The sanskrit epics, p.471
The Sanskrit Epics, page 471
414 Divakaram prapya, lit, ‘reaching the path of the sun,’ i.e., while coursing through the sky.
415 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.
416 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.
417 Lit. “This one no longer is” i.e., ‘alive’.
418 The original is Vichnvantas (a practical) meaning ‘plucking as flowers’.
419 These, in Hindu physiology, are the three humours of the body always contending for mastery over the vital forces.
420 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.
421 Instead of yat in the beginning of the second line, yada would be better. None of the printed text, however, have yada.
422 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.
423 The Bombay reading which I adopt is ajnayamanas cha. The Bengal reading seems to be incorrect.
424 Vipralapapavidham is literally “force from unreasoning declamation.” The Bombay reading is vicious.
425 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.
426 i.e., just before setting.
427 Krishna-sarathis (Bombay); the Bengal reading is Vanaradhvajas.
428 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?
429 Nagas, which may mean both stones and trees. In either case, the comparison would apply.
430 His pledge, viz., that in battle he would slay all the sons of Dhritarashtra.
431 The Bengal reading is tatas kruddhar. The Bombay reading is vachas kruram. I adopt the latter.
432 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.
433 The last word of the 4th verse is anivartinam. In the Bengal texts it is sumahatmanam.
434 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.
435 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.
436 The Bengal reading Dwidhabhutais is incorrect. It should be, as in the Bombay text, tridhabhutais.
437 In the Bengal texts, tava in the first line is incorrect. It should be tatra (Bombay).
438 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.
439 Literally, “in soil belonging to another.” The original is parakshetre.
440 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.
441 In the first line of 64, the true reading is Survamarmajna, and not Sarvadharmajna.
442 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.
443 i.e., with temporal juice trickling down.
444 The duty consisted in not retreating from the field.
445 i.e., the rescue of the king.
446 In the second line of 15, the Bengal reading saravarshena is incorrect. The Bombay reading Rathavansena is what I follow.
447 The Bengal reading hayais in the instrumental plural is incorrect. The Bombay text reads hayas (nom. plural). This is correct.
448 Literally, ‘divided in twain’.
449 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.
450 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.
451 The correct reading, as settled by the Burdwan Pundits, is Hataroha vyodrisyanta. Some texts have Hayaroha which is incorrect.
452 “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.
453 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.
454 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.
455 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.
456 In the first line of the 3rd verse, the Bengal reading is bhayam. The true reading, however, is khayam.
457 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.
458 Literally, “when its impetuosity is stirred up by the wind.”
459 The Bengal reading, which I adopt is sardula iva vegavan. The Bombay reading is sardula iva darpitas.
460 In the first line of 54, the Bombay reading pragrihya is better than the Bengal reading visrijya.
461 Literally, hundred-slayers; supposed to be a kind of rockets.
462 Some of the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 6th, incorrectly read sa-run for Sakram.
463 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.
464 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.
465 The Bengal reading vanya-nagendra is better than the Bombay reading gandha-nagendra.
466 In Hindu mythology, solar eclipses are caused by Rahu’s attempts at swallowing the Sun.
467 Budha is Mercury, and Sukra is Venus.
468 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.
469 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.
470 Lit. “reached him with shafts etc.”
471 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.
472 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.
473 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.
474 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.
475 i.e. Thou art still a woman though the sex hath been changed.
476 Literally, “will not get or obtain you.”
477 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.
478 I think Yatavrata had better be read Yatavratam. It would then mean Bhishma.
479 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.
480 This Susarman was not the king of the Trigartas but another person who was on the Pandava side.
481 Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts have Rathanika. The correct reading as settled by the Burdwan Pundits, is Gajanika.
482 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.
483 In the second line of 35 for Satanika, the true reading, is Sahanikan.
484 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.”
485 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.
486 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.
487 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.
488 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.
489 Indraddhwaja was a pole, decked with banners, created in honour of Indra. The festival attracted considerable crowds.
490 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.”
491 By bravery on the field of battle, which, according to the Hindu scriptures, is always thus rewarded.
BOOK 7. DRONA PARVA
SECTION I
(Dronabhisheka Parva)
OM! HAVING BOWED down unto Narayan, and unto that most exalted of male beings, viz., Nara, and unto the goddess Saraswati also, must the word Jaya be uttered.
Janamejaya said, “Hearing that his sire Devavrata of unrivalled vigour and sturdiness, and might, energy and prowess, had been slain by Sikhandin, the prince of the Panchalas, what, indeed, O regenerate Rishi, did the powerful king Dhritarashtra with eyes bathed in tears do? O illustrious one, his son (Duryodhana) wished for sovereignty after vanquishing those mighty bowmen, viz., the sons of Panda, through Bhishma and Drona and other great car-warriors. Tell me, O thou that hast wealth of asceticism, all that he, of Kuru’s race, did after that chief of all bowmen had been slain.”
Vaisampayana said, “Hearing that his sire had been slain, king Dhritarashtra of Kuru’s race filled with anxiety and grief, obtained no peace of mind. And while he, of Kuru’s race, was thus continually brooding over that sorrow, Gavalgana’s son of pure soul once more came to him. Then, O monarch, Dhritarashtra, the son of Amvika, addressed Sanjaya, who had that night come back from the camp to the city called after the elephant. With a heart rendered exceedingly cheerless in consequence of his having heard of Bhishma’s fall, and desirous of the victory of his sons, he indulged in these lamentations in great distress.
“Dhritarashtra said, ‘After having wept for the high-souled Bhishma of terrible prowess, what, O son, did the Kauravas, urged by fate, next do? Indeed, when that high-souled and invincible hero was slain, what did the Kauravas do, sunk as they were in an ocean of grief? Indeed, that swelling and highly efficient host of the high-souled Pandavas, would, O Sanjaya, excite the keenest fears of even the three worlds. Tell me, therefore, O Sanjaya, what the (assembled) kings did after Devavrata, that bull of Kuru’s race, had fallen.’
“Sanjaya said, ‘Listen, O king, with undivided attention, to me as I recite what thy sons did after Devavrata had been killed in battle. When Bhishma, O monarch, of prowess incapable of being baffled, was slain, thy warriors as also the Pandavas both reflected by themselves (on the situation). Reflecting on the duties of the Kshatriya order, they were filled with wonder and joy; but acting according to those duties of their own order, they all bowed to that high-souled warrior. Then those tigers among men contrived for Bhishma of immeasurable prowess a bed with a pillow made of straight shafts. And having made arrangements for Bhishma’s protection, they addressed one another (in pleasant converse). Then bidding Ganga’s son their farewell and walking round him, and looking at one another with eyes red in anger, those Kshatriyas, urged by fate, once more went out against one another for battle. Then by the blare of trumpets and the beat of drums, the divisions of thy army as also those of the foe, marched out. After the fall of Ganga’s son, O king, when the best part of the day had passed away, yielding to the influence of wrath, with hearts afflicted by fate, and disregarding the words, worthy of acceptance, of the high-souled Bhishma, those foremost ones of Bharata’s race went out with great speed, armed with weapons. In consequence of thy folly and of thy son’s and of the slaughter of Santanu’s son, the Kauravas with all the kings seemed to be summoned by Death himself. The Kurus, deprived of Devavrata, were filled with great anxiety, and resembled a herd of goats and sheep without a herdsman, in a forest abounding with beasts of prey. Indeed, after the fall of that foremost one of Bharata’s race, the Kuru host looked like the firmament divested of stars, or like the sky without the atmosphere, or like the earth with blasted crops, or like an oration disfigured by bad grammar,1 or like the Asura host of old after Vali had been smitten down, or like a beautiful damsel deprived of husband,2 or like a river whose waters have been dried up, or like a roe deprived of her mate and encompassed in the woods by wolves; or like a spacious mountain cave with its lion killed by a Sarabha.3 Indeed, O chief of the Bharatas, the Bharata host, on the fall of Ganga’s son, became like a frail boat on the bosom of the ocean, tossed by a tempest blowing from every side. Exceedingly afflicted by the mighty and heroic Pandavas of sure aim, the Kaurava host, with its steeds, car-warriors and elephants much troubled, became exceedingly distressed, helpless, and panic-stricken. And the frightened kings and the common soldiers, no longer relying upon one another, of that army, deprived of Devavrata, seemed to sink into the nethermost region of the world. Then the Kauravas remembered Karna, who indeed, was equal to Devavrata himself. All hearts turned to that foremost of all wielders of arms, that one resembling a guest resplendent (with learning and ascetic austerities). And all hearts turned to him, as the heart of a man in distress turneth to a friend capable of relieving that distress. And, O Bharata, the kings then cried out saying, “Karna! Karna! The son of Radha, our friend, the son of a Suta, that one who is ever prepared to lay down his life in battle! Endued with great fame, Karna, with his followers and friends, did not fight for these ten days. O, summon him soon!” The mighty-armed hero, in the presence of all the Kshatriyas, during the mention of valiant and mighty car-warriors, was by Bhishma classed as an Ardha-ratha, although that bull among men is equal to two Maharathas! Even thus was he classed during the counting of Rathas and Atirathas, he that is the foremost (of all Rathas and Atirathas), he that is respected by all heroes, he that would venture to fight even with Yama, Kuvera, Varuna, and Indra. Through anger caused by this, O king, he had said unto Ganga’s son these words: “As long as thou livest, O thou of Kuru’s race, I will never fight! if thou, however, succeedest in slaying the sons of Pandu in great battle, I shall, O Kaurava, with Duryodhana’s permission, retire into the woods. If, on the other hand, thou, O Bhishma, slain by the Pandavas, attainest to heaven, I shall then, on a single car, slay all of them, whom thou regardest as great car-warriors.” Having said this, mighty-armed Karna of great fame, with thy son’s approval, did not fight for the first ten days. Bhishma, of great prowess in battle and of immeasurable might, slew, O Bharata, a very large number of warriors belonging to Yudhishthira’s army. When, however, that hero of sure aim and great energy was slain, thy sons thought of Karna, like persons desirous of crossing a river thinking of a boat. Thy warriors and thy sons, together with all the kings, cried out, saying, Karna! And they all said, “Even this is the time for the display of his prowess.” Our hearts are turned to that Karna who derived his knowledge of weapons from Jamadagni’s son, and whose prowess is incapable of being resisted! He, indeed, O king, is competent to save us from great dangers, like Govinda always saving the celestials from great dangers.’”
