Mahabharata Bhishma Parva Chapter 51

Mahabharata Bhishma Parva (Bhagavat-Gita Parva) Chapter 51

Sanjaya said, "Beholding the mighty and terrible array called Krauncha formed by Pandu's son of immeasurable energy, thy son, approaching the preceptor, and Kripa, and Salya, O sire, and Somadatta's son, and Vikarna, and Aswatthaman also, and all his brothers too, headed by Dussasana, O Bharata, and other immeasurable heroes assembled there for battle, said these timely words, gladdening them all, 'Armed with various kinds of weapons, ye all are conversant with the meaning of the scriptures. Ye mighty car-warriors, each of you is singly capable of slaying in battle the sons of Pandu with their troops.

How much more then, when ye are united together. Our host, therefore, which is protected by Bhishma, is immeasurable, while that host of theirs, which is protected by Bhima, is measurable.[1] Let the Samsthanas, the Surasenas, the Venikas, the Kukkuras, the Rechakas, the Trigartas, the Madrakas, the Yavanas, with Satrunjayas, and Dussasana, and that excellent hero Vikarna, and Nanda and Upanandaka, and Chitrasena, along with the Manibhadrakas, protect Bhishma with their (respective) troops,'—Then Bhishma and Drona and thy sons, O sire, formed a mighty array for resisting that of the Parthas. And Bhishma, surrounded by a large body of troops, advanced, leading a mighty army, like the chief of the celestials himself. And that mighty bowman, the son of Bharadwaja, endued with great energy, followed him with the Kuntalas, the Dasarnas, and the Magadhas, O king, and with the Vidarbhas, the Melakas, the Karnas, and the Pravaranas also. And the Gandharas, the Sindhusauviras, the Sivis and the Vasatis with all their combatants also, (followed) Bhishma, that ornament of battle, and Sakuni, with all his troops protected the son of Bharadwaja.



  1. This identical verse occurs in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita (vide, Verse 10, Chap. 25, of this Parvan, ante). There following the commentators, particularly Sreedhara, I have rendered Aparyaptam and Paryaptam as less than sufficient and sufficient. It would seem, however, that that is erroneous.