Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 1/Verse 10

Chapter 1/Verse 10

अपर्याप्तं तदस्माकं बलं भीष्माभिरक्षितम् ।

पर्याप्तं त्विदमेतेषां बलं भीमाभिरक्षितम् ॥१-१०॥

aparyāptaṃ tadasmākaṃ balaṃ bhīṣmābhirakṣitam ।

paryāptaṃ tvidameteṣāṃ balaṃ bhīmābhirakṣitam

॥1-10॥

This sufficient power of ours is protected by Bhīṣma, but that non-sufficient power of them is protected by Bhīma.

aparyāptam (verbal root: āp) (a + pari + āpta) (past passive participle, neuter, nominative, singular) = non-sufficient

tat (pronoun, 3rd person, neuter, nominative, singular) = that

asmākam (pronoun, 1st person, genitive, plural) = ours

balam (stem form: bala) (neuter, nominative, singular) = power

bhīṣmābhirakṣitam (verb root: rakṣ) (Bhīṣma + abhi + rakṣitam) (tatpurūṣa compound, past passive participle, neuter, nominative, singular) = protected by Bhīṣma

paryāptam (verbal root: āp) (pari + āpta) (past passive participle, neuter, nominative, singular) = sufficient

tu (conjunction) (indeclinable) = but

idam (demonstrative pronoun, neuter, nominative, singular) = this

eteṣām (demonstrative pronoun) = of them

balam (stem form: bala) (neuter, nominative, singular) = power

bhīmābhirakṣitam (verb root: rakṣ) (Bhīma + abhirakṣitam) (tatpurūṣa compound, past passive participle, neuter, nominative, singular) = protected by Bhīma

There is a lot of contention around this verse given the vulgate reading of this verse seems irrational. It is so irrational that most translations depart from the vulgate reading and opt for an alternative reading that has been sanctioned by well respected commentators on this verse. All the trouble centers around the words "aparyāptam" and "paryāptam" and their role as adjectives in this verse with each adjective modifying an instance of the word "balam" in the verse. "Aparyāptam" means "non-sufficient" in its oldest form and "paryāptam" means "sufficient" in its oldest form. If one follows the Sanskrit grammar rule that adjectives typically are closest to the word that they modify, then this verse does not make sense as almost all critical commentaries on this verse state. The contention is that if the oldest definitions are used in this verse, the verse would be as follows: "This non-sufficient power of ours is protected by Bhīṣma, but that sufficient power of them is protected by Bhīma."  Please note, Bhīṣma is the Kaurava Commander in this battle and Bhīma is the Pāndava Commander in this battle. The translators state that this verse contradicts other epic passages because the Kaurava army is bigger and thus more sufficient than the Pāndava army, which is smaller and thus less sufficient.  The alternative reading flip-flops the placement of the words "bhīṣmābhirakṣitam" and "bhīmābhirakṣitam", so that the Kaurava power is more sufficient than the Pāndava power.

I can understand the previous translator's rationale in opting for an alternative reading, but two points want me deviate from the popular revision of the vulgate verse. One, is that adjectives will usually be closest to the noun they modify, but not absolutely. Two, I am struck by how the demonstrative pronouns meaning "this" and "that" in the verse are in opposite spots in the vulgate reading with the phrases they are associated with. Also remember, that word order is only absolutely structured in compounds and not required anywhere else. With either the previous translators alternative reading of the verse or my translation, there is some word flip-flopping around, which is sanctioned in Sanskrit grammar. Context will always have the final say with ambiguous word order.