Two Versions of Capter I, Verse 10

[Indialover]

Namaste

I am confused with verse 10 in Bhagavad Gita chapter I.
Until now I knew this version

This army of ours marshalled by Bhishma is insufficient,
whereas their army marshalled by Bhima is sufficient.

Now I found the verse turned around

This our army defended by Bhishma (is) impossible to be counted,
but that army of theirs, defended by Bhima (is) easy to number.

Duryodhana had 11 akshauhini, Pandavas had 7 thus I would favor the second version.

Why are there two versions? Or do I misunderstand something?

Thanks - Pranam

[c.smith]

Hari Om!

Think about which side Krishna was on!

Om

[devotee]

Namaste IL,

Namaste

I am confused with verse 10 in Bhagavad Gita chapter I.
Until now I knew this version

This army of ours marshalled by Bhishma is insufficient,
whereas their army marshalled by Bhima is sufficient.

Now I found the verse turned around

This our army defended by Bhishma (is) impossible to be counted,
but that army of theirs, defended by Bhima (is) easy to number.

Duryodhana had 11 akshauhini, Pandavas had 7 thus I would favor the second version.

Why are there two versions? Or do I misunderstand something?

Thanks - Pranam

Both the translations are correct but logically the second one appears correct meaning. The words used in the verse are "Aparyaaptam" (which usually means insufficient) and "Paryaaptam" (usually means sufficient). Some translators take these meanings because even though Duryodhana had a very strong army, it was insufficient to beat the Pandavas because Lord Krishna was not on their side.

However, why would Duryodhana say so, more so, just at the beginning of the war and to his army-chief ?? If this is kept in mind then the above translation appears faulty. Paryaaptam also means "which covers" and "Aparyaaptam" means "Which doesn't cover". Now, what covers must be limited whereas what goes beyond the coverage area is beyond that limitation. So, in that sense, the second translation seems better.

OM

[Indialover]

Namaste

Thank you both.

I found this explanation why Vyasa choose aparyaaptam.

By using this word Vyasa has cleverly indicated the underlying fear that Duryodhana is feeling. In spite of having an army that is almost 1.5 times stronger than the Pandavas’ army he still feels it is insufficient. This is due to his unrighteous, cruel and destructive behavior. Duryodhana refers to all these warriors as great maharathas and is afraid of facing them in battle.

With this explanation the second translation again makes more sense.

Pranam

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Namaste
Thank you both.
I found this explanation why Vyasa choose aparyaaptam.
By using this word Vyasa has cleverly indicated the underlying fear that Duryodhana is feeling. In spite of having an army that is almost 1.5 times stronger than the Pandavas’ army he still feels it is insufficient. This is due to his unrighteous, cruel and destructive behavior. Duryodhana refers to all these warriors as great maharathas and is afraid of facing them in battle.
With this explanation the second translation again makes more sense.

If I may let me offer an additional point of view , in which I rest on my teachers translation for the 10th and 11th verse of chapter 1, bhāgavadgītā. The translation he offers is,
unlimited is that army of ours commanded by bhīṣma , where as their army commanded by bhīma is limited. || 10
Hence aparyāpta and paryāpta is applied as unlimited and limited. Note I am not suggesting that ‘sufficient’ and ‘insufficient’ are not correct by any means, as I agree these definitions are apropos and proper. I myself prefer the use of unlimited and limited for their spiritual significance which I will hold off on and keep to the subject at hand.

Now the 11^th verse: therefore stationed in your respective positions on all fronts support bhīṣma alone, all of you! ||11

So, what is going on? According to my teacher it suggests duryodhana’s shrewdness (not fear). In the 10^th śloka he is reminding bhīṣma that victory or defeat is in his hands as his army is mighty and well equipped; this is to rally him against bhīma his opponent. In the 11^th śloka duryodhana knows that most of the warriors on his side are there primarily for the sake of bhīṣma ( and not him ), hence he encourages the warriors to ‘support bhīṣma alone’ . In other words you are here led by bhīṣma, then bring victory for him!

A few more ideas
Vyāsa-ji¹ gives us a hint on dur + yodhana’s composition\disposition based upon his name of which we can come-up with several views:

• dur = great crime or wickedness
• dur = dvār = gate , door , entrance ; expedient , means , opportunity
• yodhana = the act of fighting , battle , war

Yet too one can argue that ‘dur’ use to be ‘dus’. By the grammar rules of visargaḥ ‘dus’ becomes ‘duḥ’ ; then another rule ( as they are additive) says, if a vowel precedes this ‘ḥ’ it is changed to an ‘r’ when followed by a vowel or soft consonant. The semi-vowel ‘ya’ follows and we can apply the rule ( if I got the sum of the rules properly aligned). So, it means ‘dur’ came from ‘dus’ – and what do we know of ‘dus’ ? ‘Dus’ = evil , bad , difficult , hard.

From these components we can discern that duryodhana is a ‘door’ to fighting and battle. That he is capable of ‘great crimes’ in fighting. One can also postulate that he is a most aggressive and capable warrior; he may be a ‘bad and evil’ fighter, but one could argue he is a ‘hard’ ( tenacious) fighter.
Am I giving duryodhana too much credit ? His other name is suyodhana which = ‘fighting well’ or a supreme fighter (su+yodhana). Still from this name su+ yodhana one could argue it also means su = to urge , impel , incite + yodhana = fighting, battle. So , su+ yodhana could also mean he that ‘instigates’ fighting. If anyone has read the mahābhārata you will know this to be true.

Now that said, I am of the opinion there was no fear within duryodhana. He looked forward to battle , to instigate it, to press forward in battle , to be the ‘door’ though which fighting, and difficult times came to pass.

इतिशिवं
iti śivaṁ

1. Called veda-vyāsa and regarded as the original compiler and arranger of the veda-s ; son of the sage parāśara and satyavatī who we find within the mahābhārata along with the author, vyāsa-ji. Some too called vyāsa-ji vādarāyaṇa or bādarāyaṇa , and kṛṣṇa due to his dark complexion , and dvaipāyana because he was brought forth by satyavatī on a dvīpa or island in the jumna river.

[Dutta]

Namaste

I am confused with verse 10 in Bhagavad Gita chapter I.
Until now I knew this version

This army of ours marshalled by Bhishma is insufficient,
whereas their army marshalled by Bhima is sufficient.

Now I found the verse turned around

This our army defended by Bhishma (is) impossible to be counted,
but that army of theirs, defended by Bhima (is) easy to number.

Duryodhana had 11 akshauhini, Pandavas had 7 thus I would favor the second version.

Why are there two versions? Or do I misunderstand something?

Thanks - Pranam

namaste
as per my study i find that before starting mahabharat yudhishter approached bhishma and drona to allow the fight .
this confused duryodhana and he planned to instigate bhishma and drona . duryodhana therefore approached drona to remind his friend turned foe drupads son dhrishtdumna has arranged the army.
next duryodhana mocked bhishma saying that our army is insufficient to fight in captaincy of bhishma therefore protect bhishma....ayneshu bhavantah sarva bhishmam eva abhirakshantu...11/1
jai sri krsna