Sankhye is explained by Nilakantha to be Samyak Khyanam Prakasana Yasmin; hence Atmanatma-vivekarupa Samadhi.
124 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.
125 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.
126 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.
127 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.
128 Ranasamudyame may also mean “at the outset of battle.”
129 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.
130 The word is atatayinas.
131 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.
132 In some editions this lesson is stated to be “Arjuna’s grief.” The description of the lesson again is given in fewer words.
133 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?”
134 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.
135 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.
136 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.
137 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.
138 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 13 is Dhira; that used in 11 is Pandita. There can be little doubt, however, that Pandita and Dhira have exactly the same meaning.
139 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.
140 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?
141 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.
142 A life in this world that is subject to decay and death. So say all the commentators.
143 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.
144 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.
145 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.
146 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.
147 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.”
148 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.
149 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.
150 The vulgar, being spiritually dark, are engaged in worldly pursuits. The sage in spiritual light is dead to the latter.
151 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.
152 “Apply to work”, i.e. to work as prescribed in the scriptures. Thus says Sankara. “To morning and evening prayers, etc.” says Sreedhara.
153 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.
154 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.
155 Parjjanya is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as rain. It means also the clouds or the origin of rain.
156 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 15 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.
157 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.
158 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.
159 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.
160 Sreedhara would connect “in the three worlds” with what follows. I follow Sankara and the natural order of words.
161 The word rendered “nature” is prakriti. It really implies “primal matter.”
162 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.
163 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.”
164 Devoting all work to me, i.e., in the belief that all you do is for me or my sake.
165 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.
166 Desire, if not gratified, results in wrath. Thus say the commentators.
167 Prajahi is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as parityaja (cast off).
168 He is the Supreme Soul or Being.
169 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.
170 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.
171 ‘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.
172 Chitta the mind and atma in this connection is the senses. Thus both Sreedhara and Sankara.
173 Sacrifice means here the Supreme Soul. What is done for the sake of sacrifice is done for procuring emancipation.
174 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.
175 I.e., offering up sacrifice itself as a sacrifice to the Brahma fire, they cast off all action.
176 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.
177 Suspending the functions of life for contemplation or Yoga.
178 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.
