The Interpretation of Gita verse 1-10

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

Sketch by Smt.Vani Rao,Baton Rouge,LA

Pravachana link:

aparyāptaṁ tadasmākaṁ balaṁ bhīṣmābhirakṣitam |

paryāptaṁ tvidameteṣāṁ balaṁ bhīmābhirakṣitam || 1-10||

अपर्याप्तं तदस्माकं बलं भीष्माभिरक्षितम्‌।

पर्याप्तं त्विदमेतेषां बलं भीमाभिरक्षितम्‌॥ १-१०॥

There is controversy regarding the interpretation of the two words - aparyAptaM and paryAptaM.

Let us denote the two possible interpretations as follows.

“unlimited or limitless for aparyAptaM” and “limited for paryAptaM”. So Duryodhana said that his army was unlimited or limitless and Pandava army was limited. - I1

“insufficient or not competent for aparyAptaM” and “sufficient or competent for paryAptaM”. So Duryodhana said that his army was insufficient(in defeating Pandavas) and Pandava army was sufficient(in defeating his army). - I2

Contronyms(auto-antonyms or Janus words) are not that rare. Even English language has lot of contronyms. Some small sample can be seen in the urls -

http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2014/10-verbs-contronyms/?AT2246=1

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/75-contronyms-words-with-contradictory-meanings/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57032/25-words-are-their-own-opposites

A partial list can be as follows -

Buckle, cleave, dust, enjoin, overlook, ravel, screen, bolt, clip, Finished, First Degree, Flog, Garnish, Hold up, left, off, out, overlook, sanction, sanguine, seed, skin or skinned, throw out, wear, weather.

In Sanskrit, one can find many contronyms, another example being "anuttama(the best and not the best)".

Possible reasons for making the interpretation I1 -

1. Very Short lived memory.

2. No global knowledge of many events that took place in Mahabharata

3. Inability to see the context

4. Defective thinking logic

5. Lack of mathematical knowledge

6. Lack of Sanskrit knowledge (mahAratha translation)

7. Inability to see multiple entries in online “VAman Apte Dictionary”.

8. PurvAgraha

9. Inability to apply the effects of past incidents in Duryodhana's life

10. Lack of ability to apply psychological aspects.

1. Short memory: Even the people, who went with wrong interpretation I1 are able to perceive the panic and fear demonstrated by Duryodhan as he starts his dialogue with Drona. And then they forget so soon and think that Duryodhana was having lot of confidence when he uttered verse 10.

2. Ignoring events: Look at the list of warriors he was giving – like Drupada. Think of the episode that happened as soon as the Kauravas completed their studies. Drona asked his disciples to bring Drupada as prisoner. What happened? The Kauravas went with their entire army and got defeated squarely by Drupada and returned shame-filled. Added to that, Pandavas went without any army all by themselves and brought Drupada as prisoner.

3. Context: Look at how Duryodhana was pouring out his grudge and frustration. In that context, why would he say such bragging words like “unlimited / limited”?

4. Lack of logic: One who was highly confident would just engage in action. Why would he go and talk these words to his Acharya? There are many logical points, which will be listed later.

5. Lack of Basic Math: There are two possible interpretations for aparyAptam / paryAptam – Not sufficient / Sufficient and Unlimited / limited. Of the two, the latter is very improper, irrespective of any logic, context, etc. Why? When it was 11 akShauhinis versus 7 akShauhinis, 11 could hardly qualify for unlimited. 11 is only 1.6 times 7. If the ratio was some thing like 100,000 to 1 or million to 1, then probably, one can use “unlimited”. A term which is like mathematical infinity will never be considered by a person, who has mathematical awareness.

6. Lack of Sanskrit grasp: Maharatha does not mean a warrior with a big chariot, nor it is just a rank. One has to see various parts of Mahabharata to know how these terms are used. Even the Vaman Apte dictionary gives the below meaning.

click on image

One can see the above definition in Udyogaparva of Mahabharata. Bhishma lists who are maharatha's in his army. He was not listing them as having big chariot or big car or by their ranks.

7. Inability to interpret dictionary: If one claims that Apte dictionary used this to mean unlimited / limited, those people have to see the following.

1. अपर्याप्त aparyāpta : (page 146)

अपर्यन्त aparyantaअपर्यन्त a. Unlimited, unbounded.

Out of three occurrences of "aparyAptam" in the online version, it has used all three times as "Not sufficient, incompetent, insufficient" as primary meaning. The only one occurrence of "paryAptam", it has used "Large, extensive, and Abundant" as primary meaning. In the secondary sense, it listed 'Unlimited' for 'aparyAptam' and 'Limited' for 'paryAptam'.

The hard copy dictionary that I have, it does not use in Unlimited / Limited sense at all. It uses indicating only competence. In any case, Sanskrit words can have multiple meanings, One has to analyze, before making a conclusion, or else it will just be a rash conclusion.

8. PurvAgraha: If one gives up Purvagraha(mindset) and sees with open mind, things will be pretty clear.

9. Non-application of effects of events on Duryodhana: Right from childhood, Duryodhana had the taste of Bhima's strength. All his efforts to kill Bhima went futile including poisoning Bhima and dumping him in the river. During the vanavasa of Pandavas, when Karna had failed to protect Duryodhana, it was the Pandavas, who had to rescue Duryodhana from Gandharvas. During VirATa yuddha, Arjuna defeated the Kaurava army single-handed.

10. Inability to see the psychological aspects: Look at the psychological aspects based on the behavior of Duryodhana. He was commending his enemies a lot more than his own and yet people conclude that he was bragging about his army?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

People can miss one or two or three evidences or points. But missing several points? What happened to these people?

Before we go any further, we have to note couple of things.

Based on the material/tools used, there are broadly two kinds of people – those who went with various commentaries of various schools and those who went with a few translations. Even if the latter category does not have proficiency in Sanskrit to see and analyze the Sanskrit commentaries that are available, they can make efforts to discuss with other schools and analyze. They pretend that they are very analytical, but they are not.

Then again based on thinking process, there are broadly two kinds of people – those who analyze all the material that is available and those who go with what they have been taught and never think outside the box. The latter make no efforts to look at other material, nor do they do any research on their own. They pretend that they are very analytical, but they are not.

Let us mention the names of some of the commentaries now. We will list the commentaries later on. In general the commentaries that went with Advaita made error and there too some exception can be found.

To start with, we have to make clear that among the three Acharyas, Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya, the first and the last did not comment on this verse, but only Sri Ramanujacharya had commented for this verse. His commentary states it correctly. For the other two, this verse must have been pretty self-explanatory. In general, if no major school propounder made an error and if at least one major school propounder gave correct interpretation and there was no need to shed more light, then Sri Madhvacharya kept silent about that. Since Sri Shankaracharya did not say any thing and Sri Ramanujacharya gave it correctly, probably Sri Madhvacharya kept silent about that. From the fact that there are at least two Advaita commentaries that went with correct one (I2), we can probably imagine that Sri Shankaracharya might have been at least as good as these and would have given the same explanation, if he had commented. If he had gone with a wrong one (I1), then Sri Madhvacharya would have given a correction.

At least three Advaita commentators went with the wrong interpretation (I1) -

Sri Anandagiri, Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, Sri NeelakaNTha.

Acharya Ramanuja, Sri Vedantadeshika and Sri Vallabhacharya gave the correct one (I2).

At least two Advaita commentaries went with the correct one (I2) -

The commentary of Sri Sridharaswamy and Sri Hanumadvirachita paishAchika bhAShya (a kind of strange name, in deed).

Since some confusion has been created, the MAdhva commentators like Sri Raghvendra Swamy and Sri Vanamalimishra clarified by giving the correct one (I2).

It must be noted that this is only a sample list, meaning there are lot more commentaries. Now let us list the arguments.

1. Even before the war started, Duryodhana must have been very skeptical of the whole outcome for other reasons like Bhishma, Drona, Kripacharya were all Pandava pakShapAtis. They were fighting on Duryodhana side because they ate the food offered by Duryodhana as king. Bhishma had vowed to support who ever was on the throne. But they were all well-wishers of Pandavas.

2. Look at the verse no. 2 –

dṛṣṭvā tu pāṇḍavānīkaṁ vyūḍham duryodhanastadā |

ācāryamupasaṅgamya rājā vacanamabravīt || 1-2||

दृष्ट्वा तु पाण्डवानीकं व्यूढम् दुर्योधनस्तदा।

आचार्यमुपसङ्गम्य राजा वचनमब्रवीत्‌॥ १-२॥

Note the word “tu” meaning “eva” or only or just.

Just by seeing the army of Pandavas, Duryodhana lost courage, composure, and confidence. vyUDham means well arranged. He felt as if their army was well arranged, but not his. Whom should he have approached? He should have approached Bhishma, the chief of the army. But he went to DroNa. Did he go as a shiShya? No, he went like a king – rAjA. Why? As a shishya, he was less favorite than Pandavas. As a king he could command. So, if he could not win the love, let him win the word. He was a king and Drona had to obey.

3. Look at the verse no. 3 –

paśyaitāṁ pāṇḍuputrāṇāmācārya mahatīṁ camūm |

vyūḍhāṁ drupadaputreṇa tava śiṣyeṇa dhīmatā || 1-3||

पश्यैतां पाण्डुपुत्राणामाचार्य महतीं चमूम्‌।

व्यूढां द्रुपदपुत्रेण तव शिष्येण धीमता॥ १-३॥

He started to shower his complaints, despondency and diffidence.

He was depicting Pandava army as “mahatīṁ camūm(महतीं चमूम् )” - huge army. His eleven akShauhinis did not seem huge, but their seven seemed huge?

etAm = this one (he should have said that one). He was standing with his army, not Pandava army. “samīpataravarti caitado rūpam ( समीपतरवर्ति चैतदो रूपम् ) ”(the word etAm is used for very near things). He was showing his anxiety and panic by saying that he was feeling as if their army had come too close already, closer to him than his own army.

He was addressing AchArya and saying “pāṇḍuputrāṇām mahatīṁ camūm (पाण्डुपुत्राणाम् महतीं चमूम् )”, but inserted the word AchArya in between. Was it just accidental? Was it just casual? Couldn't be really. It was well known that Dronacharya was very partial to Pandavas, even though he was fighting for Duryodhana. Why was Drona doing that? It was 'indebtedness' for eating 'Duryodhana's salt'. DroNa made Arjuna the best archer in the world, after promising to do so. All this was eating the mind of Duryodhana and he wanted to sound this out by saying “pANDuputrANAm AchArya – you are actually their favorite Acharya, I am worried about your partiality to them. Now my trump card is to act like a king and command you."

He described DhriShtadyumna with three adjectives – Drupada putreNa,

tava shiShyena, dhImatA – all three eating his mind.

First root cause of the fear – their chief of the army was son of Drupada. Drupada begot a son, who could kill Drona. Now that son was the chief of the army and going to fight with Drona. “So Acharya DroNa, what will be your fate?” - this was resounding in his words.

Then he was disciple of Drona. He learnt shastra vidya from Drona so that he could kill Drona! What an ironic situation? Wasn't Drona aware of that and wasn't he worried about that?

Third was he was dhImAn. It seemed as if skill was on their side and negligence on Kauravas' side. It was as if his side was more in number and their side was more in skill.

So the hint was that 'at least let every one be aware and cautious'.

4. Look at the verse no. 4 –

atra śūrā maheṣvāsā bhīmārjunasamā yudhi |

yuyudhāno virāṭaśca drupadaśca mahārathaḥ || 1-4||

अत्र शूरा महेष्वासा भीमार्जुनसमा युधि।

युयुधानो विराटश्च द्रुपदश्च महारथः॥ १-४॥

He had eleven akShauhinis and Pandavas only seven. But he mentioned eleven names here and listed six more making 17 here plus DhrishTadyumna that was a total of 18 from their side and only seven names from his side. That was another panic button.

He used not one, but three adjectives for them -

shUrA = valiant ones

maheShvAsA = great archers

bhImArjunasamA yudhi = equal to Bhima and Arjuna in fighting

He used the first adjective for both sides. He used the second and third adjectives only for Pandavas side. The third one is to be noted. Very important.

On both sides, no one was equal to Bhima and Arjuna. But for his perturbed mind and eyes, all fighters on their side were seeming equal to Bhima and Arjuna. This was the pinnacle of his terrified state. Earlier on a few times, he was verbally discounting Bhima and Arjuna. But his hidden fears about Bhima and Arjuna, which were dormant, just oozed out now.

YuyudhAna was sAtyaki. He was a great disciple, devotee and friend of Lord Krishna. So, Duryodhana had a special dislike for him.

The second name was ViraaTa. He was the husband of Kichaka's sister SudheShNa. If Kichaka were alive, the entire ViraaTa's army would have fought on his side with Kichaka as the head. So, he was hinting his misfortune here as well. He lost one Akshauhini army and Kichaka as well. ViraaTa, who was mere puppet in Kichaka's hand, has now summoned courage to fight against Kauravas.

The third name was Drupada. Karna lost matsyabheda narrowly and so the entire Panchala army ended up against him. He was reminded of the episode that happened as soon as the Kauravas completed their studies. Drona asked his disciples to bring Drupada as prisoner. What happened? The Kauravas went with their entire army and got defeated squarely by Drupada and returned shame-filled. Added to that, Pandavas went without any army all by themselves and brought Drupada as prisoner. Now Druapada, who was formidable to Kaurava army once was again out there, ready to fight. Added to that, he performed a yAga so as to beget a son, Dhrishtadyumna, who could kill DroNa.

One has to note the rancor, frustration and mental agony in listing the characters rather than thinking that some characters floating around in Mahabharata were mentioned.

5. Look at the verse no. 5 –

dhṛṣṭaketuścekitānaḥ kāśirājaśca vīryavān |

purujitkuntibhojaśca śaibyaśca narapuṅgavaḥ || 1-5||

धृष्टकेतुश्चेकितानः काशिराजश्च वीर्यवान्‌।

पुरुजित्कुन्तिभोजश्च शैब्यश्च नरपुङ्गवः॥ १-५॥

The fourth name was dhR^iShTaketu. He was son of ShishupAla. ShishupAla was close friend of Jarasandha and Duryodhana. If he were alive, he and his army would have fought on Duryodhana's side. So, he was hinting his misfortune here as well. Though ShishupAla was killed by Sri Krishna, his son was now fighting on the same side as Shri Krishna, which according to him should not happen.

The fifth name was chekitAna. He was like Satyaki – one yadu warrior. So, what ever applies to Satyaki, same applies for this one too.

The sixth name was kAshirAja. Bhima married his daughter KaaLi. Duryodhana married his another daughter. So, Bhima and Duryodhana were equally related to Kashiraja. He could have remained neutral, like Balarama. But he chose to fight on Pandavas' side. So, this must have irked him quite a bit.

The seventh and eighth were purujit and kuntibhoja. They were Kunti's brothers and so fighting on her sons' side.

The ninth was shaibya. He was king of Shibi kingdom. Earlier there was the prince of Shibi, KoTikaashya. Duryodhana's brother-in-law Jayadratha and KoTikAshya were close friends. During Pandava Vanavasa, Jayadratha and KoTikAshya tried to abduct Draupadi, and KoTikAshya lost his life in the hands of Pandavas. If he were alive, along with Jayadratha's army, he would have gotten KoTikAshya and Shibi kingdom's army. Now he lost that too.

6. Look at the verse no. 6 –

yudhāmanyuśca vikrānta uttamaujāśca vīryavān |

saubhadro draupadeyāśca sarva eva mahārathāḥ || 1-6||

युधामन्युश्च विक्रान्त उत्तमौजाश्च वीर्यवान्‌।

सौभद्रो द्रौपदेयाश्च सर्व एव महारथाः॥ १-६॥

The tenth and eleventh ones were YudhAmanyu and Uttamauja. They were Drupada's sons and DhriShtadyumna's brothers. Duryodhana has special worry about Drupada. So, he listed these three. Drupada had more sons, but these three were important ones. It was not just a casual mention. Duryodhana's opinion of their danger was depicted by the adjectives - vikrAnta (vikramashaali or powerful) and vIryavan (valorous).

Then he listed the six - tender aged Abhimanyu and upapandavas. We need to do a little bit of psycho-analysis - the ultimate fear complex - even they looked frightening for Duryodhana. His fears about Abhimanyu turned out to be true, later on in the battle, when he creates havoc during ChakravyUha. The panic of Duryodhana can be seen by his mentioning them as "sarva eva mahArathAH". All were Maharathas. It is childish to give the meaning of Maharatha as one having a big chariot. The definition is as follows -

eko daśasahasrāṇi yodhayedyastu dhanvinām |

śastraśāstrapravīṇaśca vijñeyaḥ sa mahārathaḥ ||

एको दशसहस्राणि योधयेद्यस्तु धन्विनाम्।

शस्त्रशास्त्रप्रवीणश्च विज्ञेयः स महारथः॥

The warrior, who fights single-handed with ten thousand archers and also an expert in both the arms and scriptures and science of warfare, is called Maharatha.

7. Look at the verse no. 7 –

asmākaṁ tu viśiṣṭā ye tānnibodha dvijottama |

nāyakā mama sainyasya saṁjñārthaṁ tān bravīmi te || 1-7||

अस्माकं तु विशिष्टा ये तान्निबोध द्विजोत्तम।

नायका मम सैन्यस्य संज्ञार्थं तान् ब्रवीमि ते॥ १-७॥

Though the word "dvijottama" sounds like a good honorific, there was hidden taunt in that. Drona was certainly a great Brahmin, alright. But how much fighting zeal of kShatriya will be there, when by blood he was braahmana? Also one can feel the hidden sounding - "For indication purpose, I am telling; you listen". It was not that Drona did not know the listed warriors on the other side and also the warriors on his side. But Duryodhana was showing his gripe to Drona by sounding "better understand the gravity of the situation". Otherwise why bother about mentioning the ones already known? He said "mama sainya" (my army) rather than our army. Of course the sign of ego was there. In addition to that, he was also indicating that the same kind of feeling was lacking from others.

8. Look at the verse no. 8 –

bhavān bhīṣmaśca karṇaśca kṛpaśca samitiñjayaḥ |

aśvatthāmā vikarṇaśca saumadattistathaiva ca || 1-8||

भवान् भीष्मश्च कर्णश्च कृपश्च समितिञ्जयः।

अश्वत्थामा विकर्णश्च सौमदत्तिस्तथैव च॥ १-८॥

He mentioned "you(referring to Drona), BhiShma, Karna, Kripa, AshvatthAma, VikarNa, Saumadatti."

Here he listed seven, out of which three were Brahmanas and four were kShatriyas.

First Brahmana was Drona, who was known as Pandava pakshapAti(supports Pandavas). He even vowed to make Arjuna as the best archer in the world. Second Brahmana was Kripacharya, who also always supported Pandavas. They were fighting on Duryodhana side, because they were supported and sustained by him. The third Brahmana was AshvatthAma. He was quite unpredictable. The first kShatriya mentioned was Bhishma and he also always supported Pandavas. The second kShatriya mentioned was Karna. The pity was such that Duryodhana had so much trust and faith in Karna and even before the start of war, Bhishma insulted Karna, who took the vow that until Bhishma fought on Kauravas' side, Karna would not fight. So, at that point he was like a non-entity. The third kShatriya mentioned was Vikarna. He was one of the brothers of Duryodhana. Note that he did not mention his own constant companion and valorous brother DushshAsana, but mentions another brother. Why? During Draupadi vastrApaharaNa time, DushshAsana obeyed Duryodhana, but Vikarna protested the act of Duryodhana. He might drop off from war, saying that it was wrong to fight against Pandavas. There was no guarantee. The fourth kShatriya mentioned was Saumadatti. He was Bhurishravas, son of Somadatta. Shantanu's brother was Bahlika, his son was Somadatta. His valorous son was Bhurishravas. Somadatta's sister Rohini was Vasudeva's (Krishna's father) wife and mother of Balarama. So, he and his people like Krishna and Pandavas. He was fighting on Duryodhana's side, because of Bhishma. So, here also, one can see Duryodhana's gripe.

9. Look at the verse no. 9 –

anye ca bahavaḥ śūrā madarthe tyaktajīvitāḥ |

nānāśastrapraharaṇāḥ sarve yuddhaviśāradāḥ || 1-9||

अन्ये च बहवः शूरा मदर्थे त्यक्तजीविताः।

नानाशस्त्रप्रहरणाः सर्वे युद्धविशारदाः॥ १-९॥

He just bundles all the rest with one stroke "anye cha". Others were there for namesake. They were all valorous, armed well and skilled in warfare, but what good? Duryodhana could have said "te madvijayakAnkShiNaH (they wish to get me victory)", but he said "madarthe tyaktajIvitAH". Of course it means that they were prepared to die for him. But it has the sound that they are as good as dead, being on his side. In other words this expression means both "They are willing to give up their lives for my sake" and also "They are mentally prepared to die because of me(they think 'Because of Duryodhana, we have no other choice, but to die'.)"

Others also included people like Shalya, who was Pandava pakshapAti(supports Pandavas). He came to fight on Pandavas' side, but was tricked to fight on Duryodhana's side.

One can easily notice Duryodhana's despondency. From eleven akShauhinis and 99 brothers, he could remember only seven names and from seven akShaouhinis, he could remember eleven names and also mentioned DhrishTadyumna, Subhadra's son, Draupadi's sons.

10. With this background, now look at the verse no. 10 –

aparyāptaṁ tadasmākaṁ balaṁ bhīṣmābhirakṣitam |

paryāptaṁ tvidameteṣāṁ balaṁ bhīmābhirakṣitam || 1-10||

अपर्याप्तं तदस्माकं बलं भीष्माभिरक्षितम्।

पर्याप्तं त्विदमेतेषां बलं भीमाभिरक्षितम्॥ १-१०॥

"That army of ours, protected by Bhishma, is incompetent (to subdue Pandva army); Quite contrarily, this army protected by Bhima, is competent (to subdue our army)."

Note his other words. For his army, he should have said "this", but he said "that". For the opponent army, he should have said "that", but he said "this". Was it just a casual miss? Can't be. Look at all the other evidences. His growing concern or apprehension was such that he might have felt that they were all over him and that his own army was drifting away.

The counterpart of Bhishma was Dhrishtadyumna, but he mentioned Bhima. Why? Right from childhood, he experienced the invincibility of Bhima. He could make all the Kauravas, fall like fruits from the Mango tree. So, here Bhima was mentioned not for some rhyming or metrical purpose.

jave lakṣyābhiharaṇe bhojye pāṁsuvikarṣaṇe |

dhārtarāṣṭrānbhīmasenaḥ sarvānsa parimardati || 1-119-15||

harṣādetānkrīḍamānāngṛhya kākanilīyane |

śiraḥsu ca nigṛhyainānyodhayāmāsa pāṇḍavaḥ || 1-119-16||

śatamekottaraṁ teṣāṁ kumārāṇāṁ mahaujasām |

eka eva vimṛdnāti nātikṛcchrādvṛkodaraḥ || 1-119-17||

pādeṣu ca nigṛhyainānvinihatya balādbalī |

cakarṣa krośato bhūmau ghṛṣṭa jānu śiro'kṣikān || 1-119-18||

daśa bālāñjale krīḍanbhujābhyāṁ parigṛhya saḥ |

āste sma salile magnaḥ pramṛtāṁśca vimuñcati || 1-119-19||

phalāni vṛkṣamāruhya pracinvanti ca te yadā |

tadā pādaprahāreṇa bhīmaḥ kampayate drumam || 1-119-20||

prahāra vegābhihatāddrumādvyāghūrṇitāstataḥ |

saphalāḥ prapatanti sma drutaṁ srastāḥ kumārakāḥ || 1-119-21||

na te niyuddhe na jave na yogyāsu kadā cana |

kumārā uttaraṁ cakruḥ spardhamānā vṛkodaram || 1-119-22||

evaṁ sa dhārtarāṣṭrāṇāṁ spardhamāno vṛkodaraḥ |

apriye'tiṣṭhadatyantaṁ bālyānna droha cetasā || 1-119-23||

जवे लक्ष्याभिहरणे भोज्ये पांसुविकर्षणे।

धार्तराष्ट्रान्भीमसेनः सर्वान्स परिमर्दति॥ १-११९-१५॥

हर्षादेतान्क्रीडमानान्गृह्य काकनिलीयने।

शिरःसु च निगृह्यैनान्योधयामास पाण्डवः॥ १-११९-१६॥

शतमेकोत्तरं तेषां कुमाराणां महौजसाम्।

एक एव विमृद्नाति नातिकृच्छ्राद्वृकोदरः॥ १-११९-१७॥

पादेषु च निगृह्यैनान्विनिहत्य बलाद्बली।

चकर्ष क्रोशतो भूमौ घृष्ट जानु शिरोऽक्षिकान्॥ १-११९-१८॥

दश बालाञ्जले क्रीडन्भुजाभ्यां परिगृह्य सः।

आस्ते स्म सलिले मग्नः प्रमृतांश्च विमुञ्चति॥ १-११९-१९॥

फलानि वृक्षमारुह्य प्रचिन्वन्ति च ते यदा।

तदा पादप्रहारेण भीमः कम्पयते द्रुमम्॥ १-११९-२०॥

प्रहार वेगाभिहताद्द्रुमाद्व्याघूर्णितास्ततः।

सफलाः प्रपतन्ति स्म द्रुतं स्रस्ताः कुमारकाः॥ १-११९-२१॥

न ते नियुद्धे न जवे न योग्यासु कदा चन।

कुमारा उत्तरं चक्रुः स्पर्धमाना वृकोदरम्॥ १-११९-२२॥

एवं स धार्तराष्ट्राणां स्पर्धमानो वृकोदरः।

अप्रियेऽतिष्ठदत्यन्तं बाल्यान्न द्रोह चेतसा॥ १-११९-२३॥

(In speed, In hitting the target, in eating, in dust-scattering, Bhimasena had beaten all the sons of Dhritarashtra. Joyously, holding all 101 by hair pulled them effortlessly as if they were just one and dragged them on ground hurting their knees, heads and shoulders. While in water, he held them by tens and drowned them until they were almost dead. When they got up the tree, by striking the tree by foot, made them all fall along with fruits. In duels and in speed, they could not match Vrikodara. Thus he showed his prowess and did unpleasant things to them due to young age, but not with any evil intent.)

Then they tried to kill Bhima by poisoning and throwing in the river. He returned after drinking ambrosia.

Then they tried to poison him second time. See what happened.

bhojane bhīmasenasya punaḥ prākṣepayadviṣam |

kālakūṭaṁ navaṁ tīkṣṇaṁ sambhṛtaṁ lomaharṣaṇam || 1-119-39||

vaiśyāputrastadācaṣṭa pārthānāṁ hitakāmyayā |

taccāpi bhuktvājarayadavikāro vṛkodaraḥ || 1-119-40||

vikāraṁ na hyajanayatsutīkṣṇamapi tadviṣam |

bhīma saṁhanano bhīmastadapyajarayattataḥ || 1-119-41||

भोजने भीमसेनस्य पुनः प्राक्षेपयद्विषम्।

कालकूटं नवं तीक्ष्णं सम्भृतं लोमहर्षणम्॥ १-११९-३९॥

वैश्यापुत्रस्तदाचष्ट पार्थानां हितकाम्यया।

तच्चापि भुक्त्वाजरयदविकारो वृकोदरः॥ १-११९-४०॥

विकारं न ह्यजनयत्सुतीक्ष्णमपि तद्विषम्।

भीम संहननो भीमस्तदप्यजरयत्ततः॥ १-११९-४१॥

(They again mixed new, virulent, hair-chilling and frightening kAlakUTa poison in the food of Bhimasena. The son of a vaishya woman informed Pandavas to help them. Even then Bhima ate that food and it had no effect on him. He digested it completely.)

Bhima killed Bakasura, Kirmira, Kichaka, et al. Won't it send shivers in Duryodhana? The Virata yuddha must also be fresh in the memory of Duryodhana.

11. The analysis of verse 10 does not end with verse 10. See verse no. 11 –

ayaneṣu ca sarveṣu yathābhāgamavasthitāḥ |

bhīṣmamevābhirakṣantu bhavantaḥ sarva eva hi || 1-11||

अयनेषु च सर्वेषु यथाभागमवस्थिताः।

भीष्ममेवाभिरक्षन्तु भवन्तः सर्व एव हि॥ १-११॥

If the army was protected by Bhishma and the army was limitless, why would anyone worry about Bhishma? Secondly, he was saying this to Drona so that Bhishma can also listen and know about his worries. In any case, it is obvious that he was worried. This becomes even more evident in the next verse.

12. Look at the verse no. 12 –

tasya saṁjanayan harṣaṁ kuruvṛddhaḥ pitāmahaḥ |

siṁhanādaṁ vinadyoccaiḥ śaṅkhaṁ dadhmau pratāpavān || 1-12||

तस्य संजनयन् हर्षं कुरुवृद्धः पितामहः।

सिंहनादं विनद्योच्चैः शङ्खं दध्मौ प्रतापवान्॥ १-१२॥

In order to create cheerfulness in the despondent Duryodhana, the aged Bhishma blew the conch like a lion's roar. If Duryodhana said that his army was limitless and if he was in high spirits, why bother to cheer him up? If the cheerfulness was already there, the question of generating it does not arise. If someone makes a claim that even if he had cheerfulness, Bhishma might have done that act to increase it. In that case, it would have been "saMvardhayan", but not "saMjanayan".

13. The foot prints do not stop there. The Kaurava army blared forth conches, kettle drums, trumpets, tabors and blow horns. there was no mention of that tumultuous sound affecting the Pandavas. But when the Pandava army blew their conches, what was the effect of that sound from conches?

14. Look at the verse no. 19 –

sa ghoṣo dhārtarāṣṭrāṇāṁ hṛdayāni vyadārayat |

nabhaśca pṛthivīṁ caiva tumulo vyanunādayan || 1-19||

स घोषो धार्तराष्ट्राणां हृदयानि व्यदारयत्‌।

नभश्च पृथिवीं चैव तुमुलो व्यनुनादयन्‌॥ १-१९॥

That tumultuous sound from Pandavas' army, reverberating through the sky and Earth, tore the hearts of Dhritarashtra's sons. Note the contrast. The enormous sound of conches, kettle drums, trumpets, tabors and blow horns from the limitless army did not have impact on Pandavas, but the sound of conches from the limited army tore the hearts of Dhritarashtra's sons.

15. At this point Sri Ramanuja gives a cumulative commentary for all these.

duryodhanaḥ svayameva bhīmābhirakṣitam pāṇḍavānām balam atmīyam ca bhīṣmābhirakṣitam balam avalokya ātmavijaye tasya balasya paryāptatām ātmīyasya balasya tadvijaye cāparyāptatām ācāryāya nivedya antare viṣaṇṇaḥ abhavat | tasya viṣādaṁ ālokya bhīṣmaḥ tasya harṣam janayitum siṁhanādaṁ śaṅkhādhmānaṁ ca kṛtvā śaṅkhabherīninādaiḥ ca vijayābhiśaṁsinam ghoṣaṁ ca akārayat | tataḥ taṁ ghoṣaṁ ākarṇya sarveśvaraḥ pārthasārathī rathī ca pāṇḍutanayaḥ trailokyavijayopakaraṇabhūte mahati syaṁdane sthitau trailokyaṁ kampayantau śrīmatpāñcajanyadevadattau divyau śaṅkhau pradadhmatuḥ | tato yudhiṣṭhiravṛkodarādayaḥ ca svakīyān śaṅkhān pṛthak pṛthak pradadhmuḥ | sa ghoṣaṁ duryodhanapramukhānāṁ sarveṣām eva bhavatputrāṇāṁ hṛdayāni bibheda | adya eva naṣṭaṁ kurūṇāṁ balam iti dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ menire | evaṁ tadvijayābhikāṅkṣiṇe dhṛtarāṣṭrāya saṁjayaḥ akathayat |

दुर्योधनः स्वयमेव भीमाभिरक्षितम् पाण्डवानाम् बलम् अत्मीयम् च भीष्माभिरक्षितम् बलम् अवलोक्य आत्मविजये तस्य बलस्य पर्याप्तताम् आत्मीयस्य बलस्य तद्विजये चापर्याप्तताम् आचार्याय निवेद्य अन्तरे विषण्णः अभवत्। तस्य विषादं आलोक्य भीष्मः तस्य हर्षम् जनयितुम् सिंहनादं शङ्खाध्मानं च कृत्वा शङ्खभेरीनिनादैः च विजयाभिशंसिनम् घोषं च अकारयत्। ततः तं घोषं आकर्ण्य सर्वेश्वरः पार्थसारथी रथी च पाण्डुतनयः त्रैलोक्यविजयोपकरणभूते महति स्यंदने स्थितौ त्रैलोक्यं कम्पयन्तौ श्रीमत्पाञ्चजन्यदेवदत्तौ दिव्यौ शङ्खौ प्रदध्मतुः। ततो युधिष्ठिरवृकोदरादयः च स्वकीयान् शङ्खान् पृथक् पृथक् प्रदध्मुः। स घोषं दुर्योधनप्रमुखानां सर्वेषाम् एव भवत्पुत्राणां हृदयानि बिभेद। अद्य एव नष्टं कुरूणां बलम् इति धार्तराष्ट्राः मेनिरे। एवं तद्विजयाभिकाङ्क्षिणे धृतराष्ट्राय संजयः अकथयत्।

(Having viewed Pandava army, protected by Bhima and his own army, protected by Bhishma, Duryodhana conveyed to Drona about their competence in conquering his army and the incompetence of his own army in conquering theirs and remained grief-stricken within. Having perceived his despondency, Bhishma blew the conch like a lion's roar so as to generate cheerfulness in him and made his side blare the conches and kettle drums, desirous of victory. Having heard that sound, Sri Krishna, the Lord of Lords and Arjuna, seated in the chariot, capable of conquering the three worlds blew the divine conches Panchajanya and Devadatta so as to make the three worlds tremble. Then YudhishThira, Bhima and others blew their own individual conches. That clamor tore the hearts of all your sons, starting from Duryodhana. Dhritarashtra's sons thought that the cause of Kaurava army was instantly lost. Thus spoke Sanjaya to DhritarAshtra, longing victory for his sons.)

16. Let us take a look at Sri Hanumadvirachita paishAchika bhAShya, which is a faithful rendition of Sri Shankara Bhashya. From that view point, we can hope that he spoke the heart of Sri Shankara.

sainyadvayaparikalpanaprayojanamāha | aparyāptamiti | taditi tattathābhūtairvīrair-yuktamapi bhīṣmenābhitaḥ rakṣitamapyasmākaṁ balaṁ sainyaṁ aparyāptaṁ taiḥ saha yoddhumasamarthaṁ bhāti | idaṁ teṣāṁ pāṇḍavānāṁ balaṁ bhīmenābhitaḥ rakṣitaṁ satparyāptaṁ samarthaṁ bhāti | bhīṣmasyobhayapakṣapātitvādasmadbalaṁ pāṇḍavasainyaṁ prati asamarthaṁ bhīmasyaikapakṣapātitvādetadbalamasmadbalaṁ prati samarthaṁ tasmādbhavadbhirevaṁ vartitavyamityāha ayaneṣviti |

सैन्यद्वयपरिकल्पनप्रयोजनमाह। अपर्याप्तमिति। तदिति तत्तथाभूतैर्वीरैर्-युक्तमपि भीष्मेनाभितः रक्षितमप्यस्माकं बलं सैन्यं अपर्याप्तं तैः सह योद्धुमसमर्थं भाति। इदं तेषां पाण्डवानां बलं भीमेनाभितः रक्षितं सत्पर्याप्तं समर्थं भाति। भीष्मस्योभयपक्षपातित्वादस्मद्बलं पाण्डवसैन्यं प्रति असमर्थं भीमस्यैकपक्षपातित्वादेतद्बलमस्मद्बलं प्रति समर्थं तस्माद्भवद्भिरेवं वर्तितव्यमित्याह अयनेष्विति।

(The benefit of observing both the armies was conveyed through the words "apryAptam...". Despite the fact that our army consists of great warriors, and protected by Bhishma, it seems incompetent in fighting them and getting victory.

Pandava army, being protected by Bhima, seems competent in fighting us and getting victory. Our incompetence in getting victory over Pandavas springs from Bhishma's affinity to both sides. Their competence in getting victory over us springs from Bhima's affinity to one side. Hence, you all have to strategize as needed - this he indicated in "ayaneShu...".)

17. Sri Raghavendra tirtha's commentary -

baladvaye baliṣṭaparigaṇane pāṇḍavavijaye mama saṁdeho'sti | tato bhavadādayaḥ sarve bahusannaddhā bhavantviti bhāvenāha aparyāptamiti | senāpatibhūta bhīṣmābhirakṣitam asmākam tat prāgukta baliṣṭopetam balam aparyāptaṁ pāṇḍavajaye na samarthaṁ pratīyate | bhīmābhirakṣitamidam pāṇḍavānām balaṁ tu paryāptam asmadvijaye samartham pratīyate |

बलद्वये बलिष्टपरिगणने पाण्डवविजये मम संदेहोऽस्ति। ततो भवदादयः सर्वे बहुसन्नद्धा भवन्त्विति भावेनाह अपर्याप्तमिति। सेनापतिभूत भीष्माभिरक्षितम् अस्माकम् तत् प्रागुक्त बलिष्टोपेतम् बलम् अपर्याप्तं पाण्डवजये न समर्थं प्रतीयते। भीमाभिरक्षितमिदम् पाण्डवानाम् बलं तु पर्याप्तम् अस्मद्विजये समर्थम् प्रतीयते।

(When I analyze the strengths and warriors of both the armies, I am skeptical of gaining victory over Pandavas. With the intent of that idea 'Thence, all of you remain extremely well-prepared', this verse 'aparyAptaM...' came about. Protected by Bhishma, the chief of army, our army, consisting of prior mentioned warriors, seems incompetent in vanquishing Pandavas. However, Pandava army, protected by Bhima, seems competent in vanquishing us.)

18. What is the reason for all these arguments? We have to see this from Duryodhana's point of view. How do we do that? We have to look at his own experiences in earlier wars, which is a calibration for the strength. When Drona asked as Gurudakshina to bring Drupada as a prisoner, Kauravas and his army got defeated by Drupada and Pandavas without any army, all by themselves defeated Drupada and brought him to Drona. During the vanavasa of Pandavas, when Karna had failed to protect Duryodhana, it was the Pandavas, who had to rescue Duryodhana from Gandharvas. During VirATa yuddha, Arjuna defeated the Kaurava army single-handed. At that time Bhishma and Drona were also there.

19. Let us analyze the option -

Some had the defective understanding that this indicates that Duryodhana was implying - "our army insufficient - bunch of wimps - including you."

They question this, laugh it out and reject this meaning.

First of all this meaning does not lead to such implication. It is pure misunderstanding and wrong judgment. Let us take one simple example. There is a tremendous, powerful and strong 400 pound wrestler - W1. There is another one around same weight, but a little stronger and a little more powerful - W2, sufficient to defeat W1. This does not make W1 a wimp. It is just that W2 is better than W1.

Pandavas army was competent to defeat Kaurava army - this did not make Kaurava army a wimp. In fact at the end of the war, we know that that is what happened. Did that make Kauravas wimps? Did that make Drona a wimp? Just getting a defeat makes one a wimp? Why does one use wrong implication logic, then gibe and then make that a base to reject the correct interpretation and end up in the wrong interpretation? This is triple whammy.

20. Let us analyze the option -

“unlimited or limitless for aparyAptaM” and “limited for paryAptaM”. So Duryodhana said that his army was unlimited or limitless and Pandava army was limited. - I1

Some had the defective understanding that this indicates that Duryodhana was implying - "compared to ours - they are a bunch of wimps."

They admire this, laugh along and uphold this meaning. Look at point 18(series of setbacks Duryodhana faced wrt Pandavas). Did Duryodhana, who had the taste of Pandavas' strength, imply that they are a bunch of wimps?

First of all this meaning does not lead to such implication. It is pure misunderstanding and wrong judgment.

Secondly, this meaning must be rejected right at the outset. Why?

Here limited/unlimited is applicable to number or strength?

It cannot be number, because 1.6 times(11/7) does not qualify for that. It cannot be strength, as Pandavas have shown their superior strength several times earlier. Look at point 18. Will Duryodhana blabber like that?

Why does one go with the wrong interpretation, use wrong implication logic, then revel and then make that a base to reinforce the wrong interpretation? This is also a triple whammy.

Shri KrishNArpaNamastu !!

Link to Audio of Bhagavad Gita Paata

Madhwa Prameya Mahodadhi

Search This Blog

The Interpretation of Gita verse 1-10

A partial list can be as follows -

Comments

Post a Comment