escription 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?