245.  Dasatakasha-kkupa means the Kakup or direction presided by him of a thousand eyes; hence the East.

246.  Instead of Vrishodara, the Bombay text reads Vrishottama, which I adopt.

247.  In the first line of 31, the Bengal texts read Rajanam probably referring to Drupada.  The correct reading, however, is Rujendra in the vocative case as in the Bombay edition.

248.  I render this a little too freely.  The form of the oath is, “Let that man lose, etc. whom Drona escapes today with life or whom Drona vanquishes today.”

249.  This, in the Bengal texts, is a triplet.

250.  I adopt the Bombay reading of the first line of this verse.

251.  All these arrows inflicted had wounds and could not be easily extracted.  Shafts of crooked courses were condemned because the combatants could not easily baffle them, not knowing at whom they would fall.

252.  This verse is omitted in the Bombay text.  There can be no doubt, however, about its genuineness.

253.  The celestial weapons were all living agents that appeared at the bidding of him who knew to invoke them.  They abandoned, however, the person whose death was imminent, although invoked with the usual formulae.

254.  I adopt the Bombay reading.

255.  Deprived of both the worlds, having sustained a defeat, they lost this world, and flying away from the field, they committed a sin and lost the next world.

256.  Celestial weapons were invoked with mantras, as explained in a previous note.  They were forces which created all sorts of tangible weapons that the invoked desired.  Here the Brahma weapon took the form of broad-headed arrows.

257.  Dharmadhwajin literally means a person bearing the standard of virtue, hence, hypocrite, sanctimoniously talking only virtue and morality but acting differently.

258.  I think the correct reading is aputrinas and not putrinas.  If it is putrinas, literally rendered, the meaning is, ’Why should persons having children, feel any affection for the latter?’ It the worthy of remark that the author of Venisamhara has bodily adopted this verse, putting it in the mouth of Aswatthaman when introduced in the third Act.

259.  The last line of 37 is read differently in the Bombay edition.  Nilakantha accepts that reading, and explains it in his gloss remarking that the grammatical solecism occuring in it is a license.  The Bengal reading, however, is more apposite.

260.  Literally, “the animals kept the Pandavas to their right.”

261.  Dasaratha’s son Rama, during his exile, slew the monkey-chief Bali, the brother of Sugriva, while Bali was engaged with Sugriva in battle.  Bali had not done any injury to Rama.  That act has always been regarded as a stain on Rama.

262.  I expand the original to make the sense clear.

263.  The first line of the 23rd verse in the Bengal editions, is made the second line of that verse in the Bombay text.  There seems to be a mistake, however, in both the texts.  Vishnu slew Hiranyakasipu without allowing, the latter to say anything unto him.  Vide Vishnu Purana, if instead of Hiranyakasipu Harim, the rendering be Hiranyakasipu Haris, the line may then be connected with Bhima’s speech, and the comparison would become more apposite.