Book 6 edition notes 401–491

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 36 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 50, 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 13, 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 64, 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 15, 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 54, 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 32 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 19 corresponding with the first line of 19 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, 28 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 21. The Burdwan Pundits are for correcting it as Arjunam. I do not think the correction happy.

In the second line of 35 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 56, 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 114 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.