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.
179. All these are different kinds of Yoga, or the different stages of Yoga practice.
180. i.e., knowledge being attained, the fruits of action are attained by, at least, their end being compassed.
181. Sankhya is renunciation of action, while Yoga is devotion through action.
182. The grammatical form of the word Yoga as here employed is exceptional.
183. The first atman is explained as the soul, the second as the body, by all the commentators.
184. Taking means taking anything with the hands.
185. Water when thrown over a lotus-leaf escapes without soaking or drenching the leaf at all.
186. 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.
187. Such men are exempted from the obligation of re-birth. Leaving this body they merge into the Supreme Soul.
188. The word is Swapacha meaning a member of the lowest caste.
189. “Brahma is faultless and equable”; so Sreedhara and others,--“since faultless equality is Brahma.”
190. The sense is that they are at one with Brahma both here and hereafter.
191. Renouncer and devotee Sannyasin and Yogin.
192. Which spring from desire.
193. Self in this sloka is explained by the commentators as mind. The mind, unless controlled, cannot lead to devotion.
194. Chitta and atma are explained by the commentators as “mind and body.”
195. Fixed on one’s own self, i.e., withdrawn from all objects of sense. Thus Sankara.
196. 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.”
197. 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.”
198. i.e. I am always visible to him, and he too is always within my sight and I am always kind to him.
199. i.e. how its stable existence may be secured, the mind being by nature ever restless.
200. Fallen off from both, i.e., from heaven (through work) and absorption into Brahma (through devotion).
201. Without leaving anything, i.e., entirely.
202. 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.
203. Only some one, i.e., very few. Few perfection, i.e., for knowledge of self. Thus all the commentators.
204. 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.
205. 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.
206. Daivi is explained by Sankara as divine; by Sreedhara as marvellous.
207. 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.
208. The worshipper obtains his desires, thinking he gets them from the godhead he worships. It is however, that gives him those.
209. The divinities being perishable, myself imperishable. What these obtain is perishable. What my worshippers obtain is imperishable.
210. 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.
211. 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.
212. The three words occurring in this sloka and explained in the next section, forming as they do the subject of a question by Arjuna.
213. Bhava is production, and Udbhava is growth or development. Thus Sreedhara.
214. 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.”
215. All these regions being destructible and liable to re-birth, those that live there are equally liable to death and re-birth.
216. 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.
217. 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.
218. The commentators explain the word fire, the light, day, &c., as several godheads presiding over particular times.
219. The atmosphere occupies space without affecting it or its nature. So all things are in the Supreme Being without affecting him.
220. My nature, i.e., the unmanifest principle or primal essence.
221. 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.
222. This reason, i.e., my supervision.
223. 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.
224. Performing the sacrifice of knowledge, i.e., believing Vasudeva to be everything. In many forms, i.e., as Brahman, Rudra, etc.
225. Mantra is the sacred verse or verses used for invoking godheads, and for other purposes.
226. Hence they have to come back, explains Sreedhara.
227. Prayatatmanas is explained as Suddhachittasya.
228. Iman lokan (this mortal world), Sreedhara says, may mean “this form of royal saint that thou hast.” This is far-fetched.
229. Telang renders Paramam ‘excellent’; Mr. John Davies, ‘all important’. The meaning is referring to the ‘Supreme Soul’.
230. Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain Sarvassas as “in every way”. i.e., as creator, as guide, &c.
231. Prajas offspring, including, as Sankara says, both mobile, and immobile, therefore, not mankind alone.
232. 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.”
233. Tityam, ever, is connected with what follows and not what precedes. Thus Sreedhara. Mr. Davies connects it with Kathayantas.
234. K. T. Telang renders buddhi-yogam as knowledge; Mr. Davies, as mental devotion and Sankara, “devotion by special insight.”
235. 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.
236. 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.
237. 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.
238. 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.
239. The Japa-sacrifice is the sacrifice by meditation which is superior to all sacrifices.
240. 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.
241. In 28, Vasuki is called the chief of the Sarpas (serpents); in 29 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.
242. 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.
243. Mr. Davies renders Vedas ‘Pravadatam’ as “the speech of those that speak.” K. T. Telang renders it “the argument of controversialists.”
244. 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.
245. 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.
246. 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.
247. Adhyatman, i.e., the relation between the Supreme and the individual soul. This my delusion, i.e., about my being the slayer.
248. Avyayam is that which has no decay. Ordinarily, it may be rendered “eternal.” Telang renders it “inexhaustible”. Elsewhere I have rendered it as “understanding.”
249. Ekastham, lit. “all in one”. i.e., collected together.
250. Devam is explained by Sreedhara as Dyotanatmakam i.e., endued with splendour. Mr. Davies renders it resplendent; but Telang renders it “deity.”
251. 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.
252. Verse 21 is read differently. For Twam Surasangha, some texts read twa-Asurasanghas. Then again for Stuvanti in the second line some read Vikshate.
253. 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.”
254. 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.
255. Nidhanam is either refuge or support or abode or receptacle. Mr. Davies incorrectly renders it “treasure-house.”
256. Sankara accepts the reading Gururgariyan, Sreedhara takes it as Gururgariyan. In either case the difference in meaning is not material.
257. Sankara connects Adhyayana with Veda and Yajna. This seems to be right explanation.
258. Ata urddham is ‘after this,’ or ‘hereafter on high’ as Mr. Davies renders it.
259. 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.”
260. 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.
261. Dukha-dosha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as a Dwanda compound.
262. 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”.
263. The object of the knowledge of truth is the dispelling of ignorance and the acquisition of happiness.
264. Nor having eyes, etc., yet seeing, etc.; without attributes, yet having or enjoying all that the attributes give.
265. 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.
266. 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.
267. 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.
268. 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.”
269. What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines.
270. Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge.
271. 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.
272. 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.
273. Itas is explained by Sreedhara as “from the fetters of this body.”
274. Sreedhara makes mahat an adjective of yoni; Sankara makes it an adjective of Brahma. K. T. Telang follows Sankara.
275. 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.
276. Deha samudbhava is explained by the commentators as having their “samudbhava or parinama in deha.” It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound.
277. Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects.
278. 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.
279. 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.
280. 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.
281. Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain.
282. “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.”
283. 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.”
284. The four kinds of food are: that which is masticated, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.
285. 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.”
286. 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.”
287. 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.”
288. I adopt Sankara’s explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka. Sreedhara explains it differently.
289. 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.”
290. Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.
291. ‘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.
292. 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.
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.
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.