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. 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 ill 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?
