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.
829. Samudayah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to hetu.
830. Giving food and clothes to the poor and needy in times of scarcity
is referred to.
831. The reading I adopt is Vrataluvdhah. If, however, the Bengal reading
vrataluplah be adopted, the meaning would be "such men are deceived by
their vows," the sense being that though acquiring heaven and the other
objects of their desire, yet they fall down upon exhaustion of their
merit and never attain to what is permanent, viz., emancipation, which is
attainable by following the religion of nivritti only.
832. The object of Bhishma's two answers is to show that the giving of
pain to others (sacrificing animals) is censurable, and the giving of
pain to one's own self is equally censurable.
833. Existence comes into being and ceases. Non-existence also comes into
being and ceases. This is the grammatical construction. The words, of
course, imply only the appearance and disappearance of all kinds of
phenomena.
834. This refers to the theory set forth in the previous sections about
the Soul's real inactivity amidst its seeming activity in respect of all
acts.
835. The Burdwan translator renders the second line as "six thousand
Gandharvas used to dance before thee seven kinds of dance."
836. Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse. A
samya is explained as a little wooden cane measuring about six and thirty
fingers breadth in altitude. What Vali did was to go round the Earth
(anuparyagah, i.e., parihrityagatavan) throwing or hurling a samya. When
thrown from a particular point by a strong man, the samya clears a
certain distance. This space is called a Devayajana. Vali went round the
globe, performing sacrifices upon each such Devayajana.
837. Pravyaharaya is explained by the commentator as prakrishtokaye.
838. I follow Nilakantha's gloss in rendering this verse. Hatam is
explained as nirjivam deham, i.e., the body divested of Soul. He who
slays another is himself slain, means that a person who regards his own
self as the slayer is steeped in ignorance, for the Soul is never an
actor. By thinking that he is the actor a person invests his Soul with
the attributes of the body and the senses. Such a man (as already said)
is Hatah or slain (i.e., steeped in ignorance). Comparing this with verse
19 of Sec. 11 of the Gita, we find that the same thing is asserted
therein a slightly different way. 'He who regards the Soul as the slayer
and he who regards it as slain are both mistaken. The Soul does not slay
nor is slain.'
839. Compare this with the saying usually credited to Napoleon that St.
Helena was written in the book of Fate.
840. The original, if literally rendered, would be 'Time cooks
everything.'
841. Bhujyante is explained by the commentator as equivalent to palyante
or samhriyante.
842. Brahma is indestructible as jiva or Soul, and is destructible as
displayed in the form of not-Self.
843. I expand verse 50 for giving its sense as a literal version would be
unintelligible.
844. One that is borne with great difficulty.
845. Literally, the desire for action; hence abundance or plenty that is
the result of action or labour.
846. All these names imply plenty and prosperity.
847. i.e., with hands not washed after rising from his meals or while
going on with his meals.
848. The commentator explains that according to the Pauranic theory, the
world stands all around the mountains of Meru. The region of Brahman
stands on its top. The Sun travels round Meru and shines over all the
directions or points of the compass. This happens in the age called the
Vaivaswata Manwantara (the age or epoch of Manu the son of Vivaswat). But
after the lapse of this age, when the Savarnika Manwantara comes, the sun
will shine upon only the region on the top of Meru, and all around there
will be darkness.
849. i.e., all things are destructible instead of being eternal.
850. The commentator explains that Hridyam means Hritstham swarupam. By
Kalyanam, of course, Moksha or Emancipation is intended.
851. As explained in previous verses, one striving to attain Emancipation
must set himself to yoga. As a consequence of yoga, one acquires (without
wishing for them) many wonderful powers. The accomplishment of one's
objects then follows as a matter of course.
852. The sense is this: a wise man never regards himself as the actor;
and hence never feels sorrow. Whatever sorrow overtakes him he views
unmoved and takes it as the result of what had been ordained. Not so the
foolish man. He deems himself to be the actor and looks upon sorrow as
the result of his own acts. Hence, he cannot view it unmoved. Sorrow,
therefore, lies in one's regarding oneself as the actor; the true view
being that one instead of being an actor is only an instrument in the
hands of the great Ordainer.
853. The object of this verse is to show that right conclusions in
respect of duties are very rare.
854. This is a hard hit, The listener, viz., Indra, had violated, under
circumstances of the most wicked deception, the chastity of Gautama's
spouse Ahalya. Gautama had to punish his wife by converting her into a
stone. This punishment, however, reacted upon Gautama inasmuch as it put
a stop to his leading any longer a life of domesticity. In spite of such
a dire affliction Gautama did not suffer his cheerfulness to depart from
his heart. The effect of the allusion is to tell Indra that the speaker
is not like him but like Gautama, i.e., that Namuchi was not the slave of
his passions but that he was the master of his senses and the heart.
855. The we here is the pronoun of dignity, applying to the speaker only
and not to both the speaker and the listener.
856. The sentence is an interrogative one. The Burdwan translator
mistakes the meaning. K.P. Singha is correct.
857. These things had not happened for many days in consequence of the
wickedness of the Asuras. With the victory of Indra, sacrifices returned,
and with them universal peace.
858. The words are Dhruvadwarabhavam. The commentator is silent. Probably
a Himalayan Pass. The vernacular translators think it is the region of
the Pole-star that is intended. Dhruva is a name of Brahman the Creator.
It may mean, therefore, the river as it issues out of Brahman's loka or
region. The Pauranic myth is that issuing from the foot of Vishnu, the
stream enters the Kamandalu of Brahman and thence to the earth.
859. The reader of Lord Lytton's works may, in this connection, be
reminded of the discourse between Mejnour and the neophyte introduced to
him by Zanoni, in course of their evening rambles over the ridges of the
Appenines.
860. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.
861. It is difficult to give to non-Hindu people the idea of what is
uchchhishta. The hand becomes uchchhishta when set to food that is being
eaten. Without washing that hand with pure water, it is never used by a
Hindu for doing any work. The food that remains in a dish after some
portion of it has been eaten is uchchhishta. The idea is particular to
Hinduism and is not to be seen among other races or peoples in the world.