Bhagavatgita a detailed study-chapter1

[Guest guest]

9.anye cha bahavaH SooraaH madharTham thyakthajeevithaaH

nanaaSasthra praharaNaah sarve yuddhaviSaaradhaaH

 

There are many others who are ready to give up their lives for my sake. All of them are skilled in warfare and in the use of missiles.

 

Dhuryodhana included all those who were not mentioned in the last verse saying that there are many others as skilled as the ones mentioned and they all have assembled here ready to give up their lives for my sake, madharTham thyaktha jeevithaaH.

 

Here Duryodhana inadvertently hits upon the fate of Kourava army in saying thyakthajeevithaah. What he meant was that they are ready to give up their lives but the word thyakthajeevithaaH may also be construed to mean thyakthaaH jeevithaaH yaiH , those who have given up their lives , that is as good as dead.

 

Sasthra denotes he various missiles or weapons while asthra means those used with the power of manthras like Brhamasthra, aagneyaashtha etc.

 

yuddDhaviSaardhaaH- viSaaradha means skill or expertise.

 

SooraaH- those who have valour as well as knowledge.

 

 

10.aparyaaptham thath asmaakam balam

Bheeshmaabhirakshitham

 

Paryaaptham thu idham etheshaam balam

Bheemaabhirakshitham

 

 

 

Unlimited is our army protected by Bheeshma while limited is the army protected by Bheema.

 

Dhuryodhana says that his army is unlimited consisiting of eleven akshouhinees while that of Pandavas is only seven akshouhinees.

 

Thath means Kourava army and idham, `this,' denotes that of Pandavas. Idham meaning this is used with respect to Pandava army because he was talking about that only at the outset and thath, `that' refers to his own army.

 

Paryaaptham the word has the meaning adequate or competent also and hence even though Dhuryodhana meant that Pandava army was limited by the word paryapham it also conveys a sense quite contrary to what is meant and aparyaaptham used to denote that which is not limited has the contrary meaning of being not adequate or incompetent through the choice of words fatefully adopted as a foreboding of the events to come.

 

It was not the intention of Duryodhana to say so because earlier in the Udhyogaparva of Mahabharatha, Duryodhana reassures his father that the victory is surely his by saying,

 

gunNaheenam pareshaam cha bahu paSyaami Bharatha

guNodhayambahuguNam aathmanaScha viSaampathe

 

(MB.Udhyoga parva 55.67)

 

The army of the enemies, oh king of bharatha clan, is without merit mostly and our army is full of merit which will grow.

 

He also tells Drona in before the war in Mahabharatha ,

 

ekaikaSaH samarThaa hi yooyam sarve mahaaraThaah

paanduputhraan raNe hanthum sasainyaath kimu samhathaah

 

(MB_Beeshamparva-51.5)

 

All of you the great warriors are able to destroy the army of Pandavas singly. What more can be said when you are all together.

 

Hence it is the unfortunate choice of words now or purposefully chosen by Vyasa in the scene which is the prelude to Geethopadesa because later in 11th chapter Arjuna says that he could see all the kouravas and warriors from his own side also enter the mouth of The visvaroopa of the Lord. Hence as in the previous sloka here also there is a foreboding of the future turn of events.

 

This is the beauty of the Sanskrit language, when used by ingenuous poets like Vyasa and Valmiki, lends itself to different interpretations which is not prohibited because a word can have different implications, with direct ,mukhya, indirect , gouNa, and hidden, vyangya meanings. As the great masters never use any word wrongly or without intention the words must be construed to give the all the meanings relevant to the context. That is why we have so many bhashyas for the scriptures.

 

Even in the other languages we see that a different meaning can be got by mere fluctuations of the tone and expression of the speaker. As we can understand the meaning only by reading a work we have no way of knowing the real expression or tonal variations etc. So the possible implications cannot be avoided. It is all allowed in the rules of poetics.

 

I am writing this because someone remarked to me by private mail that I am giving my own interpretations. I am closely following the masters but in writing a commentary and not a translation it is allowed to follow your own thought process because it is what is intended by our scriptures, to encourage free thinking as far as it does not go against the main teaching. That is how our scriptures are enriched by the great thinkers.