Book 12 — SECTION CCCII (continued 8)

478. The true reading is nigacchati and not niyacchati. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood the word papam in this verse.

479. Nilakantha correctly explains the connection of Susamsitah.

480. Nilakantha explains that the question of Nakula excited the heart of Bhishma and caused a flow of blood through his wounds. Hence Bhishma compares himself to a hill of red-chalk.

481. Durvarani, Durvaradini, Durvachadini, are some of the readings of the first line.

482. Literally, family or clan; here origin.

483. The second line of 19 is unintelligible.

484. Taddhitwa is tat hi twa. Nilakantha thinks that twa here is twam.

485. In the Bengal texts, 41 is made a triplet, and 42 is made to consist of a single line; 42 is represented as Vaisampayana's speech. This is evidently an error; 41 a couplet. 42 also is so. Rajna etc., refer to Bhima. K.P. Singha avoids the error; the Burdwan translator, as usual, makes a mess of 41 by taking it to be a triplet.

486. There can be very little doubt that the second line has a distinct reference to the principal article of faith in Buddhism. Emancipation here is identified with Extinction or Annihilation. The word used is Nirvana. The advice given is abstention from attachments of every kind. These portions of the Santi are either interpolations, or were written after the spread of Buddhism.

487. The doctrine set forth in 48 is the doctrine of either Universal Necessity as expounded by Leibnitz, or that of Occasional Causes of the Cartesian school. In fact, all the theories about the government of the universe are strangely jumbled together here.

488. i.e., they that have wives and have procreated children.

489. Raktamivavikam and not Raktamivadhikam, is the correct reading. The Burdwan translator accepts the incorrect reading.

490. The true reading is Brahmavarjitah and not that word in the accusative. Both the Bengali versions have adhered to the incorrect reading of the Bengal texts.

491. i.e., it was not a piece torn off from a full piece, but both its dasas or ends were there.

492. To this day there are many Brahmanas in India who are asudra-pratigrahins, i.e., who accept no gift, however rich, from a Sudra.

493. Kimpurusha is half-man and half-horse. The body is supposed to be that of a horse, and the face that of a man.

494. Literally, 'for obtaining goods'.

495. At such entertainments, Hindus, to this day, sit on separate seats when eating. If anybody touches anybody else's seat, both become impure and cannot eat any longer. Before eating, however, when talking or hearing, the guests may occupy a common seat, i.e., a large mat or blanket or cloth, etc., spread out on the floor.

496. Agni or fire is a deity that is said to have Vayu (the wind-god) for his charioteer. The custom, to this day, with all travellers in India is to kindle a large fire when they have to pass the night in woods and forests or uninhabited places. Such fires always succeed in scaring off wild beasts. In fact, even tigers, raging with hunger, do not approach the place where a blazing fire is kept up.

497. Surabhi is the celestial cow sprung from the sage Daksha.

498. Whether the word is chirat or achirat is difficult to make out.

499. In Sanskrit the ablative has sometimes the sense of 'through'. Here, mitrat means both from and through. What is said is that wealth, honours, etc., may be acquired through friends, i.e., the latter may give wealth or be instrumental in its acquisition, etc.

500. It is very difficult to literally translate such verses. The word Dharma is sometimes used in the sense of Religion or the aggregate of duties. At other times it simply means a duty or the course of duties prescribed for a particular situation. Tapah is generally rendered penance. Here, however, it has a direct reference to sravana (hearing), manana (contemplation), and nididhyasana (abstraction of the soul from everything else for absolute concentration). The Grammar of the second half of the first line is Sati apretya etc., Sat being that which is real, hence, the Soul, or the Supreme Soul, of which every individual Soul is only a portion.

501. And not the Soul, as the commentator explains. With the death of the body joy and grief disappear.

502. The art by which the body could, as in Egypt, be preserved for thousands of years was not known to the Rishis.

503. The commentator explains the sense of this as follows: The cow belongs to him who drinks her milk. Those who derive no advantage from her have no need for showing her any affection. One should not covet what is above one's want. It has been said, that (to a thirsty or hungry or toil-worn man), a little quantity of vaccine milk is of more use than a hundred kine; a small measure of rice more useful than a hundred barns filled with grain; half a little bed is of more use than a large mansion.

504. I follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse. His interpretation is plausible. Mudatamah, according to him, are those who are in deep sleep. There are four stages of consciousness. These are (1) wakefulness, (2) dream, (3) dreamless or deep slumber, and (4) Turiya or absolute Samadhi (which the Yogin only can attain to).

505. The two extremes, of course, are dreamless slumber and Turiya or Samadhi. The two intermediate ones are wakefulness and sleep with dream.

506. Pride in consequences of having insulted or humiliated others; and success over others such as victories in battle and other concerns of the world.

507. The first half of the second line is read variously. The sense, however, in effect, remains unaltered. What is said here is that man who succeeds in attaining to a state of Brahma by true Samadhi or abstraction from the world, can never be touched by grief.

508. In all treatises on Yoga it is said that when the first stage is passed, the neophyte succeeds in looking at his own self. The meaning seems to be that he experiences a sort of double existence so that he succeeds in himself looking at his own self.

509. This is the same as 46. The Bombay edition does not repeat it.

510. The house referred to is the body. The single column on which it is supported is the backbone, and the nine doors are the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, etc. etc.

511. The sense is that women always regard their human lovers as dear without regarding the Supreme Being to be so, although He is always with them.

512. i.e., coursing on, without waiting for any one.

513. Literally, intelligent.

514. The true reading is Jnanena and not ajnanena. Then, in the last foot, the word is a-pihitah and not apihitah. The words with ava and api frequently drop the initial a. Hence a-pihitah means not covered.

515. The word used in the text is Devanam (of the gods). There can be no doubt however, that the word deva is here used for implying the senses.

516. i.e., wild beasts and lawless men.

517. Asatyajyam and Asatyadyam are both correct. The sense is the same. The first means 'having untruth for the libation (that it eats up).' The second means 'having untruth for the food (it devours)'.

518. Santi is tranquillity. The Santi-sacrifice is the endeavour to practise self-denial in everything; in other words, to restrain all sorts of propensities or inclinations. The Brahma-sacrifice is reflection on truths laid down in the Upanishads. The Word-sacrifice consists in the silent recitation (japa) of the Pranava or Om, the initial mantra. The Mind-sacrifice is contemplation of the Supreme Soul. The Work-sacrifice consists in baths, cleanliness, and waiting upon the preceptor.

519. Both readings are correct, viz., Kshetrayajna and Kshetrayajna. Kshetra is, of course, the body. If the latter reading be accepted, the meaning will be 'a sacrifice like that of a Kshatriya, i.e., battle.' Hence, all kinds of acts involving cruelty.

520. or, seek Brahma in thy understanding. The word Atman is often synonymous with Supreme Self.

521. The commentator explains that the object of Yudhishthira's question is this: in the preceding section or lesson it has been inculcated that one may seek the acquisition of the religion of moksha or emancipation even when he is young. Yudhishthira enquires whether wealth (so necessary for the performance of sacrifices) is needed for the acquisition of that religion. If wealth be necessary, the poor then would not be able to acquire that religion. Hence the enquiry about the way in which joy and sorrow come to the wealthy and to the poor.

522. The verses are said to be old. Nilakantha accordingly supposes that it was not Sampaka who recited them to Bhishma, but some one else. I follow the commentator; but the grammar of the concluding verse of this section must have to be twisted for supporting him.

523. Kakataliyam is, literally, 'after the manner of the crow and the palmyra fruit.' The story is that once when a crow perched upon a palmyra tree a fruit (which had been ripe) fell down. The fruit fell because of its ripeness. It would be a mistake to accept the sitting of the crow as the cause of the fall. The perching was only an accident. Yet men very frequently, in tracing causes, accept accidents for inducing causes. Such men are said to be deceived by 'the fallacy of the crow and the palmyra fruit.'

524. Exertion to be successful must depend on circumstances. The combination of circumstances is destiny.

525. It is difficult to resist the belief that many of the passages of the Santi are later additions. Suka was the son of Vyasa. To quote a saying of Suka (or, as he was called Sukadeva Goswamin), if Vyasa was the real writer of this passage, is rather suspicious.

526. i.e., arrive at such a point that nothing was left for him to desire.

527. i.e., with the view of doing thee good, I shall emancipate myself from all attachments and enjoy the blessedness of tranquillity.

528. Here the theory of desire seems to be reversed. Desire is mere wish after anything. When its gratification is sought, the form it assumes is that of determination or will. If, however, Kama be taken as the formulated desire after specific objects, then, perhaps, the Will may be regarded as its foundation, at least, in respect of the distress and difficulties that come in its train.

529. I think the Bombay reading of this verse is incorrect. Bhuttagramah (nom. sing.) should be Bhutagramam (accusative sing.). The Yah is Kamah. It is Desire that is exhorted to go away whithersoever it chooses. If the elements be thus exhorted, then it is death that the speaker desires. This would be inconsistent with the spirit of the passage.

530. The use of the plural Yushmashu might lead at first sight to take it as standing for the elements. It is plain, however, that it refers to all attributes that are founded on Rajas and Tamas.

531. Beholding all creatures in my own body and mind i.e., identifying myself with all creatures or never taking them as distinct and separated from me: in other words, professing and practising the principle of universal love.

532. The two lines are antithetical. What is said here is that though there is misery in property, there is no real happiness in affluence. Hence Nilakantha is right in supposing that the last word of the first line is not dhane but adhane the Sandhi being Arsha.

533. Nilakantha explains that by Saranga here is meant the bee. The anweshanam following it is 'going behind.' The whole compound means 'imitation of the bee in the forest.'

534. The allusion is to the story of Pingala, in Section 74 ante.

535. The story, evidently a very ancient one, is given in full in the Bhagavat. Once on a time, a maiden, residing in her father's house, wished to feed secretly a number of Brahmanas. While removing the grain from the barn, her anklets, made of shells, began to jingle. Fearing discovery through that noise, she broke all her anklets except one for each hand.

536. Animittatah is explained by Nilakantha as one that has no cause, i.e., Brahma. The commentator would take this speech as a theistic one. I refuse to reject the plain and obvious meaning of the word. All phases of speculative opinion are discussed in the Santi. It is very possible that a religious indifferentism is preached here.

537. The sense of the passage is that as everything depends upon its own nature, it cannot, by its action, either gladden or grieve me. If a son be born to me I am not delighted. If he dies, I am not grieved. His birth and death depend upon his own nature as a mortal. I have no power to alter that nature or affect it in any way.

538. The word Ajagara implies 'after the manner of a big snake that cannot move.' it is believed that such snakes, without moving, lie in the same place in expectation of prey, eating when anything comes near, famishing when there is nothing.

539. The meaning is that even copious drafts do not slake thirst permanently, for after being slaked, it is sure to return.

540. In the Bengal texts, 44 is made a triplet. The correct reading, however, is to take 44 as a couplet and 45 as a triplet. Nilakantha points out that Icchantaste, etc., is grammatically connected with 45.

541. The auspicious constellations are such as Pushya and others; the inauspicious are Mula Aslesha, Magha, etc; yajnaprasava may also mean the fruits of sacrifices.

542. Anwikshikim may also mean 'microscopic'.

543. The word dattam, generally rendered 'gifts' or 'charity,' means and includes protection of suppliants, abstention from injury as regards all creatures, and actual gifts made outside the sacrificial altar. Similarly, the maintenance of the sacred fire, penances, purity of conduct, the study of the Vedas, hospitality to guests, and offer of food to the Viswedevas, are all included in the word Ishta which is ordinarily rendered 'sacrifice.'

544. i.e., even if he seeks to avoid it.

545. i.e., becomes his inseparable associate.

546. What is meant is that if once the consequences of the acts of a past life are exhausted, the creature (with respect to whom such exhaustion takes place), is freed from all vicissitudes of life. Lest, however, such creatures become emancipated, the orthodox view is that a balance is always left of both merit and demerit, so that a new birth must take place and the consequences of what is thus left as a balance must begin to be enjoyed or suffered. This is not referred to here, but this is the view of all orthodox Hindus.

547. The first word of this verse is diversely read. The reading I adopt is samunnam meaning drenched in water. If it be samjuktam it would mean united, with filth, of course. Another reading is samswinnam, meaning 'drenched with sweat.' Nilakantha explains upavasah here as equivalent to the renunciation of all earthly possessions. Ordinarily it means 'fasts.'

548. This verse occurs in the Santi Parva. It is difficult to understand in what sense it is said that the track of the virtuous cannot be marked. Perhaps, it is intended that such men do not leave any history or record behind them, they having abstained from all kinds of action good or bad.

549. Manasa means 'appertaining to the mind,' or rather, the Will. Mahat literally means great.

550. Veda is here used in the sense of Knowledge and Power.

551. Sarvabhutatmakrit is explained by Nilakantha thus. He who is Sarvabhutatman is again bhutakrit. On the authority of the Srutis the commentator adds,—ye ete pancha akasadayodhatavo-dharana-karmanah sa eva Brahma.

552. The word Devah here is evidently used in the sense of luminous or shining ones and not in that of gods or deities.

553. The Rishis supposed that the pouring of water created the air instead only of displaying it.

554. All created things are called Bhutas, but the five principal elements, viz., fire, air, earth, water, and space, are especially called Bhutas or Mahabhutas.

555. This is certainly curious as showing that the ancient Hindus knew how to treat diseased plants and restore them to vigour.

556. K.P. Singha wrongly renders this verse. The Burdwan translator is right.

557. Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts read bhutani. The correct reading, however, appears to be bhutanam.

558. The word for duct is Srotas. It may also be rendered 'channel.' Very like the principal artery or aorta.

559. Notwithstanding much that is crude anatomy and crude physiology in these sections, it is evident, however, that certain glimpses of truth were perceived by the Rishis of ancient times. Verse 15 shows that the great discovery of Harvey in modern times was known in ancient India.

560. In works on yoga it is laid down that the main duct should be brought under the control of the will. The soul may then, by an act of volition, be withdrawn from the whole physical system into the convolutions of the brain in the head. The brain, in the language of yogins, is a lot us of a thousand leaves. If the soul be withdrawn into it, the living creature will then be liberated from the necessity of food and sleep, etc., and will live on from age to age, absorbed in contemplation of divinity and in perfect beatitude.

561. It is often said that in an advanced stage of yoga, one is enabled to behold one's Soul, or, a sort of double existence is realised in consequence of which the Soul becomes an object of internal survey to the Soul itself. Very probably, writers on yoga employ this language in a figurative sense.

562. The commentator explains that the words expressive of hue or colour really mean attributes. What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).

563. The distinction here laid down seems to be this: the eternal creation is due to the yoga or mental action of the Primeval Deity. That creation which we behold is the result of the penances of those sages who were first created. Perhaps, what is intended to be said is that the principle of life, of life proceeding from life, and primal matter with space, etc., are all due to the fiat of God; while all visible and tangible objects, resulting from the action of those principles and from primal matter and space, are attributable to the ancient sages.

564. The word Ghrina may also mean aversion. Of course, here it would mean, if used in that sense, aversion for all unrighteous acts.

565. The first half of the first line of 6 is differently read in the Bombay edition. Both readings are noticed by Nilakantha. I have adhered to the Bengal reading, though the Bombay reading is clearer in sense. Visati is a transitive verb having Pratishtha or some such noun for its object. The literal meaning is he who acquires fame, etc.

566. Here the speaker describes the character of Karma-sannyasa (renunciation of acts). Samarambha generally means all kinds of acts. Here, however, only sacrifices and other scriptural rites are intended. I follow Nilakantha in rendering the second line, although the plain meaning would seem to be "who poureth everything in gift."

567. The gross world is perceivable by the ordinary senses. Behind the gross world is a subtile one which the subtile senses i.e., the senses when sharpened by yoga, can perceive. With death, the gross body alone is dissolved, the subtile body or form, called the Linga-sarira, and made up of what is called the Tanmatras of the primal elements, remains. Even that retains all the characteristics of the world in an incipient form. The Linga-sarira also must be destroyed before absorption into Brahma can take place.

568. The felicity that is obtained in heaven is not everlasting, being limited in point of duration by the degree or measure of merit that is achieved here.

569. The Pauranic theory of both the solar and the lunar eclipse is that the Sun and the Moon are sought to be devoured by the Daitya, Rahu.

570. The sense seems to be that Vedas declare those fruits in order that men may strive for them when they lead to happiness.

571. Nearly the whole of this section is prose.

572. It is difficult to understand in what senses the word Dharma is used in the three successive questions here.

573. In the first line the correct reading is Brahmana and not Brahmarshi. The answer attributed to Bhrigu settles this.

574. A pupil should never solicit his preceptor for instruction. He should attend only when the preceptor calls him. To this day, the rule is rigidly observed in all schools throughout India. It should be added to the credit of those engaged in teaching that they very seldom neglect their pupils. The story is authentic of the grandfather of the great Baneswar Vidyalankar of Nuddea, himself as great a professor as Baneswar, of continuing to teach his pupils in the outer apartments even after receiving intelligence of his son's death within the inner apartments of the family dwelling. The fact is, he was utterly absorbed in his work, that when his good lady, moved by his apparent heartlessness, came out to tax him he answered her, in thorough absence of mind, saying, 'Well, do not be disturbed. If I do not weep for my son, I will do so for that grandchild in your arms.' The pupils at last recalled him to the realities of the hour.

575. i.e., by picking up fallen grains from the field after the crop has been cut away and removed by the owner.

576. Upaskara means renunciation.

577. It is generally said that by procreating offspring, one gratifies the Pitris or pays off the debt one owes to one's deceased ancestors. Here Bhrigu says that by that act one gratifies the Creator. The idea is the same that forms the root of the command laid on the Jews,—Go and multiply.

578. The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.

579. Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.

580. Niyama is explained by the commentator as a rite; upayoga as a vow about food; charyya as an act like visiting sacred waters; vihita is vidhana.

581. The Hindus had no poor laws. The injunctions of their scriptures have always sufficed to maintain the poor, particularly their religious mendicants. The mendicants themselves are restrained from disturbing the householders often. None again save the well-to-do were to be visited by the mendicants, so that men of scanty means might not be compelled to support the recluses.

582. The words used by Bharadwaja in the question are capable of being construed as an enquiry after the next world. Bhrigu also, in his answer, uses the word Paro lokah. The reference to Himavat, therefore, is explained by the commentator as metaphorical. The whole answer of Bhrigu, however, leaves little room for doubt that the sage speaks of a region on earth and not in the invisible world after death.

583. Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.

584. All knowledge there is certain.

585. i.e., to practise yoga. The Bengal reading is dharanam. The commentator goes for explaining all the verses as metaphorical. Considerable ingenuity is displayed by him, and he even cites the Srutis in support.

586. This at least is a verse that evidently refers to the other or the next world, and, therefore, lends colour to the supposition that throughout the whole passage, it is the next world and no fictitious region north of the Himalayas that is described. Some western scholars think that a verbal translation is all that is necessary. Such passages, however, are incapable of being so rendered. The translator must make his choice of, either taking the verses in a plain or a metaphorical sense. If he inclines towards the latter, he cannot possibly give a verbal version. The genius of the two tongues are quite different.

587. Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.

588. The Burdwan translator makes a mess of this verse 21 runs into 22 as explained by the commentator. K.P. Singha avoids the blunder, although in rendering the last line of 22 he becomes rather inaccurate.

589. The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.

590. This may be a general direction for washing one's hand after eating; or, it may refer to the final Gandusha, i.e., the act of taking a little water in the right hand, raising it to the lips, and throwing it down, repeating a short formula.

591. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.

592. It is difficult to understand what this verse means. Nilakantha proposes two different kinds of interpretation. What then is Sankusuka or Sanku cuka? The above version is offered tentatively. The commentator imagines that the true sense of the verse is that it declares such men to be unable to attain to Mahadayu which is Brahma and not long life.

593. Prishtamangsa is explained by the commentator as 'the meat forming the remnant of a Sraddha offering.' I do not see the necessity of discarding the obvious meaning.

594. in the sense of being moved or used. The commentator adds that the sacred thread also should be wound round the thumb, as the Grihyasutras declare.

595. In every instance, the person who receives should say—'All-sufficient,' 'Gratify to the fill', and 'Has fallen copiously' or words to that effect. Krisara or Kricara is food made of rice and pease, or rice and sesame; probably what is now called Khichree.

596. The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.

597. It is not plain in what way the sinful acts come to the sinner. The Hindu idea, of course, is that the consequences of those deeds visit the doer without fail. This verse, however, seems to say that the recollection of those sins forces itself upon the sinner and makes him miserable in spite of himself.

598. The Hindu moralist, in this verse, declares the same high morality that Christ himself preached. Merit or sin, according to him, does not depend on the overt act alone. Both depend on the mind. Hence the injunction against even mentally harming others.

599. The sense seems to be that if one succeeds in ascertaining the ordinances about virtue or piety, but if the mind be sinful, no associate can be of any help. The mind alone is the cause of virtue and piety.

600. Adhyatma is anything that depends on the mind. Here it is, as explained by the commentator, used for yoga-dharma as depending upon or as an attribute of the mind. Generally speaking, all speculations on the character of the mind and its relations with external objects are included in the word Adhyatma.

601. After Bhrigu's discourse to Bharadwaja this question may seem to be a repetition. The commentator explains that it arises from the declaration of Bhishma that Righteousness is a property of the mind, and is, besides, the root of everything. (V 31, sec. 193, ante). Hence the enquiry about Adhyatma as also about the origin of all things.

602. The word rendering 'perceptions' is Vijnanani. 'Cognitions' would perhaps, be better.

603. Generally, in Hindu philosophy, particularly of the Vedanta school, a distinction is conceived between the mind, the understanding, and the soul. The mind is the seat or source of all feelings and emotions as also all our perceptions, or those which are called cognitions in the Kantian school, including Comparison which (in the Kantian school) is called the Vernuft or Reason. This last is called the Understanding or buddhi. The soul is regarded as something distinct from both the body and the mind. It is the Being to whom the body and the mind belong. It is represented as inactive, and as the all-seeing witness within the physical frame. It is a portion of the Supreme Soul.

604. Goodness includes all the higher moral qualities of man. Passion means love, affection, and other emotions that appertain to worldly objects. Darkness means anger, lust, and such other mischievous propensities.

605. I follow Nilakantha in his grammatical exposition of this verse. The meaning, however, is scarcely clear. The identity of the Understanding or intelligence with the senses and the mind may be allowed so far as the action of the three qualities in leading all of them to worldly attachments is concerned. But what is meant by the identity of the Understanding with all the objects it comprehends? Does Bhishma preach Idealism here? If nothing exists except as it exists in the Understanding, then, of course, with the extinction of the Understanding, all things would come to an end.

606. Brown and other followers of Reid, whether they understood Reid or not, regarded all the perceptions as only particular modifications of the mind. They denied the objective existence of the world.

607. The commentator explains this verse thus, although as regards the second line he stretches it a little. If Nilakantha be right, K.P. Singha must be wrong. Generally, however, it is the known incapacity of the ocean to transgress its continents that supplies poets with illustrations. Here, however, possibly, the rarity of the phenomenon, viz., the ocean's transgressing its continents, is used to illustrate the rare fact of the intelligence, succeeding by yoga power, in transcending the attributes of Rajas, Tamas and Sattwa.

608. on the other hand, directing one's thoughts boldly to it, one should ascertain its cause and dispel that cause, which, as stated here, is Passion.

609. The first two words of the second line are those of verse 5. See I, Manu.

610. Kathanchit is explained by Nilakantha as 'due to great ill-luck.'

611. I do not follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse.

612. The soul is said to be only a witness or spectator and not an actor. The Rishis understood by the soul the being to whom the mind, the senses, etc., all belong. Could the idea of the inactive and unsinning Soul have arisen from observation of the moral principle of Conscience which discriminates between right and wrong, and acts, therefore, as an impartial judge, or watches everything like an uninterested spectator? European moralists generally attribute two other functions to the Conscience, viz., impelling us to do the right and avoid the wrong, and approving when right is done and wrong avoided. But these functions may easily be attributed to some other principle. At any rate, when the question is one of nomenclature only, the last two functions may be taken away and the word Soul applied to indicate the Conscience as the faculty of discrimination only.

613. The qualities here referred to are those of Sattwa (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (darkness). What is meant by this verse is that such a person transcends the qualities instead of the qualities transcending him and his acts.

614. Nilakantha takes the third line as elliptical and is for supplying te labhante.

615. I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Anavisandhipurvakam is explained as nishkamam. Ubhayam is prachinamaihikam cha karmam. Apriyam is equivalent to vadham. The substance of priyam, etc., is thus given: Moksham prati tu karmanah karanatwam duranirastam.

616. Aturam is explained as pierced by lust, wrath, etc. Asuyate is equivalent to dhikkaroti. Janah is explained by the commentator as parikshakah but it would be better to take it as standing for people generally. Tasya is an instance of the genitive for the accusative. Tat refers to nindyam karma, sarvatah means sarvashu yonishu. Janayati Janena dadati. The object of the verse is to show that sinful acts produce fear both here and hereafter.

617. Loka is in the locative case, the final vowel indicating to the locative having been dropped for sandhi. Niravishan is an adverb, equivalent to samyak-abhinivesam kurvan. Tattadeva means "those and those" i.e., possessions, such as putradaradikam. Kusalan is sarasaravivekanipunan. Ubhayam is explained as karma-mukhin and sadyomuktim. Bhisma here points out the superiority of the latter kind of Emancipation over the former; hence Vedic acts or rites must yield to that yoga which drills the mind and the understanding and enables them to transcend all earthly influences.

618. The soul-state is the state of purity. One falls away from it in consequence of worldly attachments. One may recover it by yoga which aids one in liberating oneself from those attachments.

619. The three words used here are vichara, viveka, and vitarka. They are technical terms implying different stages of progress in yoga. The commentator explains them at length.

620. Everything that man has is the product of either exertion or destiny; of exertion, that is, as put forth in acts, and destiny as dependent on the acts of a past life or the will of the gods or pure chance. Yoga felicity is unattainable through either of these two means.

621. Sankhya is understood by the commentator as implying Vedanta-vichara.

622. This verse is a triplet. The commentator explains that Vedanta in the second line means Sankhya. I think, this is said because of the agreement between the Vedanta and the Sankhya in this respect notwithstanding their difference in other respects. The object of the verse is to say that according to the Sankhya, there is no necessity for silent recitation of mantras. Mental meditation, without the utterance of particular words, may lead to Brahma.

623. Both declare, as the commentator explains, that as long as one does not succeed in beholding one's Soul, one may silently recite the Pranava or the original word Om. When, however, one succeeds in beholding one's Soul, then may one give up such recitation.

624. There are two paths which one in this world may follow. One is called Pravritti dharma and the other Nrivritti dharma. The first is a course of actions; the second of abstention from actions. The attributes indicated in 10 and 11 belong to the first course or path. They are, therefore, called Pravartaka yajna or Sacrifice having its origin in Pravritti or action.

625. i.e., he should first cleanse his heart by observing the virtues above enumerated.

626. Samadhi is that meditation in which the senses having been all withdrawn into the mind, the mind, as explained previously, is made to dwell on Brahma alone.

627. The end declared by Bhishma in the previous section is the success of yoga, or freedom from decrepitude and death, or death at will, or absorption into Brahma, or independent existence in a beatific condition.

628. It should be noted that 'hell,' as here used, means the opposite of Emancipation. Reciter may attain to the joys of heaven, but compared to Emancipation, they are hell, there being the obligation of rebirth attached to them.

629. Even this is a kind of hell, for there is re-birth attached to it.

630. Aiswvarya or the attributes of godhead are certain extraordinary powers attained by yogins and Reciters. They are the power to become minute or huge in shape, or go whither soever one will, etc. These are likened to hell, because of the obligation of re-birth that attaches to them. Nothing less than Emancipation or the absorption into the Supreme Soul is the end that should be striven for.

631. In the Bengal texts there is a vicious line beginning with Prajna, etc. The Bombay text omits it, making both 10 and 11 couplets, instead of taking 11 as a triplet.

632. Na samyuktah is explained by the commentator as aviraktopi hathena tyaktabhogah.

633. For there no forms exist to become the objects of such functions. All is pure knowledge there, independent of those ordinary operations that help created beings to acquire knowledge.

634. The six Angas are Siksha, Kalpa, Vyakarana, Nirukta, Chhandas, Jyotish.

635. i.e., an insight not obtained in the ordinary way but by intuition.

636. K.P. Singha mistranslates the word sadhaye. It means 'I go', and not 'I will strive etc.' The Burdwan translator is correct.

637. Work and Abstention from work are the two courses of duty prescribed or followed.

638. It seems that Vikrita had given away a cow. He had then made a gift to Virupa of the merit he had won by that righteous act.

639. Picking solitary grains from the crevices in the fields after the crops have been gathered and taken away.

640. He gave me the merit he won by giving away one cow. I wish to give him in return the merit I have won by giving away two cows.

641. Verses 107 and 108 are rather obscure. What the king says in 107 seems to be that you two have referred your dispute to me who am a king. I cannot shirk my duty, but am bound to judge fairly between you. I should see that kingly duties should not, so far as I am concerned, become futile. In 108 he says, being a king I should discharge the duties of a king, i.e., I should judge disputes, and give, if need be, but never take. Unfortunately, the situation is such that I am obliged to act as a Brahmana by taking what this particular Brahmana is desirous of offering.

642. This verse also seems to be very obscure. The king's natural inclination, it seems, prompts him to oblige the Brahmana by accepting his gift. The ordinances about kingly duties restrain him. Hence his condemnation of those duties. In the second line, he seems to say that he is morally bound to accept the gift, and intends to make a gift of his own merits in return. The result of this act, he thinks, will be to make both courses of duty (viz., the Kshatriya, and the Brahmana's) produce the same kind of rewards in the next world.

643. This is not Emancipation, but merely terminable felicity.

644. Attains to Emancipation or Absorption into the essence of Brahma.

645. These are Direct knowledge (through the senses), Revelation, Inference, and Intuition.

646. The first six are Hunger, Thirst, Grief, Delusion, Disease, and Death. The other sixteen are the five breaths, the ten senses, and the mind.

647. I think, K.P. Singha misunderstands this verse. Three different ends are spoken of. One is absorption into Brahma; the other's enjoyment of ordinary felicity, which, of course, is terminable, and the last is the enjoyment of that felicity which is due to a freedom from desire and attachments; 126 speaks of this last kind of felicity.

648. In the second line saraddham is not an indeclinable; or, if it be taken as such, the sense may still remain unaltered. What the monarch does is to call upon the Brahmana to share with the monarch the rewards that the monarch had won.

649. The sense seems to be that yogins attain to Brahma even here; whereas Reciters attain to him after death.

650. The fact is, I do not know anything of Him, but still I profess to worship him. This is false behaviour. How shall I be rescued from such falsehood? This is what Vrihaspati says.

651. The Chhandas are the rules of Prosody as applicable to the Vedic hymns. Jyotish is astronomy. It forms an Anga of the Vedas. Nirukta furnishes rules for interpreting obscure passages of the Vedas, and also gives the meanings of technical or obscure words used therein. Kalpa is the description of religious rites. Siksha is the science of pronunciation as applied to Vedic hymns and mantras.

652. They who believe that happiness is not eternal and that, therefore, they should not pursue it, withdraw themselves from pious acts which lead to that happiness. They seek Knowledge as the best means for avoiding all that is transitory and changeful. They seek moksha or complete Emancipation which has been described in the previous sections.

653. The meaning of 'hell' as applied in such passages has been explained before.

654. This is a highly aphoristic line. I give the sense by expanding the words. By 'acts' here is meant 'sacrifices and other religious observances.' The intention of Vrihaspati is to enforce the propriety of acts, for without acts, the ends of life cannot, he maintains, be secured.

655. The sense is that one should devote oneself to acts as a sort of preparation. Afterwards one should abandon them for obtaining the higher end. Acts, therefore, have their use, and help one, though mediately, in the acquisition of Brahma.

656. The mind and acts have created all things. This has been explained in the last verse of section 190 ante. Both are good paths, for by both, good end may be attained, viz., the highest, by drilling the mind, as also (mediately) by acts (as explained in verse 14 above). The fruits of actions must be mentally abandoned if the highest end is to be attained; i.e., acts may be gone through, but their fruits should never be coveted.

657. Nilakantha explains the grammar of the first line differently. His view is yatha chakshurupah praneta nayako, etc. A better construction would be yatha chaksha pranetah (bhavati) etc.

658. This verse may be said to furnish the key of the doctrine of karma or acts and why acts are to be avoided by persons desirous of Moksha or Emancipation. Acts have three attributes: for some are Sattwika (good), as sacrifices undertaken for heaven, etc., some are Rajasika (of the quality of Passion), as penances and rites accomplished from desire of superiority and victory; and some are Tamasika (of the quality of Darkness), as those undertaken for injuring others, notably the Atharvan rites of Marana, Uchatana, etc.: this being the case, the Mantras, without acts, cannot be accomplished, are necessarily subject to the same three attributes. The same is the case with rituals prescribed. It follows, therefore, that the mind is the chief cause of the kind of fruits won, i.e., it is the motive that determines the fruits, viz., of what kind it is to be. The enjoyer of the fruit, of course, is the embodied creature.

659. There can be no doubt that Nilakantha explains this verse correctly. It is really a cruce. The words Naro na samsthanagatah prabhuh syat must be taken as unconnected and independent. Na samsthana gatah is before death. Prabhuh is adhikari (jnanphale being understood). K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly, but the Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the words.

660. The subject of this verse as explained by the commentator, is to inculcate the truth that the result of all acts accomplished by the body is heaven where one in a physical state (however subtile) enjoys those fruits. If Emancipation is to be sought, it must be attained through the mind.

661. The sense depends upon the word acts. If acts are accomplished by the mind, their fruits must be enjoyed by the person in a state in which he will have a mind. Emancipation cannot be achieved by either recitation (japa) or Dhyana (meditation), for both these are acts. Perfect liberation from acts is necessary for that great end.

662. viz., Taste, etc.

663. Existent, line atom; non-existent, line space; existent-nonexistent, line Maya or illusion.

664. Aswabhavam is explained by the commentator as Pramatri-twadi vihinam.

665. i.e., one sees one's own soul.

666. i.e., which, though one, divides itself into a thousand form like the image of the moon in a quantity of agitated water.

667. The analogy consists in this: good and evil fruits, though incompatible, dwell together; similarly, knowledge, though not material, resides in the material body. Of course, knowledge is used here in the sense of the mind or the understanding.

668. It is difficult to understand why the idea of lamps set on trees is introduced here.

669. The analogy is thus explained. Fire, when fed, bursts into flames. When not fed, it dies out, but is not destroyed, for with new fuel the flames may be brought back. The current of the wind ceases, but does not suffer extinction; for if it did, there would be no current again. The same is the case with the rays of the Sun. They die in the night, to reappear in the morning. The rivers are dried up in summer and refilled during the rains. The body, once dissolved, appears in another form. It will be seen that the weakness of the reasoning is due only to incorrect notions about the objects referred to.

670. Exists in its own nature, i.e., unaffected by attributes and qualities and accidents.

671. Some of the Bengal texts read sumahan and subuddhih in the second line. Of course, this is incorrect. The true reading is samanah and sabuddhih, meaning 'with mind and with understanding.' In the Bombay edition occurs a misprint, viz., sumanah for samanah. Nilakantha cites the correct readings.

672. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word Linga as used in both 14 and 15. K.P. Singha also wrongly renders that word as it occurs in 15. The commentator rightly explains that Linga has no reference to Linga-sarira or the invisible body composed of the tanmatra of the primal elements, but simply means the gross body. In 14, he says, Lingat sthuladehat, Lingam tadeva dehantaram. In 15, anena Lingena Savibhutena. Adristhah means alakshitah. A little care would have removed such blunders.

673. The commentator cites the Gita which furnishes a parallel passage, viz., Indriyani paranyahurindriyebhyah param manah, etc.

674. This verse seems to show that the Rishis had knowledge of spectacles, and probably also, of microscopes. The instrument that shewed minute objects must have been well known, otherwise some mention would have been made of it by name. The commentator calls it upanetra.

675. By death on sleep.

676. Yugapat means simultaneous; atulyakalam means differing in point of time in respect of occurrence; kritsnam qualifies indriyartham; Vidwan means Sakshi; and ekah, independent and distinct. What is intended to be said here is that when the soul, in a dream, musters together the occurrences and objects of different times and places, when, in fact, congruity in respect of both time and place does not apply to it, it must be regarded to have an existence that is distinct and independent of the senses and the body.

677. The object of this is to show that the Soul has only knowledge of the pleasures and pains arising in consequence of Sattwa and Rajas and Tamas and in connection with the three states of the understanding due to the same three attributes. The Soul, however, though knowing them, does not enjoy or suffer them. He is only the silent and inactive Witness of everything.

678. The object of the simile is to show that as wind is a separate entity although existing with the fire in a piece of wood, so the Soul, though existing with the senses is distinct from them.

679. The Bengal texts read indriyanam which I adopt. The Bombay edition reads indriyendriyam, meaning the sense of the senses, in the same way as the Srutis declare that is the Prana of Prana, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, etc., Sravanena darsanam tatha kritam is 'apprehended by the ear,' i.e., as rendered above, 'apprehended through the aid of the Srutis.'

680. The commentator uses the illustration of a tree. Before birth the tree was not; and after destruction, it is not; only in the interim, it is. Its formlessness or nothingness is manifest from these two states, for it has been said that which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future cannot be regarded as existing in the present. Tadgatah is explained by the commentator as udayastamanagatah or taddarsinah.

681. Both the vernacular translators render the second line incorrectly. The first line is elliptical, and would be complete by supplying asannam pasyanti. The paraphrase of the second line is Pratyayannam Jneyam Jnanabhisamhitam(prati)ninisante. Jneyam is explained by the commentator as prapancham. Jnanabhisamhitam means that which is known by the name of Knowledge, i.e., Brahma, which has many similar names some of which the commentator quotes such as Satyam (truth), Jananam (knowledge), Anantam (infinite), Vijnanam (true knowledge), Anandam (joy or happiness).

682. Tamas is another name for Rahu. The first line, therefore, refers to the manner in which an eclipse occurs. There is no absolute necessity, however, for taking it as an allusion to the eclipse. The meaning may be more general. Every day, during the lighted fortnight, the moon gains in appearance, as, indeed, every day, during the dark fortnight, it loses in appearance. It may, therefore, be said that darkness approaches it or leaves it for eating it away or discovering it more and more. The actual process of covering and discovering cannot be noticed. This circumstance may be taken as furnishing the simile. In verse 21, similarly, tamas is capable of a wider meaning. In 22, the word Rahu is used. It should be explained, however, that Rahu is no imaginary monster as the Puranas describe but the descending node of the moon, i.e., a portion of space in and about the lunar orbit.

683. This is a very difficult verse and the distinction involved in it are difficult to catch. Of course, I follow the commentator in rendering it. What is said here is that in a dream, Vyakta (manifest body) lies inactive, while the Chetanam (the subtile form) walks forth. In the state called Sushupti (deep slumber which is like death) the indriyasamyuktam (the subtile form) is abandoned, and Jnanam (the Understanding), detached from the former, remains. After this manner, abhava (non-existence, i.e., Emancipation) results from destruction of bhavah or existence as subject to its known conditions of dependence on time, manner of apprehension, etc., for Emancipation is absorption into the Supreme Soul which is independent of all the said conditions. The commentator explains that these observations become necessary to show that Emancipation is possible. In the previous section the speaker drew repeated illustrations for showing that the soul, to be manifest, depended on the body. The hearer is, therefore, cautioned against the impression that the soul's dependence on the body is of such an indissoluble kind that it is incapable of detachment from the body, which of course, is necessary for Emancipation or absorption into the Supreme Soul.

684. Caswasasya is an instance of Bhavapradhananirdesa, i.e., of a reference to the principal attribute connected by it.

685. Indriaih rupyante or nirupyante, hence Indriyarupani.

686. The objects to be abandoned are those which the senses apprehend and those which belong to primordial matter. Those last, as distinguished from the former, are, of course, all the linga or subtile forms or existents which are made up of the tanmatras of the grosser elements.

687. Or, regains his real nature.

688. I adopt the Bombay reading aptavan instead of the Bengal reading atmavit. Pravrittam Dharmam, as explained previously, is that Dharma or practice in which there is pravritti and not nivritti or abstention.

689. The sense is this: by abstaining from the objects of the senses one may conquer one's desire for them. But one does not succeed by that method alone in totally freeing oneself from the very principle of desire. It is not till one succeeds in beholding one's soul that one's principle of desire itself becomes suppressed.

690. The separate existence of an objective world is denied in the first clause here. All objects of the senses are said here to have only a subjective existence; hence the possibility of their being withdrawn into the mind. The latest definition of matter, in European philosophy, is that it is a permanent possibility of sensations.

691. Te is explained by the commentator as Brahmabhigatah. K.P. Singha wrongly renders the last foot of the second line. The Burdwan version is correct.

692. Te in the first line is equal to tava.

693. I follow the commentator in so far as he is intelligible. It is evident that the words Jnanam and Jneyam are used in the original not consistently throughout.

694. The meaning seems to be this: ordinary men regard all external objects as possessing an independent existence, and their attributes also as things different from the substances which own them. The first step to attain to is the conviction that attributes and substances are the same, or that the attributes are the substances. This accords with the European Idealism. The next stage, of course, is to annihilate the attributes themselves by contemplation. The result of this is the attainment of Brahma.

695. Antaratmanudarsini is explained by the commentator as "that which has the Antaratman for its anudarsin or witness." The Burdwan translator is incorrect in rendering the second line.

696. The first 'knowledge' refers to the perception of the true connection between the Soul and the not-Soul. 'Fruits' mean the physical forms that are gained in new births. The destruction of the understanding takes place when the senses and the mind are withdrawn into it all of them, united together, are directed towards the Soul. Jneyapratishthitam Jnanam means, of course, knowledge of Brahma.

697. The commentator explains that sorrow arises from the relation of the knower and the known. All things that depend upon that relation are transitory. They can form no part of what is eternal and what transcends that relation.

698. I take the obvious meaning, instead of the learned explanation offered by Nilakantha.

699. The very Yogins, if led away by the desire of acquiring extraordinary powers and the beatitude of the highest heaven do not behold the Supreme.

700. Gunam, literally, attributes; hence objects possessed of attributes.

701. That which is called the external world has no objective existence. It is purely subjective. Hence, it is the mind that sees and hears and touches the mind itself.

702. This verse is a cruce. There can be no doubt that Nilakantha's explanation is correct. Only, as regards budhyavara I am disposed to differ from him very slightly. The grammar of the first line is this: 'Gunadane manah sada budhiyaraya; viprayoge cha tesham budhyavaraya.' Now 'Gunadana' means the 'adana' (destruction) of 'guna'. (This root da means to cut). What is meant by the destruction of 'guna' or attribute or earthly objects is merging them in the buddhi by yoga; in other words, a withdrawal of the senses into the mind, and the senses and the mind into the understanding. "Viprayoga cha tesham" means 'in their separation,' i.e., when these objects are believed to be real and as existing independently of the mind. The result of this would be the acquisition of 'budhyavara,' implying the acquisition of those very objects. In the case of yogins, whose minds may be in such a frame, the powers called 'asiswaryya' are acquired. There is no especial necessity, however, for taking the case of yogins.

703. What is said here is that Happiness and Sorrow have an end, though it may not be seen, and the Soul will surely come to its final resting place. This accords with the doctrine of infinite spiritual improvement.

704. Rishavam sarvattwam literally means 'the bull of Sattwatas'. Ordinarily, it is an appellation of Krishna, the prince of the Sattwatas or Yadavas. Here, however, the word is used to signify persons prizing the attribute of Goodness; hence righteous persons.

705. Prajapati literally means 'lord of creatures.' It is a name applied to those sons of Brahman who begat children.

706. Samavartin is another name for Yama the punisher of the wicked.

707. Nirapekshan is explained by Nilakantha as nirayameva ikshante tan, i.e., those who have their gaze directed towards hell alone. The Burdwan translator takes it as indicative of houseless or nomadic habits, upon what authority, it is not plain.

708. K.P. Singha takes Naravara as the name of a tribe. Of course, it is a careless blunder.

709. I think K.P. Singha misunderstands this verse. All the texts agree in reading it in the same way. To take it, therefore, as implying that the sinful races, by warring with one another, suffered destruction is doing violence to the word Rajanath. There can be no doubt that Sandhyakala means the period of junction between the two ages (Treta and Dwapara). It is called terrible. It was at this time that, that dreadful famine occurred which compelled the royal sage Viswamitra to subsist on a canine haunch. Vide Ante.

710. The correct reading is Mahatmana (instrumental) implying Krishna. The Bengal reading Mahatmavan is vicious. K.P. Singha has rendered the verse correctly. The Burdwan translator, with Nilakantha's note before him (for he uses the very words of the commentator), adheres to the vicious reading and mistranslates the verse.

711. This verse evidently shows that there was dispute about Krishna's supremacy, as Professor Weber guesses. The Krishna-cult was at first confined among a small minority, Sisupala's and Jarasandha's unwillingness to admit the divinity of Krishna distinctly points to this.

712. This is certainly a very fanciful etymology of the word Sanatana which ordinarily implies eternal.

713. Atma Atmanah is explained by Nilakantha as jivasya paramarthikam swarupam.

714. Swamatmanam is Pratyathatmyam.

715. The sense is that when all men are equal in respect of their material cause, why are such differences in the srutis and the smritis about the duties of men?

716. The meaning seems to be this: in the beginning of every celestial yuga, i.e., when the Supreme Being awaking from sleep desires to create creatures anew, and creatures or beings start again into life. With such starting of every being, the rules that regulate their relations and acts also spring up, for without a knowledge of those rules, the new creation will soon be a chaos and come to an end. Thus when man and woman start into life, they do not eat each other but combine to perpetuate the species. With the increase of the human species, again, a knowledge springs up in every breast of the duties of righteousness and of the diverse other practices, all of which help to regulate the new creation till the Creator himself, at the end of the yuga, once more withdraws everything into himself.

717. i.e., the body.

718. What is meant seems to be this: there can be no river without water. A river cannot exist without water. When a river is mentioned, water is implied. The connection between a river and water is not an accident but a necessary one. The same may be said of the sun and its rays. After the same manner, the connection between the Soul and the body is a necessary one and not an accident. The Soul cannot exist without a body. Of course, the ordinary case only is referred to here, for, by yoga, one can dissociate the Soul from the body and incorporate it with Brahma.

719. The mind has no existence except as it exists in the Soul. The commentator uses the illustration of the second moon seen by the eye in water, etc., for explaining the nature of the Mind. It has no real existence as dissociated from the Soul.

720. Swabhavahetuja bhavah is explained by the commentator as the virtuous and vicious propensities. (Swabhava purvasamskara; sa eva heturyesham karmanam layah bhavah). 'All else,' of course, means Avidya or Maya, which flows directly from Brahma without being dependent on past acts. The meaning, then, is this: as soon as the Soul takes a new form or body, all the propensities and inclinations, as dependent on its past acts, take possession of it, Avidya or Maya also takes possession of it.

721. Both the vernacular translators have wrongly rendered this verse, notwithstanding the help they have derived from Nilakantha's gloss. The fact is, the gloss itself sometimes requires a gloss. Verses 3 and 4 and connected with each other. In verse 3, the speaker mentions two analogies viz., first, that of iron, which is inanimate, following the loadstone, and, second, of Swabhavahetuja bhavah (meaning, as already explained, all such consequences as are born of the acts of previous lives), as also anyadapi, i.e., all else of a similar nature, meaning, of course, the consequences of 'Avidya' or 'Maya' which flow directly from Brahma instead of former acts. In verse 4, reference is again made to avyaktajabhavah, meaning propensities and possessions born of 'Avidya' or 'Maya'. This is only a repetition, in another form, of what has already been stated in the second line of verse 3. The commentator explains this very clearly in the opening words of his gloss. After this comes the reference to the higher propensities and aspirations that are in the Soul. The grammar of the line is this: Tadvat Kartuh karanalakshanah (bhavah) karanat abhisanghathah. The plain meaning, of course, is that like all the darker and indifferent propensities and possessions that come to the Soul in its new life, born of the acts of past lives, all the higher aspirations also of the Soul come to it from Brahma direct. The word karana is used in both instances for Brahma as the Supreme Cause of everything.

722. The sense is this: In the beginning there was nothing save the Chit-Soul. Existent objects exist only because of Ignorance having defiled the Soul. Their connection again with the Soul is not absolute and necessary. That connection may be destroyed without the Soul losing anything. What is intended to be conveyed by this verse is that at first, i.e., before the creation, there was nothing, except jiva or the Soul with Knowledge alone for its indicating attribute. The things mentioned, viz., earth, etc., were not. Nor do they inhere to jiva with even Ignorance or Delusion for its indicating attribute, i.e., to the born Soul. The born Soul may seem to manifest all those attributes, but it is really independent of or separate from them. Their connection with the Soul, as already said, is neither absolute nor eternal. In the next verse, the speaker explains the nature of those manifestations.

723. The connection between earth, etc., with the Soul has before been said to be neither absolute nor eternal. Whence then that connection? In 6, it is said that all the apprehensions of the Soul with regard to earth, etc., are due to Ignorance or Delusion flowing directly from Brahma and assailing it thereafter. The apprehension of the Soul that it is a man or an animal, that it has a body, that it is acting, etc., are to borrow the commentator's illustration, just like that of one's being a king in a dream who is not, however, really a king, or of one's being a child who is not, however, really a child. Being eternal or without beginning its first existence under the influence of Delusion is untraceable. As long, again, as it has Knowledge alone for its attribute, it remains indestructible, i.e., free from the mutations of existence. It occurs in every creature, i.e., in man and beast.

724. The sense seems to be this: In consequence of desires the Soul manifests itself in some form of existence. In that state it acts. Those acts again lead to desires anew, which, in their turn, bring on new forms or states of existence. The circle of existence or life thus goes on, without beginning and without end.

725. The Cause is ignorance. The Effect is the body and the senses of a particular form of existence. When the creature, in consequence of this union, engages in acts, these latter become causes for new states of existence.

726. The object of this verse is to reiterate the doctrine that the possession of the body and the senses, etc., does not alter the state of the Soul. The Soul is really unattached to these though it may apparently exist in a state of union with them, like the wind, which existing in a state of apparent union with the dust it bears away is even at such times pure by itself and as a substance, exists separately.

727. The Vedas contain declarations of both kinds, viz., they urge to action as also to abstention from action. The former is necessary as a stepping stone to the latter. Such men are rare as understand the declarations of the Vedas in this way and as conform by their conduct to those declarations thus. What is seen, on the other hand, is that some betake themselves to acts and some to abstention from acts. The second line of the verse has been expanded a little in the translation, following Nilakantha's gloss.

728. Deha-yapanam means destruction of the connection the body has with the soul. In the second line, the performance of acts is prescribed only as a preparation, for they contribute to purity of the Soul. Acts should not, the speaker says, be performed from desire of fruit, viz., heaven, by one desirous of Emancipation. K.P. Singha omits the first line of the verse, but gives the sense of the second line correctly. The Burdwan translator mis-understands the gloss he quotes and makes nonsense of the verse.

729. Vipakram is explained by Nilakantha as pakahinam; and apakvakashayakhyam as apakva-kashaye pumsi akhya upadesah yasya lam etc.

730. Anuplavan is anusaran; akramya means upamridya.

731. Vijnana here means the loss or absence of knowledge.

732. Yathartham, i.e., for the true objects of life, viz., for acting righteously and accomplishing emancipation.

733. At first there was only jiva or the Soul having knowledge alone for its attribute. When it became clothed with Ignorance, the universe sprang up around it. Consciousness is due to that union of the Soul with Ignorance. Hence, all things rest on Consciousness, and Consciousness is the root of all sorrow.

734. The sense of this verse seems to be this: if all things rest on Consciousness which is an attribute of Ignorance or Delusion, why then this uniformity instead of the irregularity that characterises all perceptions in dreams? The answer is that the uniformity is the result of past acts, of acts which are due to Consciousness. These produce uniformity of perceptions even as time, subject to its own laws, produces the phenomena of the seasons with uniformity.

735. I have expanded the last line for bringing out the meaning of the word nasyati clearly. Of course, I follow Nilakantha's explanation of the simile.

736. In the Srutis it is said that Brahma has two attributes, Vidya (Knowledge), and Avidya (Ignorance) with Maya (delusion). It is in consequence of this Maya that chit-souls or jivas become attached to worldly things. It is in consequence of this Maya that persons, even when they understand that all is nought, cannot totally dissociate themselves from them.

737. Mana is explained by the commentator as worship of one's own self; Darpa is freedom from all restraints; and Ahankara is a complete disregard of others and centering all thoughts on ones own self. Here Ahankara is not Consciousness.

738. Kritalakshanah is explained by the Commentator as Kritaswikarah.

739. The force of the simile lies in this: Prakriti binds Kshetrajna or the Soul and obliges it to take birth, etc. Women are Prakriti, men are Souls. As the Soul should seek to avoid the contact of Prakriti and strive for emancipation, even so should men seek to avoid women. It should be added that women, in almost all the dialects of India derived from Sanskrit, are commonly called Prakriti or symbols of Prakriti, thus illustrating the extraordinary popularity of the philosophical doctrine about Prakriti and Purusha.

740. Kritya is mantra-power or the efficacy of Atharvan rites. What is said here is that women are as frightful as Atharvan rites which can bring destruction upon even unseen foes. Rajasi antarhitah means that they are sunk so completely in that attribute as to become invisible, i.e., completely enveloped by that attribute.

741. The sense is this: parasitical vermin spring from sweat and other filth emitted by the body. Children spring from the vital seed. In the former case, it is Swabhava (nature) that supplies the active energy. In the latter, the undying influence of previous acts and propensities supply the active force. One's offspring, therefore, are like parasitical vermin on one's body. Wisdom should teach disregard or indifference for either.

742. This is a repetition of what has been asserted in various forms before. Rajas (passion) is the cause of Pravritti or propensity for acts. Sattwa (goodness) is enlightenment or the higher aspirations that lead to Brahma. Both rest on Tamas (Darkness), the first immediately, the last mediately. Chit or Jiva is pure Knowledge. When overtaken by Tamas or Avyakta, it becomes clothed with that existence which is called life or which we realise in the world, the conditions of that life being Consciousness and Intelligence.

743. The Chit or Soul is all-Knowledge. When overspread with Ignorance or Darkness, it becomes manifested by Intelligence and Consciousness, i.e., assumes a form or body. Knowledge overspread by Darkness, therefore, or Knowledge with the attributes of Intelligence and Consciousness, is the cause of Chit or soul or Jiva assuming a body. Such knowledge, therefore, is called the seed of the body. Then, again, the tadvijam (the second expression), i.e., the foundation on which knowledge overspread by ignorance (or knowledge with the attributes of intelligence and consciousness) rests, is, of course, pure Knowledge or chit or jiva or Soul as it existed before life. It is only another form of repeating a statement made several times before. Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood the last half of the second line.

744. The meaning, of course, is that while in the mother's womb, the Soul remembers the acts of past lives, and those acts influence and determine the growth of its senses as also the character it will display in its new life.

745. I do not follow Nilakantha in his grammatical exposition of the second line. That exposition seems to be very far-fetched. Besides tebhyah tyagat for tesham tyagat is no violence to grammar, the use of the ablative in this sense not being infrequent in these writings.

746. Women have before (vide verse 9 of this section) been said to be the embodiment of the senses and as antarhitah in Rajas or Passion. The senses, therefore, are, it is concluded here, originated in Rajas. By the destruction, again, of Rajas, they may be destroyed. What is wanted, therefore, is the conquest of Rajas or Passion. This may be effected with the aid of the eye whose vision has been sharpened by scriptural knowledge.

747. After indriyartham, as explained by the commentator, prapyapi is understood. There are two classes of indriyas, viz., those of knowledge and those for the performance of acts. Escapes the obligation of rebirth, i.e., attains to Emancipation.

748. Arthasamanyam is explained by Nilakantha as Phalasamyam Mokshakhyam niratisayam. The Burdwan translator, while using the very words of the commentator, mistranslates this verse: The speaker desires to show the difference between the religion of Pravritti or acts and that of Nivritti or abstention from acts. Those that follow the former cannot attain to Emancipation. What they gain are certain good qualities mentioned in the next verse, which, however, are equally gained by the followers of the religion of Nivritti.

749. The vow of Krichcchra consists of certain fasts. Pass three days in water, i.e., stand in tank or stream with water up to the chin.

750. The three Riks begin with Ritancha, Satyancha etc. Every Brahmana who knows his morning and evening prayers knows these three Riks well.

751. "With the aid of the mind" means yoga. Dehakarma means one whose acts are undertaken only for the purpose of sustaining the body, i.e., one who does no act that is not strictly necessary for supporting life; hence, as the commentator explains, one who is free from all propensities leading to external objects. Manovaham Pranan nudan, i.e., bringing to sending the vital breaths to the duct called Manovaha or Sushumna. Though a physical act, its accomplishment becomes possible only by a long course of penances consisting in the withdrawal of the mind from external objects. "Reducing the (three) attributes to a state of uniformity," as explained by the commentator, means arriving at Nirvikalpa, i.e., at that state of knowledge which is independent of the senses.

752. The Knowledge here spoken of is that knowledge which is independent of the senses. What the speaker says is that such Knowledge is no myth but is sure to arise. When it arises, its possessor comes to know that the external world, etc., is only the mind transformed, like the sights seen and sounds heard and thoughts cherished in a dream. In the second line the results of that knowledge are declared. The mind of a Mahatma is mantra-siddha, i.e., has won success by the meditation of the initial mantra, or om; it is nitya, i.e., eternal, meaning probably that though the result of Maya or Avidya, it is no longer subject to rebirth; it is virajas, i.e., free from desire and passion, and lastly it is Jyotishmat or luminous, meaning Omniscient and Omnipotent. The commentator cites a passage from Vasishtha's treatise on yoga which declares the same results as consequent on the attainment of Knowledge. It is, of course, implied that in attaining to such a state, the mind as mind must be destroyed or merged into the Soul and the Soul, with knowledge only for its attribute, must exist. In the previous verse emancipation after death has been spoken of. In this jivan-mukti or emancipation in life is referred to.

753. "Freeing oneself from the attributes of Passion and Darkness", i.e., by practising the religion of abstention from acts.

754. Adatte from da meaning to cut or destroy. Manasam volam as explained by the commentator, is sankalpam, i.e., desires or purposes. The man of ripe understanding, by doing this, attains to that knowledge which is not subject to decay with age. Hence, such knowledge is superior to knowledge acquired in the ordinary way.

755. Compassion may sometimes lead to excess of attachment, as in the case of Bharata towards his little deer. The universe is the result of acts because acts determine the character of the life the soul assumes. In the case of Bharata, he was obliged to take birth as a deer in his next life in consequence of all his thoughts in the previous life having been centred on a deer.

756. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse. Tat should be supplied before asnute; there is redundant va in the first line. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.

757. The buddhi here referred to is intelligence cleansed by scriptures. Samahitam manak is, as explained by the commentator, mind freed from anger and malice, etc., i.e., properly trained.

758. One should not covet, etc., like kingdoms and thrones in the case of ordinary men. "Non-existent objects," such as sons and wives that are dead or that are unborn or unwed.

759. Samsara, as explained by the commentator, means both this and the other world. It is bound in speech in this sense, viz., that whatever is spoken is never destroyed and affects permanently both the speaker and the listener, so that not only in one life, but in the infinite course of lives, the speaker will be affected for good or for evil by the words that escape his lips. This fully accords with the discovery of modern science, so eloquently and poetically enunciated by Babbage, of the indestructibility of force or energy when once applied. How appalling is the sanction (which is not a myth) under which evil speaking is forbidden.

760. Such self-disclosure destroys the effects of those acts and prevents their recurrence.

761. Robbers laden with booty are always in danger of seizure. Even so unintelligent men bearing the burdens of life are always liable to destruction.

762. Nishpraiharena means Niruddhena as explained by the commentator.

763. I adopt the reading prakasela and the interpretation that Nilakantha puts upon it.

764. K.P. Singha translates these words very carelessly. The Burdwan translator, by following the commentator closely, has produced a correct version. Kulmasha means ripe grains or seeds of the Phaselous radiatus. Pinyaka is the cake of mustard seed or sesamum after the oil has been pressed out. Yavaka means unripe barley, or, as the commentator explains, raw barley powdered and boiled in hot water.

765. What is meant by the first line of the verse is this. The Soul had, before the creation, only Knowledge for its attribute. When Ignorance or Delusion, proceeding from Supreme Brahma, took possession of it, the Soul became an ordinary creature, i.e., consciousness, mind, etc., resulted. This Ignorance, therefore, established itself upon Knowledge and transformed the original character of the Soul. What is stated in the second line is that ordinary knowledge which follows the lead of the understanding is affected by ignorance, the result of which is that the Soul takes those things that really spring from itself to be things different from itself and possessing an independent existence.

766. The correct reading, I apprehend, is upagatasprihah and not apagatasprihah. Nilakantha is silent. All that he says is that the first verse has reference to 'yogins,' the second to yogins and 'non-yogins' alike. Both the vernacular translators adhere to apagatasprihah.

767. I expand verse 8 a little for giving its meaning more clearly than a literal version would yield. All the impressions, it is said here, in dreams, are due either to the impressions of this life or those received by, the mind in the countless lives through which it has passed. All those impressions, again, are well-known to the Soul though memory may not retain them. Their reappearance in dreams is due to the action of the Soul which calls them up from the obscurity in which they are concealed. Avisena's theory of nothing being ever lost that is once acquired by the mind and the recollection of a past impression being, due to a sudden irradiation of the divine light, was, it seems, borrowed from Hindu philosophy.

768. The sense is this: a particular attribute among the three, viz., Goodness or Passion or Darkness, is brought to the mind by the influence of past acts of either this or any previous life. That attribute immediately affects the mind in a definite way. The result of this is that the elements in their subtile forms actually produce the images that correspond with or appertain to the affecting attribute and the manner in which it affects the mind.

769. Nothing less than yoga can discard or destroy them, for they really spring from desires generated by past acts.

770. The Bombay reading Manohrishyan is better.

771. Both the external and the internal worlds are due to Consciousness, which, in its turn, arises from delusion affecting the Soul. That which is called the Mind is only a product of the Soul. The world both external and internal, is only the result of Mind as explained in previous sections. Hence the Mind exists in all things. What is meant by all things existing in the Soul is that the Soul is omniscient and he who succeeds in knowing the Soul wins omniscience.

772. The body is called the door of dreams because the body is the result of past acts, and dreams cannot take place till the Soul, through past acts, becomes encased in a body. What is meant by the body disappearing in the mind is that in dreamless slumber the mind no longer retains any apprehension of the body. The body being thus lost in the mind, the mind (with the body lost in it) enters the Soul, or becomes withdrawn into it. Nidarsanam is explained as Nischitadarsanam Sakshirupam. The sense of the verse is that in dreamless slumber the senses are withdrawn into the mind; the mind becomes withdrawn into the Soul. It is the Soul alone that then lives in its state of original purity, consciousness and all things which proceed from it disappearing at the time.

773. i.e., the mind becoming pure, he gains omniscience and omnipotence.

774. The Burdwan translator, using the very words of Nilakantha, jumbles them wrongly together and makes utter nonsense of both the original and the gloss.

775. Brahma cannot, as the commentator properly explains, be seized like a creature by the horns. All that one can do is to explain its nature by reason and analogy. It can be comprehended only in the way indicated, i.e., by Pratyahara.

776. The commentator thinks that the Rishi alluded to in this verse is Narayana, the companion and friend of Nara, both of whom had their retreat on the heights of Vadari where Vyasa afterwards settled himself. Tattwa here does not, the commentator thinks, mean a topic of discourse but that which exists in original purity and does not take its colour or form from the mind. Anaropitam rupam yasya tat.

777. The religion of Pravritti consists of acts. It cannot liberate one from rebirth. The whole chain of existences, being the result of acts, rests upon the religion of Pravritti. The religion of Nivritti, on the other hand, or abstention from acts, leads to Emancipation or Brahma.

778. Nidarsarkah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to drashtum ichcchan.

779. Avyakta or Unmanifest is Prakriti or primordial matter both gross and subtile. That which transcends both Prakriti and Purusha is, of course the Supreme Soul or Brahma. Visesham, is explained by the commentator as 'distinguished from everything else by its attributes.'

780. i.e., as the commentator explains, Purusha is non-creating and transcends the three attributes.

781. Asamhatau is explained by the commentator as atyantaviviktau. Purushau implies the two Purushas, i.e., the 'Chit-Soul' and the Supreme Soul.

782. The four topics are these: the points of resemblance between Prakriti and Purusha, the points of difference between them: the points of resemblance between Purusha and Iswara; and the points of difference between them. The four considerations that cover these topics are absence of beginning and end, existence as chit and in animation, distinction from all other things, and the notion of activity.

783. Yoginastam prapasyanti bhagavantam santanam—even this is what people always say to yoga and yogins.

784. The commentator in a long note explains that what is really implied by this verse is that one should betake oneself to some sacred spot such as Kasi for casting off one's life there. Death at Kasi is sure to lead to Emancipation, for the theory is that Siva himself becomes the instructor and leads one to that high end.

785. When divested of Rajas, i.e., freed from the senses and the propensities derived from their indulgence.

786. Adehat is explained by the commentator as Dehapatat. Dehantat applies to the destruction of all the three bodies. By the destruction (after death) of the gross body is meant escape from the obligation of rebirth. The karana body is a subtiler form of existence than the Linga-sarira: it is, of course, existence; Prakriti as mentioned in verse 21.

787. Paropratyasarge means on the rise of a knowledge of Brahma. Niyati is Necessity, in consequence of which jiva goes through an endless wheel of existences; Bhavantaprabhavaprajna is bhavanamanta-prabhavayorevaprajna yesham. The object of the verse is to show that such mistaken persons as take the body, the senses, etc., and all which are not-Self, to be Self, are always taken up with the idea that things die and are born, but that there is nothing like emancipation or a complete escape from rebirth.

788. 'By the aid of patience' is explained by the commentator as without leaving their seats and changing the yoga attitude, etc. 'Withdrawing themselves from the world of senses' means attaining to a state that is perfectly independent of the senses and, therefore, of all external objects. 'Adore the senses in consequence of their subtility,' as explained by the commentator, is thinking of Prana and the Indriyas as Self or Soul. I do not understand how this amounts to the statement that such yogins attain to Brahma.

789. 'Proceeding according to (the stages indicated in) the scriptures' alludes to the well-known verses in the Gita, beginning with Indriyebhyah parahyartha, etc. The several stages, as mentioned in those verses, are as follows: Superior to the senses are their objects. Superior to the objects is the mind. Superior to the mind is the understanding. Superior to the understanding is the Soul. Superior to the Soul is the Unmanifest. Superior to the Unmanifest is Purusha (Brahma). There is nothing above Purusha. Dehantam is explained as that which is superior to Avyakta or Unmanifest, hence Brahma or Purusha.

790. A flash of lightning repeatedly realised becomes a mass of blazing light. Perhaps this is intended by the speaker.

791. In the Bengal texts, verse 28 is a triplet. In the second line the correct reading is Dehantam.

792. Mara, Prakriti, and Purusha, or Effects, their material Cause, and the Supreme Soul.

793. Nanapashandavashinah is another reading which is noticed by the commentator. It is explained as 'censurers of diverse sects of Lokayatikas.'

794. Panchasrotas implies the mind which is said to have five currents.

795. These are the annamaya, the pranamaya, the manomaya, the vijnanamaya, and the anandamaya. For particulars, vide Wilson's Dict.

796. The verb used is nyavedayat, literally, 'represented,' i.e., 'started' for discourse, or enquired into. The Burdwan translator renders it 'exposed' or 'promulgated,' which, I think, is incorrect.

797. The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder by supposing that Asuri obtained this knowledge in consequence of the questions of his disciple. The fact is, samprishtah, as correctly explained the commentator, means samyak prishta prasno yasya. K.P. Singha avoids the error.

798. Kutumvini means a matron or the wife of a house-holder.

799. Either Markandeya or Sanatkumara, according to the commentator.

800. I slightly expand Sarvanirvedam according to the explanation given by Nilakantha. The Sankhya doctrine proceeds upon the hypothesis that all states of life imply sorrow. To find a remedy for this, i.e., to permanently escape all sorrow, is the end of that philosophy.

801. These are the characteristics of that Delusion under which man takes birth in this world and goes on living till he can permanently conquer all sorrow.

802. The construction of the first foot is Atmano mrityuh Anatma, meaning the Soul's death (or that which is called death) is the Soul's extinction. Verse 24 recites the opinion of the Sceptics, not that of the speaker. K.P. Singha mistranslates the verse. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.

803. This and all the following verses are statements of the sceptic's arguments.

804. Verse 29 is highly terse. The words are grammatically unconnected with one another. Only a few substantives have been used. These represent the heads of the different arguments urged by sceptics for showing the non-existence of anything besides the body which is seen and felt. I have, of course, followed the commentator in his elaboration of the sense of the verse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right.

805. Some idea may be formed by the English reader of the extreme terseness of these verses by attending to the elaborations contained within the parentheses above. The exigencies of English grammar as also of perspicuity have obliged me to use, even in the portions unenclosed, more words than what occur in the original Sanskrit. All these verses are cruces intended to stagger Ganesa.

806. Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. This fact is, without clearly understanding either the text or the gloss, they have used bits of the gloss without being able to convey any intelligible idea. The gloss sometimes requires gloss to make it intelligible. The commentator says that the theory of rebirth mentioned in verse 34 is that of the Sugatas or Buddhists. That theory is refuted in verse 35. The objection to the Buddhistic theory is that mere ignorance and karma cannot explain rebirth. There must be an indestructible Soul. This the Buddhists do not allow, for they believe that Nirvana or annihilation is possible. The argument, as sketched, proceeds in this way: the being that is the result of the rebirth is apparently a different being. What right have we to assert its identity with the being that existed before? Ignorance and karma cannot create a Soul though they may affect the surroundings of the Soul in its new birth. The objections to the Buddhistic theory became clear in the verses that follow.

807. The sense is this: it is never seen in the world that the acts of one person affect for good or for evil another person. If Chaitra exposes himself to the night air, Maitra never catches cold for it. This direct evidence should settle the controversy about the unseen, viz., whether the acts of one in a previous life can affect another in a subsequent life if there be no identity between the two beings in two lives.

808. It is needless to say that I have considerably elaborated the second line of the verse, as a literal rendering would have been entirely unintelligible. For example's sake I give that rendering; "That which is separate Consciousness is also different. That from which it is, does not recommend self."

809. If (as has already been said) the second Consciousness be the resulting effect of the loss or destruction itself of the previous Consciousness, then destruction is not annihilation, and, necessarily, after Nirvana has been once attained, there may be a new Consciousness or new birth, and, thus, after having again attained to Nirvana the same result may follow. The Buddhistic Nirvana, therefore, cannot lead to that final Emancipation which is indicated into the Brahmanical scriptures.

810. The Buddhists then, according to this argument, are not at all benefited by asserting the existence of a permanent Soul unto which each repeated Consciousness may inhere. The Soul, according to the Brahmanical scriptures, has no attributes or possessions. It is eternal, immutable, and independent of all attributes. The affirmance of attributes with respect to the Soul directly leads to the inference of its destructibility, and hence the assertion of its permanency or indestructibility under such conditions is a contradiction in terms, according to what is urged in this verse.

811. The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to point out that the senses, when destroyed, merge into their productive causes or the substances of which they are attributes. Of course, those causes or substances are the elements or primordial matter. This leads to the inference that though attributes may meet with destruction, yet the substances (of which they are attributes) may remain intact. This may save the Buddhist doctrine, for the Soul, being permanent and owing consciousness, etc., for its attributes, may outlive, like primordial matter, the destruction of its attributes. But the speaker urges that this doctrine is not philosophical and the analogy will not hold. Substance is conjunction of attributes. The attributes being destroyed, the substance also is destroyed. In European philosophy too, matter, as an unknown essence to which extension, divisibility, etc., inhere, is no longer believed in or considered as scientific.

812. Here the speaker attacks the orthodox Brahmanical doctrine of the character of the Soul.

813. Possibly because they art based on Revelation.

814. The first five are the effects of intelligence; the vital breaths, of wind; and the juices and humours, of stomachic heat.

815. Intelligence is called avyaya because it leads to Emancipation which is such. It is also called mahat because of its power to lead to Brahma which is mahat. Tattwanischaya is called the seed of Emancipation because it leads to Emancipation.

816. That path consists of yoga.

817. By casting off the mind one casts off the five organs of action. By casting off the understanding, one casts off the organs of knowledge with the mind.

818. i.e., in each of these operations three causes must exist together.

819. The inference is that the functions being destroyed, the organs are destroyed, and the mind also is destroyed, or, the mind being destroyed, all are destroyed.

820. The commentator correctly explains that na in nanuparyeta is the nom. sing. of nri (man), meaning here, of course, the dreamer. Nilakantha's ingenuity is certainly highly commendable.

821. Uparamam is yugapadbhavasya uchcchedam or extinction of the state of association of the Soul with the understanding, the mind, and the senses. This dissociation of the Soul from the understanding, etc., is, of course, Emancipation. Emancipation, however, being eternal, the temporary dissociation of the soul from the understanding, etc., which is the consequence of dreamless sleep, is the result of Tamas or Darkness. That dissociation is certainly a kind of felicity, but then it differs from the felicity of Emancipation, which is everlasting, and which is not experienced in the gross body.

822. In this verse the speaker points out that the felicity of Emancipation may at first sight seem to be like the felicity of dreamless sleep, but that is only an error. In reality, the former is untouched or unstained by darkness. Na krichechramanupasyati is the reading I take, meaning "in which no one sees the slightest tincture of sorrow." The kind of sorrow referred to is the sorrow of duality or consciousness of knower and known. In Emancipation, of course, there cannot be any consciousness of duality. Both the vernacular versions are thoroughly unmeaning.

823. In this verse the speaker again points out the similarity between dreamless sleep and Emancipation. In both swakarmapratyayah Gunah is discarded. Gunah, as explained by Nilakantha, means here the whole range of subjective and objective existences from Consciousness to gross material objects, swakarmapratyayah means karmahetu kavirbhava, i.e., having acts for the cause of their manifestation; this refers to the theory of rebirth on account of past acts.

824. The sense of the verse is this: all creatures are perceived to exist. That existence is due to the well-known cause constituted by Avidya and desire and acts. They exist also in such a way as to display a union between the body and Soul. For all common purposes of life we treat creatures that we perceive to be really existing. The question then that arises is—which (the body or the Soul) is destructible?—We cannot answer this question in any way we like, like for swaswato va katham uchcchedavan, bhavet (i.e., how can the Soul, Which is said by the learned to be Eternal, be regarded as destructible?) Vartamaneshu should be treated as, Laukikavyavareshu. Uchcchedah is, of course, equivalent to Uchcchedavan.

825. i.e., the gross body disappears in the subtile; the subtile into the karana (potential) form of existence; and this last into the Supreme Soul.

826. Merit and sin, and with them their effects in the form of happiness and misery both here and hereafter, are said to be destroyed when men become unattached to everything and practise the religion of abstention or nivritti. The paraphrase of the second line is asaktah alepamakasam asthaya mahati alingameva pacyanti. Alepamakasam asthaya is explained by the commentator as Sagunam Brahma asthaya.

827. Urnanabha is generic term for all worms that weave threads from within their bellies. It does not always mean the spider. Here, it implies a silk-worm. The analogy then becomes complete.

828. Nipatatyasaktah is wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly but takes nipatali for utpatati.