This verse is famously ambiguous: 'aparyaptam' can mean either 'unlimited' or 'insufficient.' Duryodhana intends to boast, but his words betray his subconscious doubt. The Advaita tradition reads this as the ego's inability to fully deceive itself — even in boasting, truth leaks through. The Vishishtadvaita perspective appreciates the poetic irony: Duryodhana's army is indeed inadequate against dharma, regardless of its size. The Bhakti tradition notes that no army is sufficient when it stands against the Divine — and no army is insufficient when it stands with the Divine. Madhva sees divine irony in Duryodhana's words — truth speaks even through the deluded. Abhinavagupta reads the linguistic ambiguity as reflecting split consciousness. Vallabhacharya notes that no worldly force is sufficient against those protected by grace. Tilak observes that moral legitimacy is a strategic asset that material force cannot replace. Vivekananda sees the universal truth that self-deception has limits — the subconscious often knows what the ego denies.