Footnotes

Literally, the period of impurity. The period of mourning is the period of impurity, according to the Hindu scriptures. By performing the Sraddha rite, one becomes pure again. Till then, one can perform no religious rites.
Literally, "shall not appear to thee by inward light."
The meaning is this, "This weapon shall not dwell with thee up to thy last moments. Thou shalt forget it or it shall not appear at thy bidding, when thy death becomes nigh, though at other times, thou mayst be master of it."
The Kurus, our foes, having fallen in battle, have all gone to heaven, while grief has become our lot.
Sanjata Valaratnesu is the true reading.
The Bombay reading Jayaphalam is correct. The Bengal reading Jammaphalam, however, is not unmeaning.
What Yudhishthira says here is this: all the warriors that have been slain in this battle have perished, they have not attained to heaven; if, indeed, heaven has been theirs, then the slayers too would obtain heaven, the scriptural ordinance having said so. It is impossible, however, to suppose that men of wrath who have done such wicked deeds should obtain such regions of bliss hereafter.
Pairs of opposites, such as heat and cold, joy and grief, etc. Comp. Gita.
Because wealth enables its possessor to practise the rites of religion.
The sense is that when I will not wrong the denizens of even the woods, there is little chance of my wronging men of the world.
There is a class of recluses who support life by gathering the fallen fruits of trees. Taking the tree for a living person, they walk under its shade and beg of it its fruits. Those fruits that fall down on such occasions are regarded as the alms granted by the tree to its mendicant guest.
All the possessions of a man depend upon the acts of a previous life. Wives, children and kinsmen, therefore, as agents of happiness or the reverse, depend upon one's past acts. They are effects of pre-existing causes. Then again, they may be causes of effects to be manifested in the next life, for their acts also are supposed to affect the next life of him to whom they belong.
i.e., they for whom he acts do not take the consequences of his acts.
Bhagena is explained by Nilakantha as swargaisysaryena.
The sense is that as the Ordainer cannot be censured, therefore, that which He has ordained for the Kshatriyas cannot be deserving of censure.
The meaning is that they who perform sacrifice and partake of the sacrificial food after offering it unto gods and guests, acquire such religious merit that the like of it cannot be acquired by other men. Sacrifice, therefore, is the highest act in life and the most meritorious that man can do.
The iti after vadi is really eti, the absence of sandhi in the proper form is Arsha. Literally rendered, the line becomes,--According to the manner in which the person of firm conviction approaches the Soul, is the success that he gets here. As the Srutis declare, if one firmly regards oneself to be Siva, the success one attains here and hereafter is after the kind of that deity.
The brevity of such passages is the chief obstacle to their clear comprehension. Fortunately the allusions are very plain. What is meant is that those who die during the lighted fortnights of the summer solstice attain to solar regions of bliss. Those that die during the dark fortnights of the winter solstice, attain to lunar regions. These last have to return after passing their allotted periods of enjoyment and happiness. While those that are freed from attachments, whatever the time of their Death, go to Stellar regions which are equal to that of Brahma.
Without attaining to the companionship of the gods and Pitris, and without obtaining Brahma, they sink in the scale of being and become worms and vermin.
The sense is that the gods themselves have become so by action.
The first word is compounded of an and astika.
Deva-yana is the Yana or way along which the deities have gone, the strict observance of the Vedic rites.
Renouncer of his own self, because he dries up his very body by denying himself food.
Such a person also is not a true renouncer. For a Kshatriya, again, such a mode of life would be sinful.
Nilakantha thinks that the object of this verse is to show that even such a life properly appertains to a Brahmana and not to a Kshatriya. Therefore, if Yudhishthira would, without reigning, live quietly in the kingdom governed by some brother of his, he would then be equally sinning.
Acts done from vanity, i.e., with the bragging consciousness of one being himself the actor and the arranger of everything. Acts done from a spirit of renunciation, i.e., without hope of reaping their fruits.
The threefold aims, i.e., Religion, Pleasure and Profit.
Antarala is thus explained by Nilakantha.
Sariram is contra-distinguished from Vahyam. The first is explained as appertaining to or encased in Sarira, i.e., the mind.
What Sahadeva wishes to say is that everything proceeds from selfishness is productive of death, while everything proceeding from an opposite frame of mind leads to Brahma or immortality.
The meaning entirely depends upon the word Swabhavam, manifestation of self. In the second line, if Vrittam be read for Bhutam the sense would remain unaltered.
The three kinds of angas referred to, as explained by Nilakantha are (1) the strength that depends on the master, (2) that depending on good counsels, and (3) that depending on the perseverance and the courage of the men themselves.
Literally, "crushed with the rod of chastisement."
Censure is the only punishment for a Brahmana offender. A Kshatriya may be punished by taking away all property, but care should be taken to give him food sufficient for maintaining life. A Vaisya should be punished by forfeiture of possessions. There is practically no punishment for a Sudra, for being unable to possess wealth, dispossession of wealth cannot be a punishment in his case; again, service being his duty, the imposition of labour on him cannot be a punishment. For all that, hard work may be imposed upon him.
A fisherman who would not slay fish would go without food.
The sense is that if in supporting life one kills these creatures, he does not in any way commit sin.
Bhoga is explained by Nilakantha as Palanaya (maryyadaya).
The meaning seems to be that the milch cow suffers herself to be milked, only through fear of chastisement, and maidens also marry, without practising free love, through fear of chastisement by the king, society, or Yama in the next world.
If this does not come up to the grossness of the doctrine--spare the rod and ruin the child,--it at least is plain that the fear of being regarded a dunce and a fool and incurring the ridicule or displeasure of the tutor and class-mates, induces one to acquire knowledge.
The illustration used by the commentator is that it is better to kill the tiger that has invaded the fold than remain quiet for fear of injuring that beast of prey and commit sin. For that slaughter there is merit, for if not slaughtered, the beast will slaughter the kine before the spectator's eyes and the latter would incur sin by passively witnessing the sight. At any rate, to be more general, it is better to injure, says Arjuna, from righteous motives than not to injure from fear of sin.
Otherwise named phlegm, bile and wind.
The sense is that thou wert ever superior to joy and grief and never sufferedst thyself, to be elated with joy or depressed with grief.
The argument seems to be this: if it is thy nature to call back thy woes even when happiness is before thee, why dost thou not then recollect the insult to your wife? The recollection of this insult will fill thee with wrath and convince thee that in slaying thy foes,--those insulters of thy wife--thou hast acted very properly.
The meaning is that in consequence of thy abandonment of prosperity and kingdom and, therefore, of the means of effecting thy salvation by sacrifice and gifts and other act of piety, thou shalt have to be re-born and to renew this mental battle with thy doubts.
This is a difficult verse, and I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. Gantavyam is explained by Nilakantha as connected with paramavyaktarupasya. According to Nilakantha, this means that thou shouldst go to, i.e. conquer, and identify thyself with, the param or foe of that which is of unmanifest form, the mind; of course, this would mean that Yudhishthira should identify himself with his own soul, for it is the soul which is his foe and with which he is battling. Such conquest and identification implies the cessation of the battle and, hence, the attainment of tranquillity.
The condition of Draupadi's lock,--i.e., thou hast been restored to the normal condition. Draupadi had kept her locks dishevelled since the day they had been seized by Duhsasana. After the slaughter of the Kurus, those locks were bound up as before, or restored to their normal condition.
The Bengal tiger acts as a fisher to both animals and men. When the tiger goes on a fishing expedition, what it usually does is to catch large fishes from shallow streams and throw them landwards far from the water's edge. The poor beast is very often followed, unperceived, by the smaller carnivorous animals, and sometimes by bands of fishermen. I have seen large fishes with the claw-marks of the tiger on them exposed for sale in a village market.
The sense seems to be that unless kings perform such penances they cannot escape hell. Such penances, however, are impossible for them as long as they are in the midst of luxuries. To accept wealth and not use it, therefore, is impracticable.
i.e., Thou art not liberated from desire.
The false speech, in this instance, consists in professing one's self to be really unattached while enjoying wealth and power, i.e., the hypocritical profession of renunciation in the midst of luxuries. As already said by Yudhishthira, such renunciation is impracticable.
The path of the Pitris means the course of Vedic rites by which one attains to bliss hereafter. The path of the gods means the abandonment of religious rites for contemplation and pious conduct.
This truth has been expressed in various forms of language in various passages of the Mahabharata. The fact is, the unification of infinite variety and its identification with the Supreme Soul is attainment of Brahma. One, therefore, that has attained to Brahma ceases to regard himself as separate from the rest of the universe. Selfishness, the root of sin and injury, disappears from him.
i.e., Sacrifice.
Literally, 'thy resolution is of one kind, while thy acts are of another kind!'
Paratantreshu is explained by Nilakantha as "dependent on destiny." If this means the fate that connects one's present life with the acts of a former one, the explanation is not incorrect. The more obvious meaning, however, is "dependent on action."
A wedded wife is the companion of one's religious acts.
Thou shouldst not, therefore, abandon action.
The meaning seems to be this: if a person can truly act up to his resolution of complete renunciation of everything, then that person stands alone in the midst of the world, and he is nobody's, and nobody is his. Hence, he can neither be pleased nor displeased with any one. King Janaka's abandonment, therefore, of wife and kingdom, is inconsistent with that perfect renunciation or withdrawal of self within self. He might continue to enjoy his possessions without being at all attached to or affected by them.
Such libations, to be efficacious, ought to be poured upon fires properly kindled with mantras.
Therefore, Janaka should resume his kingdom and practise charity; otherwise, religious mendicants would be undone.
Such an man might rule even a kingdom without forfeiting his title to be regarded a mendicant, for he might rule without attachment.
Refers to the well-known definition of the soul or mind in the Nyaya philosophy, which says that it is distinguished by the attributes of desire, aversion, will, pleasure and pain, and the cognitive faculties.
The soul, though really bereft of attributes, nevertheless revolves in a round among creatures, i.e., enters other bodies on the dissolution of those previously occupied. The reason of this round or continual journey is Avidya or illusion, viz., that absence of true knowledge in consequence of which men engage themselves in action. When the soul is freed from this Avidya, action ceases, and the soul becomes revealed in its true nature, which consists in the absence of all attributes.
Hetumantah Panditah means--learned in the science of reasoning; Dridhapurve is explained by Nilakantha as persons endued with strong convictions of a past life: Suduravartah means difficult of being made to understand.
The sense is that instead of performing sacrifices after acquisition of wealth, it is better not to perform sacrifices if they cannot be performed without wealth. Nilakantha, by interpreting Dhanahetu as sacrifices which have wealth for the means of their accomplishment, would come to this meaning directly.
Atmanam is explained by Nilakantha as meaning something that is regarded as dear as self, i.e., wealth. Such a person incurs the sin of killing a foetus, because that sin proceeds from killing one's own self. Improper use of wealth is, of course, regarded as killing one's own self.
The Srutis declare that he who frightens others is frightened himself; while he who frightens not, is not himself frightened. The fruits won by a person correspond with his practices. Yudhishthira is, therefore, exhorted to take the sovereignty, for sovereignty, righteously exercised and without attachment, will crown him with bliss hereafter.
Naikam na chapare is explained by Nilakantha thus. Literally, this means that it is not that others do not (praise) ekam or contemplation, i.e., some there are that praise contemplation or meditation.
Literally, the absence of contentment with present prosperity.
Adadana is explained as a robber or one who forcibly takes other people's property. Some texts read nareswarah. The sense should remain unaltered.
Manu also mentions a sixth of the produce as the king's share.
Santyakatatma is explained by Nilakantha as without pride or resigned self.
Yoga is explained as vigour in action, nyasa as the abandonment of pride.
And that have, by their death, escaped from all grief.
Murcchitah is explained by Nilakantha as Vardhitah.
True knowledge is knowledge of Brahma. What is said here is that our conduct (acts) should be framed according to the opinion of persons possessed of such knowledge.
What the poet says here is this: it is better not to wish for or covet wealth as a means for the performance of sacrifices than to covet it for performing sacrifices. A poor man will act better by not performing sacrifices at all than by performing them with wealth acquired by the usual means.
The meaning is that I must undergo such a severe penance in order that in my next life I may not be born as an inferior animal but succeed in taking birth among men.
Even such i.e., spring from such causes.
Man covets freedom from decay and immortality, but instead of obtaining what he covets for, decay and death become his portion on Earth.
i.e., these appear and disappear in the course of Time.
Literally, the science of Life.
This inevitable and broad path is the path of Life. What is said here is that every creature is subject to birth.
The first line of this verse refers to the disputed question of whether the body exists independent of life, or the creature exists independent of the body. This is much disputed by Hindu philosophers. The gross body may be dissolved, but the linga sarira (composed of the subtlest elements) exists as a cause for the unborn Soul. This is maintained by many.
Param here is explained by Nilakantha as Paramatma. Pay court i.e., seek to obtain and enjoy them.
This sacrifice is one in which the performer parts with all his wealth.
Vasumati means possessed of wealth (from Vasu and the syllable mat).
The Bengal reading chainam in the first line of 31 is better than the Bombay reading chetya, which, Nilakantha explains, means chetanavan bhava.
These seven sacrifices were the Agnishtoma, the Atyagnishtoma, the Ukthya, the Shodashi, the Vajapeya, the Atiratra, and the Aptoryama. Each of these required the consecration of the Soma.
The expression used is "He caused one umbrella only to be set up." The custom is well-known that none but kings could cause umbrellas to be held over their heads.
Kanwa had brought up in his retreat Bharata's mother Sakuntala who had been deserted, immediately after her birth, by her mother, Menaka, Bharata himself was born in Kanwa's retreat.
Jaruthyan is explained by Nilakantha as Stutyan. It may also mean Triguna-dakshinan.
The legend about the bringing down of Ganga is very beautiful. Ganga is nothing else than the melted form of Vishnu. For a time she dwelt in the pot (Kamandalu) of Brahman. The ancestors of Bhagiratha having perished through Kapila's curse, Bhagiratha resolved to rescue their spirits by calling down Ganga from heaven and causing her sacred waters to roll over the spot where their ashes lay. He succeeded in carrying out his resolution after conquering many difficulties. Urvasi literally means one who sits on the lap.
Triple-coursed, because Ganga is supposed to have one stream in heaven, one on the earth, and a third in the nether regions.
The sense, I think, is that such was the profusion of Dilipa's wealth that no care was taken for keeping gold-decked elephants within guarded enclosures.
Satadhanwan is explained by Nilakantha as one whose bow is capable of bearing a hundred Anantas.
Literally, "Me he shall suck."
The Burdwan translators take Asita and Gaya as one person called Asitangaya, and K.P. Singha takes Anga and Vrihadratha to be two different persons. Of course, both are wrong.
Samyapat is explained as hurling a heavy piece of wood. What it meant here is that Yayati, having erected an altar, took up and hurled a piece of wood forward, and upon the place where it fell, erected another altar. In this way he proceeded till he reached the very sea shore.
Dakshinah is explained by Nilakantha as men possessed of Dakshya. It may mean liberal-minded men.
Literally, 'there was but one umbrella opened on the earth in his time.'
The word in the original is nala. Nilakantha supposes that it has been so used for the sake of rhythm, the correct form being nalwa, meaning a distance of four hundred cubits.
Literally, one whose excreta are gold.
A Kshatriya should protect a Brahmana in respect of his penances and a Vaisya in respect of the duties of his order. Whatever impediments a Brahmana or a Vaisya might encounter in the discharge of his duties, must be removed by a Kshatriya.
i.e., thou shouldst think that the consequences of all acts must attach to the Supreme Being himself, he being the urger of us all.
Na Para etc., i.e., there is no Supreme Being and no next world.
No one being free in this life, all one's acts being the result of previous acts, there can be no responsibility for the acts of this life.
The manner in which this great battle has been brought about shows evidence of design and not mere Chance. Nilakantha reads hatam which is evidently wrong. There can be no doubt that the correct reading is hatham.
Nilakantha explains this in a different way. He thinks that the expression Kritantavidhisanjuktah means,--'through their own faults.'
The performer of a hundred sacrifices.
i.e., charges his pupils a fee for teaching them the scriptures.
i.e., not in a sacrifice.
Jighansiat is Jighansi and iat, i.e., may proceed with intention to slay.
i.e., one who knows that the Soma is used in sacrifices for gratifying the gods.
The rule laid down is that he should eat in the morning for the first three days, in the evening for the second three days, eat nothing but what is got without soliciting, for the next three days, and fast altogether for the three days that follow. This is called Krischara-bhojana. Observing this rule for six years, one may be cleansed of the sin of slaying a Brahmana.
The harder rule referred to is eating in the morning for seven days; in the evening for the next seven days; eating what is got without soliciting, for the next seven days; and fasting altogether for the next seven.
These are the five products of the cow, besides earth, water, ashes, acids and fire.
Appropriation etc., as in the case of the king imposing fines on offenders and appropriating them to the uses of the state. Untruth, as that of the loyal servant or follower for protecting the life of his master. Killing, as that of an offender by the king, or in the exercise of the right of self-defence.
There were, as now, persons with whom the reading or recitation of the scriptures was a profession. The functions of those men were not unlike those of the rhapsodists of ancient Greece.
i.e., one possessed of a knowledge of the Vedas.
With very slight verbal alterations, this verse, as also the first half or the next, like many others, occurs in Manu, Vide Manu, Ch. II, V, 157-58.
Pratyasanna-vyasaninam is explained by Nilakantha as 'I stand near these distressed brothers of mine' (for whose sake only I am for accepting sovereignty). This is certainly very fanciful. The plain meaning is, 'I am about to lay down my life.'
The priest of the Kauravas.
Sami is the Acacia suma; Pippala is the Piper longum; and Palasa is the Butea frondosa. Udumvara is the Ficus glomerata.
These are peace, war, marching, halting, sowing dissensions, and defence of the kingdom by seeking alliances and building forts, &c.
For if he had acted otherwise, he would have been called ungrateful.
The literal meaning of Purusha, as applied to the Supreme Being, is 'One that pervades all forms in the Universe.'
i.e., Aditi and of Aditi's self as born in different shapes at different times.
Yugas may mean either the three ages Krita, Treta and Dwapara, or, the three pairs such as Virtue and Knowledge, Renunciation and Lordship, and Prosperity and Fame.
Virat is one superior to an Emperor and Swarat is one superior to a Virat.
Vishnu, assuming the form of a dwarf, deluded the Asura Vali into giving away unto him three worlds which he forthwith restored to Indra.
The son of Uttanapada, who in the Krita age had adored Vishnu at a very early age and obtained the most valuable boons.
Sudharman was the priest of the Kurus. How came Dhaumya, who was the priest of the Pandavas, to have from before an abode in the Kuru capital?
This is an allusion to Krishna's having covered the three worlds with three of his steps for deluding the Asura Vali and depriving him of universal sovereignty.
There are three states of consciousness in the case of ordinary men, viz., waking, dream, and sound sleep. The fourth state, realisable by Yogins alone, is called Turiya. It is the state of perfect unconsciousness of this world, when the soul, abstracted within itself, is said to be fixed upon the Supreme Being or some single object.
Mind, as used generally in Hindu philosophy, is the seat of the senses and the feelings. Buddhi is the Understanding or the cognitive faculties of the Kantian school. The Bombay reading of the second line is correct. It is Gunadevah Kshetrajne etc. Nilakantha correctly explains it as Savdadiguna-bhajodevah, i.e., the senses.
The Supreme Being is called here and elsewhere Hansa, i.e., swan, because as the swan is supposed to transcend all winged creatures in the range of its flight, so the Supreme Being transcends all creatures in the universe. He is called That, as in the Vedic formula of Praise, "Thou art That," meaning, "Thou art inconceivable and incapable of being described in words."
Created things have attributes. It is Brahma only that has no attributes, in the sense that no attributes with which we are familiar can be affirmed of him.
The Vaks are the mantras; the Anuvaks are those portions of the Vedas which are called Brahmanas; the Nishads are those portions of the Vedic ritual which lead to an acquaintance with the gods. The Upanishads are those portions which treat exclusively of the knowledge of the Soul.
Quadruple soul, i.e., Brahma, Jiva, Mind, and Consciousness. The four names under which the Supreme Being is adored by the faithful are Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.
Penances are ever present in thee, in the sense thou art never without them, penances constituting thy essence. Performed by creatures, they live in thy limbs, in the sense that penances performed are never lost.
In ancient India, the Rishis living in the woods got their fire by rubbing two sticks together. These they called Arani. Brahma on earth is explained by Nilakantha to mean the Vedas, the Brahmanas, and the Sacrifices.
These are the twelve Adityas or chief gods.
Thou art pure Knowledge and resident beyond the darkness of ignorance. I bow to thee not in any of those forms in which thou art ordinarily adored but in that form of pure light which Yogins only can behold by spiritual sight.
The five libations are Dhana, Karambha, Parivapa, and water. The seven woofs are the seven mantras (Cchandas) predominating in the Vedic hymns, such as Gayatri, etc.
The Prajapatis who are the creators of the universe performed a sacrifice extending for a thousand years. The Supreme Being appeared in that sacrifice as an act of grace to the sacrificers.
Sandhis are those changes of contiguous vowels (in compounding two words) that are required by the rules of euphony. Akshara is literally a character or letter; word made up of characters or letters.
The manifest is the body. The Rishis seek thy unmanifest self within the body, in their own hearts. Kshetra is buddhi or intelligence. The Supreme Being is called Kshetrajna because he knows every mind. Intelligence or mind is one of his forms.
The sixteen attributes are the eleven senses and the five elements in their subtle forms called Mahabhutas. Added to this is Infinity. The Supreme Being, according to the Sankhya doctrine, is thus the embodiment of the number seventeen. Thy form as conceived by the Sankhyas, i.e., thy form as Number.
In cases of those that are reborn, there is always a residuum of sin and merit for which they have, in their earthly life, to suffer and enjoy. In the case, however, of those that have betaken themselves to a life of renunciation the great endeavour is to exhaust this residuum.
i.e. that which is chewed, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.
All creatures are stupefied by love and affection. The great end which the Yogins propose to themselves is to tear those bonds rising superior to all the attractions of the flesh to effect their deliverance or emancipation from rebirth.
i.e. Brahmacharin.
Linum usitatissimun.
Samsara is the world or worldly life characterised by diverse attachments. Reflection on Hari frees one from those attachments. Or, Samsara may mean the repeated deaths and births to which the unemancipated soul is subject. Contemplation of the divine Being may prevent such repeated births and deaths by leading to emancipation.
i.e. One that goes thither is not subject to rebirth.
The Vedas constitute the speech of the Supreme Being. Everything about morality occurs in them.
Literally, 'Everything thou knowest shall appear to thee by inward light.'
The sense is, I who have already the full measure of fame can scarcely add to my fame by doing or saying anything.
Literally,--'the eternal bridge of virtue.'
In the sense of being liberal. A king should not too minutely enquire into what is done with the things belonging to him.
Literally, 'worthy of being used by the king.'
Literally 'the Brahmana that would not leave his home.' The verse has been quoted in this very Parvan previously.
These seven limbs are the king, army, counsellors, friends, treasury, territory, and forts.
These six are peace (with a foe that is stronger), war (with one of equal strength), marching (to invade the dominions of one who is weaker), halting, seeking protection (if weak in one's own fort), and sowing dissensions (among the chief officers of the enemy).
Asambhayan is explained by Nilakantha as 'incapable of being overreached by foes.'
In the sense that without royal protection, the world soon comes to grief.
The duties of the cow-herd should lead him to the fields. If without manifesting any inclination for going to the fields he likes to loiter within the village he should not be employed. Similarly the barber's duties require his presence within the village. If without being present there he likes to wander in the woods, he should never be employed, for it may then be presumed that he is wanting in that skill which experience and habit bring. These two verses are often quoted in conversation by both the learned and unlearned equally.
Eloquent Brahmanas learned in the scriptures are heroes of speech. Great Kshatriya kings are heroes of exertion.
Men, by pouring libations of clarified butter on sacrificial fires, feed the gods. The latter, fed by those libations, pour rain on the earth whence men derive their sustenance. Men therefore are said to pour upwards and the gods pour downwards.
Conversation in respect of the wealth of traders and merchants; Growth in respect of the penances of ascetics; and Destruction in respect of thieves and wicked men. All these depend upon Chastisement.
The Burdwan Pundits have been very careless in translating the Santi Parva. Their version is replete with errors in almost every page. They have rendered verse 78 in a most ridiculous way. The first line of the verse merely explains the etymology of the word Dandaniti, the verb ni being used first in the passive and then in the active voice. The idam refers to the world, i.e., men in general. K.P. Singha's version of the Santi is better, and, of course, gives the correct sense of this verse.
Literally, rose above the five in the sense of having renounced the world. The Burdwan Pundits erroneously render it "died."
A Manwantara is a very long period of time, not unequal to a geological age.
"Numbered among human gods," i.e., among kings.
The correct reading is charanishpanda as given in the Bombay edition.
In both the vernacular versions the second line of 130 has been rendered wrongly. The two lines are quite unconnected with each other. Nilakantha rightly supposes that Karyam is understood after Mahikshitah. Karana, however, is not kriya as explained by Nilakantha but opportunities and means.
Nilakantha explains this verse erroneously. He thinks that the meaning is--"The king becomes obedient to that person who beholds his face to be amiable, etc., etc." It should be borne in mind that Bhishma is answering Yudhishthira's query as to why the whole world adores one man. One of the reasons is a mysterious influence which induces every man who beholds the amiable face of the king to render him homage.
The difference between a Ritwija and a Purohita is that the former is engaged on special occasions, while the services of the latter are permanent and constant.
viz., returning unwounded from battle.
For without battle, he cannot extend his kingdom and acquire wealth to give away and meet the expenses of sacrifices.
A Beshtana is literally a cloth tied round (the head); hence, a turban or pagree. The word Ousira is applied to both beds and seats. The Hindu Upanaha had wooden soles.
The Burdwan Pundits understand this verse to mean that the Sudra should offer the funeral cake unto his sonless master and support masters if old and weak. There can be little doubt that they are wrong.
Atirekena evidently means 'with excessive zeal.' Nilakantha explains it as 'with greater zeal than that which is shown in supporting his own relations.' It cannot mean, as K.P. Singha puts it, 'with the surplus left after supporting his own relations.'
A Paka-yajna is a minor sacrifice, such as the propitiation of a planet foreboding evil, or worship offered to the inferior deities called Viswadevas. A Purnapatra is literally a large dish or basket full of rice. It should consist of 256 handfuls. Beyond a Purnapatra, the Sudra should not give any other Dakshina in any sacrifice of his.
This ordinance lays down that the Dakshina should be a hundred thousand animals such as kine or horses. In the case of this particular Sudra, that ordinance (without its mantras) was followed, and a hundred thousand Purnapatras were substituted for kine or horses of that number.
Hence the Sudra, by devotion to the members of the three other classes, may earn the merit of sacrifices though he is not competent to utter mantras.
For this reason the Sudra earns the merit of the sacrifices performed by their Brahmana masters and progenitors.
The Brahmana conversant with the Vedas is himself a god. The Sudra, though incompetent to read the Vedas and utter Vedic mantras, has Prajapati for his god whom he can worship with rites other than those laid down in the Vedas. The Brahmanas have Agni for their god, and the Kshatriyas, Indra. Upadravah means a servant or attendant, hence, a Sudra.
Sacrifices are performed by the body, by words, and by the mind. The Brahmana can perform sacrifices by all the three. The Kshatriya and the Vaisya cannot perform sacrifices by means of their bodies. They must employ Brahmanas in their sacrifices. These two orders, however, can utter mantras and perform mental sacrifices. The Sudra alone cannot employ his body or utter mantras in sacrifices. The holy sacrifice in his case is the mental sacrifice. A mental sacrifice is a resolve to give away in honour of the gods or unto the gods without the aid of the Vedic ritual. The resolve must be followed by actual gifts.
i.e.. for the Sudras also.
All sacrificial fires, as a rule, are procured from the houses of Vaisyas. The sacrificial fire of the Sudra is called Vitana.
Though originally one, the Vedas have become diverse. Similarly, from the Brahmana, who created first, all the rest have sprung.
Literally, 'with eyes, head, and face on all sides.'
The sense seems to be that influenced by past acts everyone acts in subsequent lives. If he is a hunter in this life, it is because the influence of many cruel acts of a past life pursues him even in this.
Men, therefore, have not always balances of good acts to their credit. These are, however, free agents; the new acts they do determine the character of their next lives.
i.e., Their services as priests should not be taken.
Although I adopt Nilakantha's explanation of Susrushu here, yet I think that word may be taken here, as elsewhere, to have been used in the sense of one doing (menial) service.
The king is entitled to a sixth of the merits acquired by his subjects. The total merit, therefore, of the king, arising from renunciation, is very great. Besides, the merit of every kind of renunciation belongs to him in that way.
i.e., for ascertaining whether kingly duties are superior to those laid down for the several modes of life.
Probably, in the sense of there being exceptions and limitations in respect to them.
i.e., 'spread confusion on earth.'
The sense seems to be that having failed, after such comparison, to resolve their doubts, they waited upon Vishnu.
The Bengal reading satwatah seems to be an error. The Bombay text has saswatah.
Yama is explained by Nilakantha to mean Kshatriya dharmena.
Nilakantha thinks that Lingantargatam means omniscient. He is for taking this verse to mean--'Listen now to those duties about which thou askest my omniscient self.' Bhishma having acquired omniscience through Krishna's boon, refers to it here. The interpretation seems to be very far-fetched.
That object is Brahma.
i.e.. such a man acquires the merits of all the modes of life.
Dasadharmagatam is explained by Nilakantha as 'overcome with fear, etc.' Keeps his eye on the duties of all men,' i.e., protects all men in the discharge of their duties.
If this verse has a reference to kings, nyastadandah would mean one who punishes without wrath.
In this and the preceding verse, Sattwa, without being taken as used for intelligence, may be taken to mean 'the quality of goodness' as well.
Anidram is explained by Nilakantha as a kingdom where anarchy prevails, sleeplessness being its certain indication.
The sense seems to be that men patiently bear the injuries inflicted upon them by others, without seeking to right themselves by force, because they can invoke the king to punish the offenders. If there were no kings, immediate vengeance for even the slightest injuries would be the universal practice.
i.e., becoming foremost and happy here, attains to blessedness hereafter.
The Wind is said to be the charioteer of Fire, because whenever there is a conflagration, the Wind, appearing aids in extending it.
i.e., no one should covet the possessions of the king.
Kalya means able or strong; anakrandam is 'without allies'; anantaram means, 'without friends'; and Vyasaktam is 'engaged at war with another.'
Tatparah is explained by Nilakantha as Karshanaparah.
I follow Nilakantha in reading this verse.
Chaitya trees are those that are regarded holy and unto which worship is offered by the people.
Nilakantha thinks that ucchvasa means breath or air. The small doors, he thinks, are directed to be kept for the admission of air.
The tirthas are eighteen in number, such as the council-room etc.
Pays off his debt, i.e., discharges his obligations to the subjects.
The ablative has here the sense of "towards."
The correct reading seems to be sreshtham and not srishtam. If the latter reading be preferred, it would mean "the age called Krita that comes in Time's course."
i.e., these are the true sources of the royal revenue.
The meaning is that if a king attends only to the acquisition of wealth, he may succeed in acquiring wealth, but he will never succeed in earning religious merit.
Literally, 'never flourishes.'
The charcoal-maker uproots trees and plants, and burns them for producing his stock-in-trade. The flowerman, on the other hand, waters his trees and plants, and gathers only their produce.
Dharmakosha literally means the 'repository of all duties.'
Children is a euphemism for subjects, suggested by the word pitris to which it is antithetical.
Mahapathika is believed to mean a person making a voyage by the sea or the ocean, The literal meaning seems to be 'a person making a long or distant voyage.'
A Ritwij is a priest employed on a special occasion. A Purohita is one who always acts as a priest.
Ama is raw food, such as paddy or uncooked rice, or fruits, etc.
The allusion is to such men as Utanka and Parasara, who although they performed such cruel acts as the snake-sacrifice and the Rakshasa sacrifice, were none-the-less entitled to heaven. So Kshatriya kings, by invading the kingdoms of their foes and slaying thousands of Mali and animals, are nevertheless regarded to be righteous and ultimately go to heaven.
Kshatrarthe, i.e., for protecting the subjects. Anya means someone who is not a Kshatriya. Abhibhavet means 'subdues.'
Idam sastram pratidhanam na is thus explained by Nilakantha. In cases of incapacity, again, to give the prescribed Dakshina, the sacrificer is directed to give away all he has. This direction or command is certainly terrible, for who can make up his mind to part with all his wealth for completing a sacrifice?
The falsehood consists in finding substitutes for the Dakshina actually laid down. They are morsels of cooked food for a living cow, a grain of barley for a piece of cloth; a copper coin for gold; etc.
The fact is that although the sacrificer may not be able to give the Dakshina actually laid down in the Vedas, yet by giving its substitute he does not lose any merit, for a single Purnapatra (256 handfuls of rice) is as efficacious if given away with devotion, as the richest Dakshina.
i.e., such a sacrifice, instead of producing no merit, becomes the means of extending the cause of sacrifices. In other words, such a sacrifice is fraught with merit.
A Pavitra is made by a couple of Kusa blades for sprinkling clarified butter upon the sacrificial fire.
The fact is that Ahuka and Akrura were bitterly opposed to each other. Both of them, however, loved Krishna. Ahuka always advised Krishna to shun Akrura, and Akrura always advised him to shun Ahuka. Krishna valued the friendship of both and could ill dispense with either. What he says here is that to have them both is painful and yet not to have them both is equally painful.
The belief is still current that a wounded snake is certain to seek vengeance even if the person that has wounded it places miles of distance between himself and the reptile. The people of this country, therefore, always kill a snake outright and burn it in fire if they ever take it.
i.e., as long as they are paid and have in their hands what has been given to them.
i.e., shows these virtues in his conduct.
Tryavarah is explained by Nilakantha as "not less than three." The number laid down generally is five. In no case it should be less than three.
Water-citadels are those that are surrounded on all sides by a river or rivers, or the sea. Earth-citadels are those that are built, on plains fortified with high walls and encircled with trenches all around. Human-citadels are unfortified cities properly protected by guards and a loyal population.
Nilakantha says that this has reference to the second variety of citadels mentioned in the previous verse.
Such as banian, peepul, etc. These afford refreshing shade to sunburnt travellers.
'Take wisdom,' i.e., consult with them. 'Should not always wait upon them, etc.' lest robbers should kill them, suspecting them to be depositories of the king's wealth.
The sense seems to be that if a sufficient margin of profit, capable of maintaining one at ease, be not left, one would refrain absolutely from work. The king, therefore, in taxing the outturns of work, should leave such a margin of profit to the producers.
The sense is that the subjects then, on occasions of their sovereign's want, hasten to place their resources at his disposal.
i.e., without injuring the source.
The Bengal reading of the first I me of this verse is vicious. The Bombay reading kinchidanapadi (for Kasyanchidpadi) is the correct one. The commentator explains that this has reference to alms, loans, and taxes. Both the Bengal translators have made nonsense of this and the following verse.
Karmabhedatah is explained differently by Nilakantha. He thinks that it means 'lest those acts suffer injury.'
Anga is literally a part. The idea, however, is that the wealthy form an estate in the realm. Kakud is the hump of the bull. The meaning, of course, is that the man of wealth occupies a very superior position.
i.e., before the Brahmanas get their fill.
The Brahmanas are authorities for guiding other men. When, therefore, a particular Brahmana leaves the kingdom, the people lose in him a friend, teacher, and guide.
The king should dissuade in the manner indicated in verse 4. If that does not suffice, and if the person intending to leave refers to the king's previous neglect, the king should ask forgiveness and, of course, assign to him the means of maintenance.
The original is elliptical in construction. The etat of the first line has been supplied in the translation. In rendering the second line, the second half should come first. The Burdwan version, as usual, is erroneous. K.P. Singh's also is incomplete and inaccurate.
The word used is Dasyus, literally, robbers; here, enemies of society and order.
Some texts read Yoddhyavyam for Boddhyavyam, and bhunjita for yunjita.
i.e., thou shouldst care for such opinion, without being angry with those that censure or blame thee.
i.e., they who have to undergo such privations in carrying on their useful occupation should not be taxed heavily.
The correct reading is bharanti. Taranti also may give the same meaning. K. P. Singh has erroneously rendered the second line.
i.e., goes to heaven.
Bhishma says that this discourse is very old. Probably this verse has reference to the writer's idea of the motives that impelled the Rishis of Brahmavarta when they devised for their Indian colony the kingly form of government.
This verse gives the etymology of the word Rajan and Vrishala. He in whom righteousness shines (rajate) is a Rajan; and he in whom righteousness, called Vrisha, disappear, is a Vrishala. Vide next verse.
The address Bharatarshabha is misplaced, seeing that it is Utathya who is speaking and Mandhatri who is listening. The sense of the verse is that it is the king who causes the age, for if he acts righteously, the age that sets in is Krita; if, on the other hand, he acts sinfully, he causes the Kali age to set in; etc. etc.
He who protects Weakness wins heaven, while he who persecutes it goes to hell. Weakness, thus, is a great thing. Its power, so to say, is such that it can lead to heaven and hell everyone with whom it may come into contact.
The keeper of a cow has to wait, till it calves, for milk.
The sense is, I suppose, that if the king be overtaken by destruction, his officers also do not escape.
Rajnah, Nilakantha thinks, is an accusative plural.
Some texts read Saranikan, meaning traders that make journeys and voyages.
The king is God (incarnate) unto all righteous men, because they may expect everything from him. As regards the second line, the meaning depends upon bharati, which as the commentator explains means, "obtains affluence or prosperity." For Patukah some texts read Pavakah. The meaning then would be "becomes as a fire," i.e., destroys his own roots, or, probably, becomes destructive to others.
K.P. Singh, I think, translates this verse erroneously. The Burdwan version is correct. The speaker, in this verse, desires to illustrate the force of righteous conduct. Transcriber's note: There was no corresponding footnote reference in the text, so I have assigned this footnote to an arbitrary location on the page--JBH.
Teshu i.e., unto the ministers already spoken of.
The sense of the passage is that the king should not ride vicious elephants and horses, should guard himself against poisonous reptiles and the arts of women, and should take particular care while ascending mountains or entering inaccessible regions such as forests and woody valleys.
The sense is that although it is laid down that kings should fight with those only that are of the kingly order, yet when the Kshatriyas do not arm themselves for resisting an invader, or other orders may fight for putting down those that so arm themselves against the kings.
The Bengal reading of this verse, which I adopt, is better than the Bombay reading. The Bengal reading is more consistent with what follows in verse 8. If the Bombay reading be adopted, the translation would run thus:--"One should not fight a Kshatriya in battle unless he has put on armour. One should fight with one, after challenging in those words--'Shoot, for I am shooting at thee.'" K.P. Singh's rendering is substantially correct. The Burdwan version, as usual, is wrong.
The distress referred to here is of being unhorsed or deprived of car or of weapons, etc.
The original is very elliptical. I, therefore, expand it after the manner of the commentator. Regarding the last half of the second line, I do not follow Nilakantha in his interpretation.
This verse also is exceedingly elliptical in the original.
The sense seems to be that in fighting with the aid of deceit the enemy should not be slain outright, such slaughter being sinful. Slaying an enemy, however, in fair fight is meritorious.
This verse is not intelligible, nor does it seem to be connected with what goes before.
The meaning is that king Pratardana took what is proper to be taken and hence he incurred no sin. King Divodasa, however, by taking what he should not have taken, lost all the merit of his conquests.
Nilakantha takes Mahajanam to mean the Vaisya traders that accompany all forces. Following him, the vernacular translators take that word in the same sense. There can be little doubt, however, that this is erroneous. The word means "vast multitudes." Why should Yudhishthira refer to the slaughter of only the Vaisyas in the midst of troops as his reason for supposing Kshatriya practices to be sinful? Apayana means "flight." I prefer to read Avayana meaning 'march.'
The protection of subjects is likened here to the performance of a sacrifice that has the merit of all sacrifices. The final present in that sacrifice is the dispelling of everybody's fear.
i.e., not at the weapon's edge, but otherwise.
Ajya is any liquid substance, generally of course clarified butter, that is poured upon the sacrificial fire.
Sphis is the wooden stick with which lines are drawn on the sacrificial platform.
The van of the hostile army is the place of his wives, for he goes thither as cheerfully as he does to such a mansion. Agnidhras are those priests that have charge of the celestial fires.
To take up a straw and hold it between the lips is an indication of unconditional surrender.
I do not understand how this is an answer to Yudhishthira's question. Nilakantha thinks that truth, in the above, means the ordinances in respect of Kshatriya duties; that Upapatti, which I understand means reasoning (or conclusion), indicates a disregard for life, for those ordinances lead to no other conclusion. Good behaviour, according to him, means encouraging the soldiers, speaking sweetly to them, and promoting the brave, etc. Means and contrivances consist in punishing desertion and cowardliness, etc. If Nilakantha be right, what Bhishma says is that battles (which, of course, are intended for the protection of righteousness) become possible in consequence of these four causes.
The seven stars of this constellation are supposed to be the seven great Rishis, viz., Marichi, Atri, Angira, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasishtha.
Venus.
Like Bhurisravas on the field of Kurukshetra.
Probably, one that has begun a sacrifice extending for a long period. The Yadava hero Akrura avoided challenges to battle by beginning a sacrifice. See Harivansa, the sections on the Syamantaka stone.
A form of expression meaning shameless.
This refers to death and physical pain, as explained by Nilakantha.
Skandha, Nilakantha thinks, means Samuha here.
i.e., the soldiers should be drawn up as to form a wedge-like appearance with a narrow head.
Kulinja has many meanings. Nilakantha think that the word, as used here, means 'snake.'
The object of these two verses is to indicate that a learned astrologer and a learned priest are certain means for procuring victories by warding off all calamities caused by unpropitious fate and the wrath of the gods.
If a single deer takes fright and runs in a particular direction, the whole herd follows it without knowing the cause. The simile is peculiarly appropriate in the case of large armies. Particularly of Asiatic hosts, if a single division takes to flight, the rest follows it. Fear is very contagious. The Bengal reading jangha is evidently incorrect. The Bombay reading is sangha. The Burdwan translators have attempted the impossible feat of finding sense by adhering to the incorrect reading. The fact is, they did not suspect the viciousness of the text.
I have endeavoured to give the very construction of the original. It is curious to see how the Burdwan Pundits have misunderstood the simple verse.
Samiti is explained by Nilakantha to mean battle, and vijasyasya as vijigishamanasya. Unless it be an instance of a cruce, vijasyasya can scarcely be understood in such a sense.
i.e., the king should try conciliation, sending at the same time an invading force, or making an armed demonstration. Such politic measures succeed in bringing about peace.
i.e., ascertaining everything regarding him.
The French had taken Alsace and Lorraine. That was an impolitic step, though, perhaps, Germany also, by taking back those provinces after they had been completely Frenchified, has committed the same mistake. Such injuries rankle in the heart and are never forgotten.
i.e., ruin him outright.
Brahma-dandah is the chastisement through the gods. When foes are not seen, i.e., when they are at a distance, the king should employ his priest to perform the rites of the Atharvan for bringing destruction upon them. In the case, however, of foes being seen, i.e., when they are near, he should move his troops without depending upon Atharvan rites.
Nipunam is explained by Nilakantha as Kusalam; and after drabhet pestum is understood.
The sixfold forces are foot, horse, elephants, cars, treasury, and traders following the camp.
I adopt Nilakantha's explanation of this verse. Loss of crops, etc. are the inevitable consequences of expeditions. The king, on such occasions, is obliged also to take particular care of the seven branches of administration. As these are all unpleasant, they should be avoided.
i.e., starts such subjects for conversation as do not arise naturally, for what he has in view is the proclaiming of the faults of other people, a topic in which he alone is interested and not his hearers.
In the Bengal texts there is an error of reading viz., Satru for Yatra in the first line of verse 3. The Burdwan Pundits repeat the error in their vernacular version. K.P. Singha, of course, avoids it.
The Bengal texts, in the second line of verse 7, contain an error, Saktincha is evidently a misreading for Sokancha. The Burdwan version, as a matter of course, repeats the error, while K.P. Singha avoids it.
i.e., though dispossessed of my kingdom, I cannot yet cast off the hope of recovering it.
i.e., he should think that his wealth has been given to him for the sake of friends and relatives and others. He will then succeed in practising charity.
Nilakantha explains Kusalah as niamatsarah and anyatra as Satrau. I do not follow him.
The Bengal texts read Vidhitsa dhanameva cha. This is evidently erroneous. The correct reading, as given in the Bombay text, is Vidhitsasadhanena cha. Both the Bengali versions are incorrect.
The Vilwa is the fruit of the Egle marmelos.
The sense seems to be that by causing thy foe to be attached to these things, the treasury of thy foe is likely to be exhausted. If this can be brought about, thy foe will soon be ruined.
i.e., for the ruler of Videhas.
Jitavat is explained by Nilakantha as prapta jaya.
The word is Gana. It literally means an assemblage. There can be no doubt that throughout this lesson the word has been employed to denote the aristocracy of wealth and blood that surround a throne.
If the king, moved by avarice, taxes them heavily, the aristocracy resent it and seek to pull down the king.
i.e., learned men of humility.
Probably, with the king.
The Burdwan Pundits make a mess of the last two verses. In 31, there is an incorrect reading in the Bengal texts. It is Pradhanaccha for pradanaccha. The Burdwan version repeats the error. K.P. Singha, of course, avoids it, but his version is rather incomplete.
Literally, "One should not follow that course of duty which they do not indicate. That again is duty which they command. This is settled."
Pratyasannah is explained by Nilakantha in a different way. I think, his interpretation is far-fetched.
i.e., who knows when truth becomes as harmful as untruth, and untruth becomes as righteous as truth.
Vide ante, Karna Parva.
Alludes to ante, Karna Parva. The Rishi, by pointing out the place where certain innocent persons had concealed themselves while flying from a company of robbers, incurred the sin of murder.
The allusion is to the story of an owl going to heaven for having, with his beaks, broken a thousand eggs laid by a she-serpent of deadly poison. The Burdwan Pundits have made nonsense of the first line of verse 8. There is no connection between the first and the second lines of this verse. K.P. Singha has rendered it correctly.
This refers to the well-known definition of Dharma ascribed to Vasishtha, viz., "That which is laid down in the Srutis and Smritis is Dharma." The defect of this definition is that the Srutis and the Smritis do not include every duty. Hence Vasishtha was obliged to add that where these are silent, the examples and practices of the good ought to be the guides of men, etc.
The Burdwan translator has made a mess of verse 21. K.P. Singha quietly leaves it out. The act is, Swakaryastu is Swakariastu, meaning 'let the appropriator be.'
The construction is elliptical. Yah samayam chikrashet tat kurvit.
The meaning is that though born in a low race, that is no reason why I should act like a low person. It is conduct that determines the race and not the race that determines conduct. There may be pious persons therefore, in every race. The Burdwan version of this line is simply ridiculous.
Yatram means, as explained by the commentator, the duties of government.
Nilakantha explains aparasadhanah as aparasa adhanah, i.e., without rasa or affection and without dhana or wealth. This is very far-fetched.
Perhaps the sense is that men of vigorous understanding think all states to be equal.
The true policy, therefore, is to wait for the time when the foe becomes weak.
Mridustikshnena is better than Mridutikshnena.
A bird that is identified by Dr. Wilson with the Parra Jacana.
In India, the commonest form of verbal abuse among ignorant men and women is 'Do thou meet with death,' or, 'Go thou to Yama's house.' What Bhishma says is that as these words are uttered in vain, even so the verbal accusations of wicked men prove perfectly abortive.
The Burdwan Pundits have totally misunderstood the first line of this verse. K.P. Singha has rendered it correctly.
A dog is an unclean animal in Hindu estimation.
The antithesis consists, as pointed out by Nilakantha, in this, viz., the man of high birth, even if ruined undeservedly, would not injure his master. The man however, that is of low birth, would become the foe of even a kind master if only a few words of censure be addressed to him.
Nilakantha explains that na nirddandvah means na nishparigrahah.
i.e., 'speak in brief of them, or give us an abridgment of thy elaborate discourses.'
i.e., as the commentator explains, keenness, when he punishes and harmlessness when he shows favour.
i.e., 'should assume the qualities (such as keenness, etc.), necessary for his object.' K.P. Singha's version of the last line of 8 is erroneous. The Burdwan version is right.
Vrihadvrikshamivasravat is explained by Nilakantha as Vrihantak Vrikshah Yatra; asravat is explained as rasamprasravat. I think Vrihadvriksham may be taken as a full-grown Palmyra tree. The sense is that as men always draw the juice from a full-grown tree and not from a young one, even so the king should take care as to how taxes should be laid upon subjects that are unable to bear them.
i.e., by tampering with the governors of the citadels and the garrisons of his foes, as the commentator explains.
i.e., that king who is vain and covetous.
Whether it belongs to himself or to any other person.
The sense seems to be that a king should always be guided by the precepts of the science of king-craft without depending upon chance.
i.e., he who earns religious merit is sure to obtain such regions; and as great merit may be acquired by properly discharging kingly duties one may, by such conduct, win much felicity hereafter.
Vyavahara is vi and avahara, hence that through which all kinds of misappropriation are stopped. It is a name applied to Law and administration of justice.
The commentator, in a long note, gives very fanciful explanations touching every one of these peculiarities of form. He understands Mrigaraja to mean the black antelope. I cannot reject the obvious meaning of the word. The object of the poet is simply to create a form that is frightful.
These are Righteousness, Law, Chastisement, God, and Living Creature.
The nearest approach in English to what is meant here by Vyavahara is Law. Three kinds of Vyavahara or Law are here spoken of. The first is the ordinary Law, according to which the disputes of litigants are decided, it includes both civil and criminal law, it is quaintly described here as Vattripratyayalakskana, i.e., 'characterised by a belief in either of two litigant parties.' When a suit, civil or criminal, is instituted, the king or those that act in the king's name must call for Evidence and decide the matter by believing either of the two parties. Then follows restoration or punishment. In either case, it is a form of Chastisement. The second kind of Vyavahara or Law is the ecclesiastical law of the Vedas. These are the precepts or injunctions laid down in those sacred books for regulating every part of human duty. The third kind of Vyavahara or Law is the particular customs of families or races. It is also called kulachara. Where Kulachara is not inconsistent or in open variance with the established civil or criminal Law, or is not opposed to the spirit of the ecclesiastical law as laid down in the Vedas, it is upheld. (Even the British courts of law uphold Kulachara, interpreting it very strictly). What Bhishma says here is that even Kulachara should not be regarded as inconsistent with the scriptures (Vedas and Smritis).
In the verse 52 Bhishma says that the first kind of Vyavahara or Law, i.e., the ordinary civil and criminal law of a realm, must be regarded as resting on the king. But as this kind of law has the Veda for its soul and has originally flowed from Brahman, a king incurs no sin by administering it and by inflicting chastisement in its administration. The purport in brief of verse 54 is that Manu and others, in speaking of Morality and duty have said that it is as binding as the ordinary law that is administered by kings.
Jataharamadisat may also mean 'ordered the removal of his matted locks'--in other words, 'had a shave.'
i.e., to acknowledge thee as a tutor.
The sense is that inasmuch as the Grandsire, who was the governor of the universe, assumed the mild and peaceful aspect of a sacrificer, Chastisement which had dwelt in his furious form could no longer exist.
Though Sula is mentioned, yet it is Vishnu and not Mahadeva, that is implied. Generally the word means any weapon.
The whole account contains more than one inconsistency. The commentator is silent. I think the inconsistencies are incapable of being explained. It is very probable that there have been interpolations in the passage. Verse 34 is probably an interpolation, as also verse 36.
i.e., Self-denial or discipline.
I have not the faintest idea of what is intended by these verses, viz., 43 and 51. Nilakantha is silent. It is very doubtful if they have really any meaning.
The commentator illustrates this by the action of a virtuous husband seeking congress with his wedded wife in the proper season. There is religious merit in the performance of the rites known by the name of Garbhadhana; there is pleasure in the act itself; and lastly, wealth or profit in the form of a son is also acquired.
There are three qualities or attributes that characterise human acts, viz., Goodness, Passion, and Darkness. Vide the latter sections of the Bhagavadgita. Such Virtue and Wealth and Pleasure, therefore, are not very high objects of pursuit. Things possessing the attribute of Goodness only are worthy of pursuit.
i.e., one should seek virtue for only compassing purity of soul; Wealth in order that one may spend it in acts undertaken without desire of fruit; and Pleasure for only supporting the body.
Dharmadinkamanaishthikan, i.e., having Dharma for the first and Karna for the last, hence Virtue, Wealth and Pleasure.
Pisitaudanam is food mixed with pounded meat; a kind of Pilau, or, perhaps, Kabab.
Vagagravidyanam is explained by Nilakantha to mean persons whose learning is at the end of their tongues and not buried in books; hence, persons of sharp memory.
The asker wishes to rob Prahlada of his conduct.
This lake is at a great height on the Himalayas.
The spirits of those two immortal sages are supposed to dwell for ever, in that retreat in the enjoyment of true happiness.
i.e., Hope is slender; while things unconnected with Hope are the reverse.
The sense is that such persons should always be distrusted. Yet there are men who hope for good from them. Such hope, the sage says, is slenderer than his slender body.
The word maya repeated in verses 14 to 18 is explained by Nilakantha as having the sense of mattah. The meaning, of course, is very plain. Yet the Burdwan translator has strangely misunderstood it. K.P. Singha, of course, gives an accurate version.
For the king's disregard of the sage in former days.
The distress, which Yudhishthira felt at the thought of the slaughter in battle.
i.e., this is not a subject upon which one can or should discourse before miscellaneous audiences.
i.e., by ingenious contrivances a king may succeed in filling his treasury, or his best ingenuity and calculations may fail.
i.e., with a pure heart.
i.e., when the season of distress is over.
i.e., under ordinary situations of circumstances.
i.e., he should perform expiations and do good to them whom he has injured, so that these may not remain discontented with him.
He should not seek to rescue the merit of other or of himself, i.e., he should not, at such times, refrain from any act that may injure his own merit or that of others; in other words, he may disregard all considerations about the religious merits of others and of himself His sole concern at such a time should be to save himself, that is, his life.
Sankhalikhitam, i.e., that which is written on the forehead by the Ordainer.
Literally, "cause to be removed."
The army and the criminal courts.
The commentator explains it in the following way. The ordinary texts, without exceptions of any kind, laid down for seasons of distress, permit a king to fill his treasury by levying heavy contributions on both his own subjects and those of hostile kingdoms. An ordinary king, at such a time, acts in this way. A king, however, that is endued with intelligence, while levying such contributions, takes care to levy them upon those that are wicked and punishable among his own subjects and among the subjects of other kingdoms, and refrains from molesting the good. Compare the conduct of Warren Hastings in exacting a heavy tribute, when his own treasury was empty, from Cheyt Singh, whose unfriendliness for the British power was a matter of notoriety.
The sense seems to be that there are persons who hold that priests and Brahmanas should never be punished or taxed. This is the eternal usage, and, therefore, this is morality. Others who approve of the conduct of Sankha towards his brother Likhita on the occasion of the latter's appropriating a few fruits belonging to the former, are of a different opinion. The latter class of persons Bhishma says, are as sincere as the former in their opinion. They cannot be blamed for holding that even priests and Brahmanas may be punished when offending.
Duty depending on all the four foundations, i.e., as laid down in the Vedas; as laid down in the Smritis; as sanctioned by ancient usages and customs; and as approved by the heart or one's own conscience.
i.e., yield with ease.
Grammatically, the last line may mean,--'The very robbers dread a king destitute of compassion.'
Their wives and children ought to be saved, and their habitations and wearing apparel and domestic utensils, etc., should not be destroyed.
i.e., 'he that has wealth and forces.'
The sense seems to be that a poor man can have only a little of all earthly things. That little, however, is like the remnant of a strong man's dinner.
It is always reproachful to accept gifts from persons of questionable character.
The king should similarly, by punishing the wicked, cherish the good.
The sense seems to be that sacrifice proceeds more from an internal desire than from a large sum of money lying in the treasury. If the desire exists, money comes gradually for accomplishing it. The force of the simile consists in the fact that ants (probably white ants) are seen to gather and multiply from no ostensible cause.
The meaning is that as regards good men, they become friends in no time. By taking only seven steps in a walk together, two such men become friends.
Virtue prolongs life, and sin and wickedness always shorten it. This is laid down almost everywhere in the Hindu scriptures.
i.e., if ex-casted for irreligious practices.
The correct reading is Jatakilwishat.
The sense, of course, is that such a man, when filled with fear, becomes unable to ward off his dangers and calamities. Prudence requires that one should fear as long as the cause of fear is not at hand. When, however, that cause has actually presented itself, one should put forth one's courage.
The hostility between Krishna and Sisupala was due to the first of these causes; that between the Kurus and the Pandavas to the second; that between Drona and Drupada to the third; that between the cat and the mouse to the fourth; and that between the bird and the king (in the present story) to the fifth.
The sense seems to be that the act which has led to the hostility should be calmly considered by the enemy before he gives way to anger.
If it is Time that does all acts, there can be no individual responsibility.
i.e., they are indifferent to other people's sorrow.
Honey-seekers direct their steps through hill and dale by marking intently the course of the flight of bees. Hence they meet with frequent falls.
Everything decays in course of time. Vide the characteristics of the different Yugas, ante.
i.e., do any of these or all as occasion may require.
The king should imitate the cuckoo by causing his own friends or subjects to be maintained by others; he should imitate the boar by tearing up his foes by their very roots; he should imitate the mountains of Meru by presenting such a front that nobody may transgress him he should imitate an empty chamber by keeping room enough for storing acquisitions he should imitate the actor by assuming different guises; and lastly, he should imitate devoted friend in attending to the interests of his loving subjects.
The crane sits patiently by the water side for hours together in expectation of fish.
i.e., if he passes safely through the danger.
The triple aggregate consists of Virtue, Wealth, and Pleasure. The disadvantages all arise from an injudicious pursuit of each. Virtue stands as an impediment in the way of Wealth; Wealth stands in the way of Virtue; and Pleasure stands in the way of both. The inseparable adjuncts of the three, in the case of the vulgar, are that Virtue is practised as a means of Wealth, Wealth is sought as a means of Pleasure; and Pleasure is sought for gratifying the senses. In the case of the truly wise, those adjuncts are purity of the soul as the end of virtue, performance of sacrifices as the end of Wealth; and upholding of the body as the end of Pleasure.
Literally, 'preservation of what has been got, and acquisition of what is desired.'
These depend on the king, i.e., if the king happens to be good, prosperity, etc., are seen. On the other hand, if the king becomes oppressive and sinful, prosperity disappears, and every kind of evil sets in.
In India, during the hot months, charitable persons set up shady thatches by the sides of roads for the distribution of cool water and raw sugar and oat soaked in water. Among any of the principal roads running through the country, one may, during the hot months, still see hundreds of such institutions affording real relief to thirsty travellers.
Such as Rakshasas and Pisachas and carnivorous birds and beasts.
Abandoning his Homa fire.
i.e., flowers already offered to the deities.
No one of the three regenerate orders should take dog's meat. If thou takest such meat, where would then the distinction be between persons of those orders and men like Chandalas?
Agastya was a Rishi. He could not do what was sinful.
The idea that man comes alone into the world and goes out of it alone. Only the wife is his true associate for she alone is a sharer of his merits, and without her no merit can be won. The Hindu idea of marriage is a complete union. From the day of marriage the two persons become one individual for the performance of all religious and other acts.
The sense seems to be that our strength, though little, should be employed by us in attending to the duties of hospitality in our own way.
Literally, 'thou art at home,' meaning I will not spare any trouble in making thee feel and enjoy all the comforts of home in this place.
Mahaprasthana is literally an unreturning departure. When a person leaves home for wandering through the world till death puts a stop to his wanderings, he is said to go on Mahaprasthana.
The theory is that all distresses arise originally from mental error which clouds the understanding. Vide Bhagavadgita.
Making gifts, etc.
Here amum (the accusative of adas) evidently means 'that' and not 'this.' I think the reference, therefore, is to heaven and not to this world.
These are Mleccha tribes of impure behaviour.
i.e., for my instructions.
So great was the repugnance felt for the slayer of a Brahmana that to even talk with him was regarded a sin. To instruct such a man in the truths of the Vedas and of morality was to desecrate religion itself.
The version of 5 is offered tentatively. That a person possessed of affluence should become charitable is not wonderful. An ascetic, again, is very unwilling to exercise his power. (Witness Agastya's unwillingness to create wealth for gratifying his spouse.) What is meant by these two persons not living at a distance from each other is that the same cause which makes an affluent person charitable operates to make an ascetic careful of the kind of wealth he has.
That which is asamikshitam is samagram karpanyam.
Nilakantha explains that vala here means patience (strength to bear) and ojas (energy) means restraints of the senses.
Both the vernacular translators have rendered the second line of verse 25 wrongly. They seem to think that a person by setting out for any of the sacred waters from a distance of a hundred yojanas becomes cleansed. If this meaning be accepted then no man who lives within a hundred yojanas of any of them has any chance of being cleansed. The sense, of course, is that such is the efficacy of these tirthas that a man becomes cleansed by approaching even to a spot within a hundred yojanas of their several sites.
These mantras form a part of the morning, noon and evening prayer of every Brahmana. Aghamarshana was a Vedic Rishi of great sanctity.
In the first line of 26 the correct reading is Kutah not Kritah as adopted by the Burdwan translators.
i.e., beasts and birds. The vernacular translators wrongly render it--'Behold the affection that is cherished by those that are good towards even the beasts and birds!'
The correct reading is Murtina (as in the Bombay text) and not Mrityuna. The Burdwan version adopts the incorrect reading.
The allusion is to the story of Rama having restored a dead Brahmana boy. During Rama's righteous reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, one day that a Brahmana father came to Rama's court and complained of the premature death of his son. Rama instantly began to enquire after the cause. Some sinful act in some corner of the kingdom, it was suspected, had caused the deed. Soon enough Rama discovered a Sudra of the name of Samvuka engaged in the heart of a deep forest in ascetic penances. The king instantly cut off the man's head inasmuch as a Sudra by birth had no right to do what that man was doing. As soon as righteousness was upheld, the deceased Brahmana boy revived. (Ramayana, Uttarakandam).
Literally, 'by giving up their own bodies'.
i.e., he is sure to come back to life.
The word sramana is used in Brahmanical literature to signify a certain order of ascetics or yatis that have renounced work for meditation. It is also frequently employed to mean a person of low life or profession. It should be noted, however, that in Buddhistic literature the word came to be exclusively used for Buddhist monks.
This is how Nilakantha seems to explain the line, Bhishma is anxious about the effect of his instructions. He says that those instructions would bear fruit if the gods will it; otherwise, his words would go for nothing, however carefully he might speak.
The commentator explains that including the first, altogether 12 questions are put by Yudhishthira.
This is an answer to the first question viz., the general aspect of ignorance.
The word Sreyas has a peculiar meaning. It implies, literally, the best of all things; hence, ordinarily, in such passages, it means beatitude or the highest happiness that one may acquire in heaven. It means also those acts of virtue by which that happiness may be acquired. It should never be understood as applicable to anything connected with earthly happiness, unless, of course, the context would imply it.
The sense is that such a man never sets his heart upon things of this world, and accordingly these, when acquired, can never satisfy him. His aspirations are so great and so high above anything this world can give him that the attainment of even the region of Brahma cannot, as the commentator explains, gratify him. At first sight this may look like want of contentment, but in reality, it is not so. The grandeur of his aspirations is sought to be enforced. Contentment applies only to ordinary acquisitions, including even blessedness in heaven.
i.e., such a man is sure of attaining to a blessed end.
Such as distinctions of caste, of dress, of food, etc., etc.
A reference to the region of Brahma, which is supposed to be located within every heart. One reaches that region through penances and self-denial. The sense, of course, is that his is that pure felicity of the heart who has succeeded in driving off all evil passions therefrom.
The word used here is Buddhasya (genitive of Buddha.) May not this verse be a reference to the Buddhistic idea of a Buddha?
i.e., both are equally efficacious.
In the Bengal texts, verse 9 is a triplet. In the second line the correct reading is nirvedat and not nirdesat. Avadya is fault. Vinivartate is understood at the end of the third line, as suggested by Nilakantha. Both the Bengali versions of 9 are incomplete, the Burdwan one being also incorrect.
The commentator explains that compassion, like the faults enumerated above, agitates the heart and should be checked for the sake of individual happiness or tranquillity of soul.
In India, from the remotest times, preceptors are excluded from charging their pupils any fees for the instruction they give. No doubt, a final fee, called Gurudakshina, is demandable, but that is demandable after the pupil has completed his studies. To sell knowledge for money is a great sin. To this day in all the indigenous schools of the country, instruction is imparted free of all charges. In addition to this, the pupils are fed by their preceptors. The latter, in their turn, are supported by the charity of the whole country.
Dakshina is the present or gift made in sacrifices.
Vahirvyedichakrita, etc., is the correct reading.
i.e., such a person may perform a grand sacrifice in which Soma is offered to the gods and drunk by the sacrificer and the priests.
The Burdwan translator, misled by the particle nah, supposes that this verse contains an injunction against the spoliation of a Sudra. The fact is, the nah here is equal to 'ours'.
Who has fasted for three whole days.
Aswastanavidhana is the rule of providing only for today without thinking of the morrow.
The sense, of course, is that if a Brahmana starves, that is due to the king having neglected his duty of providing for him.
I follow Nilakantha in rendering abrahmanam manyamanah. It may also mean 'regarding himself to be a fallen Brahmana (for the time being)'.
It should be noted that the word foeticide used in such texts frequently means all sins that are regarded as equivalent to foeticide. Hence, killing a Brahmana is foeticide, etc.
There is a material difference of reading in this verse. Following the Bengal texts, the above version is given. The Bombay text runs as follows: 'upon his body being burnt therewith, or by death, he becomes cleansed.' The Bombay text seems to be vicious. Drinking is regarded as one of the five heinous sins. The severer injunction contained in the Bengal texts seems therefore, to be the correct reading.
The true reading is nigacchati and not niyacchati. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood the word papam in this verse.
Nilakantha correctly explains the connection of Susamsitah.
Nilakantha explains that the question of Nakula excited the heart of Bhishma and caused a flow of blood through his wounds. Hence Bhishma compares himself to a hill of red-chalk.
Durvarani, Durvaradini, Durvachadini, are some of the readings of the first line.
Literally, family or clan; here origin.
The second line of 19 is unintelligible.
Taddhitwa is tat hi twa. Nilakantha thinks that twa here is twam.
In the Bengal texts, 41 is made a triplet, and 42 is made to consist of a single line; 42 is represented as Vaisampayana's speech. This is evidently an error; 41 a couplet. 42 also is so. Rajna etc., refer to Bhima. K.P. Singha avoids the error; the Burdwan translator, as usual, makes a mess of 41 by taking it to be a triplet.
There can be very little doubt that the second line has a distinct reference to the principal article of faith in Buddhism. Emancipation here is identified with Extinction or Annihilation. The word used is Nirvana. The advice given is abstention from attachments of every kind. These portions of the Santi are either interpolations, or were written after the spread of Buddhism.
The doctrine set forth in 48 is the doctrine of either Universal Necessity as expounded by Leibnitz, or that of Occasional Causes of the Cartesian school. In fact, all the theories about the government of the universe are strangely jumbled together here.
i.e., they that have wives and have procreated children.
Raktamivavikam and not Raktamivadhikam, is the correct reading. The Burdwan translator accepts the incorrect reading.
The true reading is Brahmavarjitah and not that word in the accusative. Both the Bengali versions have adhered to the incorrect reading of the Bengal texts.
i.e., it was not a piece torn off from a full piece, but both its dasas or ends were there.
To this day there are many Brahmanas in India who are asudra-pratigrahins, i.e., who accept no gift, however rich, from a Sudra.
Kimpurusha is half-man and half-horse. The body is supposed to be that of a horse, and the face that of a man.
Literally, 'for obtaining goods'.
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.
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.
Surabhi is the celestial cow sprung from the sage Daksha.
Whether the word is chirat or achirat is difficult to make out.
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.
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.
And not the Soul, as the commentator explains. With the death of the body joy and grief disappear.
The art by which the body could, as in Egypt, be preserved for thousands of years was not known to the Rishis.
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.
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).
The two extremes, of course, are dreamless slumber and Turiya or Samadhi. The two intermediate ones are wakefulness and sleep with dream.
Pride in consequences of having insulted or humiliated others; and success over others such as victories in battle and other concerns of the world.
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.
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.
This is the same as 46. The Bombay edition does not repeat it.
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.
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.
i.e., coursing on, without waiting for any one.
Literally, intelligent.
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.
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.
i.e., wild beasts and lawless men.
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)'.
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.
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.
or, seek Brahma in thy understanding. The word Atman is often synonymous with Supreme Self.
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.
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.
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.'
Exertion to be successful must depend on circumstances. The combination of circumstances is destiny.
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.
i.e., arrive at such a point that nothing was left for him to desire.
i.e., with the view of doing thee good, I shall emancipate myself from all attachments and enjoy the blessedness of tranquillity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
The allusion is to the story of Pingala, in Section 74 ante.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The meaning is that even copious drafts do not slake thirst permanently, for after being slaked, it is sure to return.
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.
The auspicious constellations are such as Pushya and others; the inauspicious are Mula Aslesha, Magha, etc; yajnaprasava may also mean the fruits of sacrifices.
Anwikshikim may also mean 'microscopic'.
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.'
i.e., even if he seeks to avoid it.
i.e., becomes his inseparable associate.
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.
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.'
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.
Manasa means 'appertaining to the mind,' or rather, the Will. Mahat literally means great.
Veda is here used in the sense of Knowledge and Power.
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.
The word Devah here is evidently used in the sense of luminous or shining ones and not in that of gods or deities.
The Rishis supposed that the pouring of water created the air instead only of displaying it.
All created things are called Bhutas, but the five principal elements, viz., fire, air, earth, water, and space, are especially called Bhutas or Mahabhutas.
This is certainly curious as showing that the ancient Hindus knew how to treat diseased plants and restore them to vigour.
K.P. Singha wrongly renders this verse. The Burdwan translator is right.
Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts read bhutani. The correct reading, however, appears to be bhutanam.
The word for duct is Srotas. It may also be rendered 'channel.' Very like the principal artery or aorta.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
The word Ghrina may also mean aversion. Of course, here it would mean, if used in that sense, aversion for all unrighteous acts.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
The sense seems to be that Vedas declare those fruits in order that men may strive for them when they lead to happiness.
Nearly the whole of this section is prose.
It is difficult to understand in what senses the word Dharma is used in the three successive questions here.
In the first line the correct reading is Brahmana and not Brahmarshi. The answer attributed to Bhrigu settles this.
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.
i.e., by picking up fallen grains from the field after the crop has been cut away and removed by the owner.
Upaskara means renunciation.
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.
The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.
Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.
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.
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.
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.
Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.
All knowledge there is certain.
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.
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.
Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.
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.
The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.
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.
The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The word rendering 'perceptions' is Vijnanani. 'Cognitions' would perhaps, be better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The first two words of the second line are those of verse 5. See I, Manu.
Kathanchit is explained by Nilakantha as 'due to great ill-luck.'
I do not follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse.
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.
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.
Nilakantha takes the third line as elliptical and is for supplying te labhante.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sankhya is understood by the commentator as implying Vedanta-vichara.
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.
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.
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.
i.e., he should first cleanse his heart by observing the virtues above enumerated.
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.
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.
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.
Even this is a kind of hell, for there is re-birth attached to it.
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.
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.
Na samyuktah is explained by the commentator as aviraktopi hathena tyaktabhogah.
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.
The six Angas are Siksha, Kalpa, Vyakarana, Nirukta, Chhandas, Jyotish.
i.e., an insight not obtained in the ordinary way but by intuition.
K.P. Singha mistranslates the word sadhaye. It means 'I go', and not 'I will strive etc.' The Burdwan translator is correct.
Work and Abstention from work are the two courses of duty prescribed or followed.
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.
Picking solitary grains from the crevices in the fields after the crops have been gathered and taken away.
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.
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.
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.
This is not Emancipation, but merely terminable felicity.
Attains to Emancipation or Absorption into the essence of Brahma.
These are Direct knowledge (through the senses), Revelation, Inference, and Intuition.
The first six are Hunger, Thirst, Grief, Delusion, Disease, and Death. The other sixteen are the five breaths, the ten senses, and the mind.
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.
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.
The sense seems to be that yogins attain to Brahma even here; whereas Reciters attain to him after death.
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.
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.
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.
The meaning of 'hell' as applied in such passages has been explained before.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
viz., Taste, etc.
Existent, line atom; non-existent, line space; existent-nonexistent, line Maya or illusion.
Aswabhavam is explained by the commentator as Pramatri-twadi vihinam.
i.e., one sees one's own soul.
i.e., which, though one, divides itself into a thousand form like the image of the moon in a quantity of agitated water.
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.
It is difficult to understand why the idea of lamps set on trees is introduced here.
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.
Exists in its own nature, i.e., unaffected by attributes and qualities and accidents.
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.
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.
The commentator cites the Gita which furnishes a parallel passage, viz., Indriyani paranyahurindriyebhyah param manah, etc.
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.
By death on sleep.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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).
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.
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.
Caswasasya is an instance of Bhavapradhananirdesa, i.e., of a reference to the principal attribute connected by it.
Indriaih rupyante or nirupyante, hence Indriyarupani.
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.
Or, regains his real nature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Te in the first line is equal to tava.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I take the obvious meaning, instead of the learned explanation offered by Nilakantha.
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.
Gunam, literally, attributes; hence objects possessed of attributes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prajapati literally means 'lord of creatures.' It is a name applied to those sons of Brahman who begat children.
Samavartin is another name for Yama the punisher of the wicked.
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.
K.P. Singha takes Naravara as the name of a tribe. Of course, it is a careless blunder.
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.
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.
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.
This is certainly a very fanciful etymology of the word Sanatana which ordinarily implies eternal.
Atma Atmanah is explained by Nilakantha as jivasya paramarthikam swarupam.
Swamatmanam is Pratyathatmyam.
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?
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.
i.e., the body.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vipakram is explained by Nilakantha as pakahinam; and apakvakashayakhyam as apakva-kashaye pumsi akhya upadesah yasya lam etc.
Anuplavan is anusaran; akramya means upamridya.
Vijnana here means the loss or absence of knowledge.
Yathartham, i.e., for the true objects of life, viz., for acting righteously and accomplishing emancipation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kritalakshanah is explained by the Commentator as Kritaswikarah.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The three Riks begin with Ritancha, Satyancha etc. Every Brahmana who knows his morning and evening prayers knows these three Riks well.
"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.
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.
"Freeing oneself from the attributes of Passion and Darkness", i.e., by practising the religion of abstention from acts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Such self-disclosure destroys the effects of those acts and prevents their recurrence.
Robbers laden with booty are always in danger of seizure. Even so unintelligent men bearing the burdens of life are always liable to destruction.
Nishpraiharena means Niruddhena as explained by the commentator.
I adopt the reading prakasela and the interpretation that Nilakantha puts upon it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing less than yoga can discard or destroy them, for they really spring from desires generated by past acts.
The Bombay reading Manohrishyan is better.
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.
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.
i.e., the mind becoming pure, he gains omniscience and omnipotence.
The Burdwan translator, using the very words of Nilakantha, jumbles them wrongly together and makes utter nonsense of both the original and the gloss.
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.
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.
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.
Nidarsarkah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to drashtum ichcchan.
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.'
i.e., as the commentator explains, Purusha is non-creating and transcends the three attributes.
Asamhatau is explained by the commentator as atyantaviviktau. Purushau implies the two Purushas, i.e., the 'Chit-Soul' and the Supreme Soul.
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.
Yoginastam prapasyanti bhagavantam santanam--even this is what people always say to yoga and yogins.
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.
When divested of Rajas, i.e., freed from the senses and the propensities derived from their indulgence.
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.
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.
'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.
'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.
A flash of lightning repeatedly realised becomes a mass of blazing light. Perhaps this is intended by the speaker.
In the Bengal texts, verse 28 is a triplet. In the second line the correct reading is Dehantam.
Mara, Prakriti, and Purusha, or Effects, their material Cause, and the Supreme Soul.
Nanapashandavashinah is another reading which is noticed by the commentator. It is explained as 'censurers of diverse sects of Lokayatikas.'
Panchasrotas implies the mind which is said to have five currents.
These are the annamaya, the pranamaya, the manomaya, the vijnanamaya, and the anandamaya. For particulars, vide Wilson's Dict.
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.
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.
Kutumvini means a matron or the wife of a house-holder.
Either Markandeya or Sanatkumara, according to the commentator.
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.
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.
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.
This and all the following verses are statements of the sceptic's arguments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Here the speaker attacks the orthodox Brahmanical doctrine of the character of the Soul.
Possibly because they art based on Revelation.
The first five are the effects of intelligence; the vital breaths, of wind; and the juices and humours, of stomachic heat.
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.
That path consists of yoga.
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.
i.e., in each of these operations three causes must exist together.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nipatatyasaktah is wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly but takes nipatali for utpatati.
Samudayah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to hetu.
Giving food and clothes to the poor and needy in times of scarcity is referred to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Burdwan translator renders the second line as "six thousand Gandharvas used to dance before thee seven kinds of dance."
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.
Pravyaharaya is explained by the commentator as prakrishtokaye.
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.'
Compare this with the saying usually credited to Napoleon that St. Helena was written in the book of Fate.
The original, if literally rendered, would be 'Time cooks everything.'
Bhujyante is explained by the commentator as equivalent to palyante or samhriyante.
Brahma is indestructible as jiva or Soul, and is destructible as displayed in the form of not-Self.
I expand verse 50 for giving its sense as a literal version would be unintelligible.
One that is borne with great difficulty.
Literally, the desire for action; hence abundance or plenty that is the result of action or labour.
All these names imply plenty and prosperity.
i.e., with hands not washed after rising from his meals or while going on with his meals.
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.
i.e., all things are destructible instead of being eternal.
The commentator explains that Hridyam means Hritstham swarupam. By Kalyanam, of course, Moksha or Emancipation is intended.
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.
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.
The object of this verse is to show that right conclusions in respect of duties are very rare.
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.
The we here is the pronoun of dignity, applying to the speaker only and not to both the speaker and the listener.
The sentence is an interrogative one. The Burdwan translator mistakes the meaning. K.P. Singha is correct.
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.
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.
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.
K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.
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.
Yavasa is pasture grass.
Payasa is a kind of pudding prepared of rice boiled in sugared milk. Krisara is milk, sesamum, and rice. Sashkuli is a sort of pie, made of rice or barley boiled in sugared water.
No merit attaches to the act of feeding an illiterate person.
The correct reading is Vyabhajat. The Bengal reading vyabhayat would imply a tautology, for the second line would then give the same meaning as the first.
Everything else liable to be affected by primordial nature. Only the Supreme Soul cannot be affected. Hence, Brahma is often said to be "above Prakriti." Prakriti, here, is of course used in its largest sense.
The second line of verse 8, and the last clause of the first line of verse 9, are wrongly rendered by both the vernacular translators. K.P. Singha omits certain portions, while the Burdwan translator, as usual, writes nonsense. The verb is nihnuvanti, meaning 'conceal': i.e., 'do not brag of.' The verb vadishyanti is to be repeated after ahite hitam. For hitam ahitam may be read by way of antithesis.
K.P. Singha mistranslates this verse.
The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word anavajnata. K.P. Singha skips over it.
The sense is this: though really unattached, he seems to be attached. In this there is especial merit. A man doing the duties of a householder, without, however, being attached to wife and children and possessions, is a very superior person. Such a one has been compared to a lotus leaf, which, when dipped in water, is never soaked or drenched by it. Some, seeing the difficulty of the combat, fly away. In this there is little merit. To face all objects of desire, to enjoy them, but all the while to remain so unattached to them as not to feel the slightest pang if dissociated from them, is more meritorious.
Kalajnanena nishthitam are the words of the original. Vyasa's answer is taken up with assigning limits to the successive periods of Creation and Non-existence, or the durations of Brahman's wakeful and sleeping periods.
Agre is explained by the commentator as srishteh prak.
The Krita extends in all for 4,800 years. The Treta for 3,600; the Dwapara for 2,400; and the Kali for 1,200. These are, however, the years of the deities. Verses 15-17 and 20-21 occur in Manusmriti, Chapter 1.
This verse occurs in Manusmriti, corresponding with 81 of Chapter 1. The reading, however, in Manusmriti, is slightly different, for the last clause is Manushyanpavartate. In rendering verse 23, I take this reading and follow Medhatithi's gloss. If Nilakantha's gloss and the reading in both the Bengal and the Bombay texts be followed, the passage would run thus,--"No instruction or precept of that age ran along unrighteous ways, since that was the foremost of all ages." Nilakantha explains parah as sa cha parah. K.P. Singha skips over the difficulty and the Burdwan translator, as usual, gives an incorrect version.
The total comes up to 12,000 years. These constitute a Devayuga. At thousand Devayugas compose a day of Brahman. Verse 28 occurs in Manusmriti, Chapter 1.
The reader who has gone through the previous Sections can have no difficulty in understanding this. The external world is nothing but Mind transformed. Mind, therefore, is spoken of here as Vyaktatmaka or that which is the soul of the vyakta or that is manifest, or that which is the vyakta, or between which and the vyakta there is no difference whatever. Some of the Bengal texts do not conclude Section 231 with the 32nd verse but go on and include the whole of the 232nd Section in it. This, however, is not to be seen in the Bombay texts as also in some of the texts of Bengal that I have seen.
Tejomayam is explained by the commentator as Vasanamayam or having the principle of desire or wish within it, otherwise Creation could not take place. Yasya is used for yatah.
By Mahat is meant Pure or Subtile Intelligence. The Manifest starts into existence from Mind or has Mind for its soul. Hence, as explained in previous Sections, Mind is called Vyaktatmakam.
These seven great Beings or entities are Mahat, the same speedily transformed into Mind, and the five elemental entities of Space, etc.
Verses 4, 5, 6 and 7 occur in Manusmriti, corresponding with the latter's 75, 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter 1.
Chit or Jiva is called Purusha or resider in body, because when overlaid with Avidya by the Supreme Soul, it is not possible for it to exist in any other way than by being invested with a covering or case made of primordial matter determined by the power of acts. Here, however, it means limbs or avayavam.
What is stated in verse 10, 11 and 12 is this: the seven great entities, in their gross form, are unable, if separate, to produce anything. They, therefore, combine with one another. Thus uniting, they first form the asrayanam of sarira i.e., the constituent parts of the body. They, at this stage, must be known by the name of Purusha of avayava, i.e., mere limbs. When these limbs again unite, then murtimat shodasatmakam sartram bhavati, i.e., the full body, possessed of form and having the six and ten attributes, comes into existence. Then the subtile Mahat and the subtile bhutas, with the unexhausted residue of acts, enter it. The plural form 'mahanti' is used because, as the commentator explains, 'pratipurusham mahatadinam bhinnatwapratipadanertham,' i.e., the same 'mahat,' by entering each different form apparently becomes many. Thus there are two bodies, one gross, and the other subtile called 'linga-sarira.' The residue of acts is thus explained: all creatures enjoy or suffer the effects of their good and bad acts. If, however, the consequences of acts, good and bad, be all exhausted, there can be no rebirth. A residue, therefore, remains in consequence of which rebirth becomes possible. Creation and destruction, again, are endlessly going on. The beginning of the _first_ Creation is inconceivable. The Creation here described is one of a series. This is further explained in the verses that follow.
The six and ten parts are the five gross bhutas, and the eleven senses of knowledge and action including mind. The great creatures are the tan-mantras of the gross elements, i.e., their subtile forms. At first the gross body (with the principle of growth) is formed, into it enters the subtile body or the linga-sarira. At first (as already said) the gross elements come together. Then the subtile ones with the residue of acts. Then enters the Soul which is Brahma itself. The Soul enters into the subtile form for witnessing, or surveying. All creatures are only manifestations of that Soul due to the accident of Avidya or Maya. Tapas means, as the commentator explains, alochana.
i.e., this variety of Being and this variety of relations.
Anubhe is explained as ubhayavyatiriktam. Sattwasthas are those that depend upon the really existent, i.e., those that regard Brahma as the sole cause competent for the production of all effects.
It is exceedingly difficult to understand the true meaning of these verses. A verbal translation is not calculated to bring out the sense. Apparently, the statement that all things are contained in the Vedas is nonsense. In reality, however, what is intended to be said is that as the Vedas are Speech or Words, the Creator had to utter words symbolizing his ideas before creating anything. It is remarkable that there is a close resemblance between the spirit of the first chapter of Genesis with what is contained in the Srutis on the subject of Creation. Let there be Earth, and there was Earth, says the inspired poet of Genesis. Nilakantha cites exactly similar words from the Srutis as those which Brahman uttered for creating the Earth, such as, Bhuriti vyaharau as Bhumimasrijat. Then the four modes of life with the duties of each, the modes of worship, etc., were also indicated, hence, all acts also are in the Vedas which represent the words of Brahma.
All things are Sujata or well-made by him. In Genesis it is said that God uttered particular words and particular objects sprang into existence, and He saw that they were good.
The first line contains only technical terms. Nama means Rigveda. Hence, it stands for study of all the Vedas. Bheda stands for half, i.e., for the wife, who must be associated with her husband in all religious acts. Tapah is penance; hence it stands for all kinds of observances like chandrayana, and modes of life, vanaprastha, etc. Karma means such acts as the saying of morning and evening prayers, etc. Yama is sacrifice like jyotishtoma etc. Akhya means such acts as lead to good fame, like the digging of tanks, the making of roads, etc. Aloka, meaning meditation, is of three kinds. Lastly, comes Siddhi, meaning that emancipation which is arrived at by one during this life. The instrumental plural kramaih should be construed as dasabhih karmaih namadibhi sahita Vedeshu prechate. K.P. Singha has correctly rendered the verse, omitting reference to Siddhi. The Burdwan translator has totally misunderstood it.
Gahanam is explained by the commentator as duravagaham Brahma; vedavadeshu means, according to him, the rites and observances laid down in the Vedas. It is better, however, to take it literally, i.e., for the words of the Vedas. Vedanteshu means 'in the Upanishads,' which come _after_ the Vedas, Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse.
This verse is, no doubt, pleonastic. The commentator interprets it in the way I have rendered it. Yathadharmam, according to him, means 'without transgressing acts and duties consistent with virtue'; yathagamam means 'following the authority of the scriptures'; vikriyate implies 'do from motives of advantage and gain.' The sense seems to be that in the three other yugas, men, without absolutely abandoning virtue, perform good acts and Vedic sacrifices and rites and scriptural vows and observances, from motives of low gain and not as a Preparation for Emancipation. Thus even in the Kali age, Vedic rites are not absolutely unknown. The motive, however, from which these are undertaken is connected with some low or sordid gain.
Samayah sthanam matam; sa eva bhutani bhavati; sa eva tan dadhati. This is the construction, as explained by the commentator.
From what has been said in the previous Sections, the reader will have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by abhivyaktatmakam manah. It is mind that is the essence of all that is abhivyakta or manifest. That mind swallows up the attribute of Space. Hence it is avyaktam, that swallows up the manaso vyaktam. This swallowing up is Brahmah sampratisancharah or destruction of the outward universe in its manifest vastness. The commentator gives the substance of the verse in these words: manahkalpito virat manasi eva liyate. From the verses that follow it would seem that the object of this section is to describe the yogin's pratyahara and not the actual dissolution of the universe.
Verses 16 and 17 are exceedingly difficult. The commentator has shown great learning in expounding them. Unfortunately, the subject is a yoga mystery, and the explanation and illustrations of the commentator refer to things beyond the reach of ordinary experience and intelligence. The words Chandramas, Kala, and Valam, and Akasa also and Ghosa (in verse 17), are technical terms of yoga. I referred the passage to more than one learned Pundit. My referees are of opinion that a yoga mystery is here expounded, which yogins alone can understand. European scholars will probably smile at the statement that there is a hidden meaning in these words. Most readers will take the verses for nonsense. Reflection, however, has convinced me that yoga is not nonsense. One who has not studied the elements of Geometry or Algebra, cannot, however intelligent, hope to understand at once a Proposition of the Principia or the theorem of De Moivre. Failing to give the actual sense, I have contented myself with giving a verbal translation.
Jatakarma is the ceremony that is performed with certain Vedic mantras immediately after a child's birth. There are many such ceremonies to be performed till Samavartana or return from the preceptor's home after completion of the period of pupilage. These ceremonies are necessarily such that they must be performed by the child's father or somebody else whom the latter might call in.
In this country, no fees are charged for tuition. The pupil, however, after completing his studies, may give his preceptor a final fee which is determined by the choice of the preceptor himself and which varies according to the means of the pupil leaving the preceptor's home for his own.
By begetting children, one pays off one's debt to ancestors; by studying the Vedas, one pays off one's debt to the Rishis; and by performing sacrifices one pays off one's debt to the deities.
It is a deadly sin to take anything from the father-in-law or other relatives (by marriage) of a daughter. What is got from such sources is, to this day, spent freely. Those persons that sell their daughters in marriage are universally reckoned as fallen.
The fact is, the duty of the householder obliges him to worship the deities and the Pitris, and to become hospitable to the others named. The Brahmana, however, has no ostensible means for discharging this duty. The only means open to him is acceptance of gifts. In this case, acceptance, therefore, for such ends is not productive of demerit.
Kritadapi is explained by the commentator as pakvannadapi.
The sense is that there is no gift which is too valuable for such persons.
The first and the fourth verses are triplets in the Bengal texts.
These are, of course, religious acts.
In the Bengal texts verse 12 consists of one line. This, I think, is correct. Verses 13, 14, 15, and 16 form one sentence. Verse 12 is complete by itself. The udaka in kalodaka should be taken as meaning stream or river otherwise ahoratrajalena would be pleonastic. Again arthakamajalena, to avoid redundancy, should be taken as implying the springs that supply the water. Vihinsa-taruvahina is, 'having benevolence for the trees that float on its water.' This idea is beautiful. Creatures that are being borne away in the stream of Time may catch these trees of benevolence for saving themselves. The Burdwan translator misunderstands vihinsa and makes nonsense of the idea. Altogether, though highly ornate, the metaphors are original. Of course, the idea is eminently oriental. Eastern rhetoric being fond of spinning out metaphors and similes, which, in the hands of Eastern poets, become highly elastic.
K.P. Singha misunderstands this verse. The Burdwan translator is also inaccurate.
The place should be a level spot, not impure (such as a crematorium, etc.), free from kankars, fire, and sand, etc.; solitary and free from noise and other sources of disturbance. Acts include abstention from food and sports and amusements, abstention from all kinds of work having only worldly objects to accomplish, abstention also from sleep and dreams. Affection means that for good disciples or for progress in yoga. Objects refer to sacred fuel, water, and suppression of expectancy and anxiety, etc. Means refer to the seat to be used, the manner of sitting, and the attitude of the body. Destruction refers to the conquest of desire and attachments, i.e., renunciation of all attractive things. Certainty means the unalterable belief that what is said about yoga in the Vedas and by preceptors is true. The nom. sing. inflection stands for the instrumental plural. Eyes include the other senses. All these should be restrained. Food means pure food. Suppression refers to the subjugation of our natural inclination towards earthly objects. Mind here has reference to the regulation of the will and its reverse, viz., irresolution. Survey means reflection on birth, death, decrepitude, disease, sorrow, faults, etc. In giving these meanings, I, of course, follow Nilakantha.
Notwithstanding Nilakantha's gloss which shows great ingenuity and which has been apparently followed by both of them, the Vernacular translators have misunderstood Portions of these verses which sketch out the course of life which one desirous of attaining to Emancipation or Brahma is to follow. Particular virtues or attributes have been represented as particular limbs of the car. It does not appear that there is (except in one or two instances), any especial aptitude in any of those virtues or attributes for corresponding with One instead of with another limb of the figurative car. Upastha is that part of the car on which the driver sits. Varutha is the wooden fence round a car for protecting it against the effects of collision. Shame is the feeling that withdraws us from all wicked acts. Kuvara is the pole to which the yoke is attached. Upaya and Apaya, which have been called the kuvara, are 'means' and destruction'--explained in verse above. Aksha is the wheel. Yuga is the yoke. Vandhura is that part of yuga where it is attached to the pole, i.e., its Middle, about which appears something like a projecting knob. Nemi is the circumference of the wheel. Nabhi is the central portion of the car upon which the rider or warrior is seated. Pratoda is the goad with which the driver urges, the steeds. The commentator explains that jiva-yuktah means having such a jiva as is desirous of attaining to Emancipation or Moksha. Such elaborate figures are favourite conceits of Oriental poets.
Adopting the Kantian distribution of the mental phenomena, viz., the three great divisions of Cognitive faculties, Pleasure and Pain, and Desire and Will, Sir William Hamilton subdivides the first (viz., the Cognitive faculties), into the acquisitive faculty, the retentive faculty, the reproductive faculty, the representative faculty, and reason or judgment by which concepts are compared together. Dharana corresponds with the exercise of the Representative faculty or the power by which the mind is held to or kept employed upon a particular image or notion. It is this faculty that is especially trained by yogins. Indeed, the initial stop consists in training it to the desirable extent.
The seven kinds of Dharanas appertain respectively to Earth, Wind, Space, Water, Fire, Consciousness and Understanding.
All these have been explained lower down.
The construction of both these lines is difficult to understand. The prose order of the line is 'yogatah yuktesu (madhye) yasya yatha, etc., vikrama (tatha vakshyami); atmani pasyatah (janasya) yuktasya yogasya (yatha) siddhi (tatha vakshyami).' Yogatah means upayatah, i.e., according to rules and ordinances. Vikrama is used in a peculiar sense, viz., anubhavakramah, i.e., the order of conception or conceptions in other order. Atmani pasyatah means 'of him who looks into himself,' i.e., who withdraws his mind from the outer world and turns it to view his own self. Without Nilakantha's aid, such verses would be thoroughly unintelligible.
Pasyatah means 'of that which sees,' i.e., of the Atman or Soul.
The Understanding is called the _soul_ of the five elements and of the consciousness of individuality because these six things rest on it or have it for their refuge. The reader will easily understand this from what has been said in the previous Sections.
It is from the Unmanifest or the Supreme Soul that the world or all that is Manifest, springs or emanates. The Yogin, in consequence of his superior knowledge, apprehends all that is Manifest to be but the Unmanifest Supreme Soul.
Na kritina, i.e., kriti eva. 'Nirakriti' is regardless of dress and appearance. K.P. Singha wrongly translates both these words.
i.e., who has neither friend nor foe. This means that he regards all creatures with an equal eye, showing particular favour to none, and having no dislike for any. Coldness of heart is not implied, but impartial and equal benevolence for all. Taking praise and blame equally, i.e., never rejoicing at praise nor grieving at blame.
It is said that with the practice of Yoga, during the first stages, certain extraordinary powers come to the Yogin whether he wishes for them or not. In a previous Section it has been said that that Yogin who suffers himself to be led away by these extraordinary acquisitions, goes to hell, i.e., fails to attain to Emancipation beside which heaven itself with the status of Indra is only hell. Hence, he who transcends the puissance that Yoga brings about becomes Emancipate.
Dhirah is explained as dhyanavan. Santi has reference to Emancipation, for it is Emancipation alone that can give tranquillity or final rest. The commentator points out that in this verse the speaker shows a decided preference for the Sankhya philosophy.
Vide Gita, verses 4 and 5, Chapter V.
Brahmanam is arsha for Brahmam.
I follow Nilakantha's gloss in rendering the words Vidya, Pravritti and Nivritti, as used in this verse. By the first, the commentator thinks, is meant that course of instruction in consequence of which error may be dispelled and truth acquired. The usual illustration of the cord and the snake is given. The former may be mistaken for the latter, but when the mistake ceases, correct apprehension follows. Pravritti has been sufficiently indicated in the text in which the words of the gloss has been incorporated. By Nivritti is meant the doctrine of the Sunyavadins and Lokayatikas (evidently the Buddhists) who seek annihilation or extinction as the only true Emancipation. Both the Vernacular translators are wrong. The Burdwan translator, as usual, citing the very words of the gloss, misunderstands them completely.
The construction of the first line is 'yastu achetanah bhavam vina swabhavena (sarvam bhati iti) pasyan, etc., etc., pushyate (sa na kinchana labhate).' Bhavan is explained as 'adhishthanasattam.' The commentator is of opinion that the speaker refers in this verse to the Sunyavadins.
The Bombay text reads Putwatrinamishikamva.
Enam is singular. The commentator thinks it should be taken distributively. In verse 3, the doctrine of the Nihilists (Sunyavadins) has been referred to. In verse 4, that of the Lokayatikas. In both, Nature is spoken of as the cause, with this difference that the former regard the universe to be only an erroneous impression of an existent entity, while the latter regard it as a real entity flowing from and manifesting itself under its own nature. Both doctrines, the speaker says, are false.
Both the Vernacular translators skip over the word paribhava in the second line of verse 6. The commentator correctly explains that swabhava in 6 means swasyaiva bhavah sattakaranam iti, ekah pakshah. Paribhava, he explains is paritah swasya itaresham bhavah. The first refers to the Nihilists, the second to the Lokayatikas or to verses 3 and 4 respectively.
It is by the wisdom that all these results are achieved. Wisdom is the application of means for the accomplishment of ends. Nature never rears palaces or produces vehicles and the diverse other comforts that man enjoys. He that would rely upon Nature for these would never obtain them however long he might wait. The need for exertion, both mental and physical, and the success which crowns that exertion furnish the best answer, the speaker thinks, to both the Nihilist sand the Lokayatikas. The word tulyalakshanah is skipped over by both the Bengali translators.
By para is meant the Chit or Soul, by avara, all else, i.e., non-ego or matter. The words Prajna, Jnana, and Vidya are all as used here, equivalent. The second line of this verse is wrongly rendered by both the Bengali translators, the Burdwan translator, as usual, not understanding the words of the gloss he quotes.
It is difficult to render the word cheshta as used here. Ordinarily it implies effort or action. It is plain, however, that here it stands for intelligent energy, implying both mental and physical effort or action, for its function is to distinguish or differentiate.
The itarani do not refer to Pisachas as rendered by K.P. Singha, but to birds which are called Khechare or denizens of the sky or air. Khechara may include Pisachas, but these are also Bhuchara or denizens of the surface of the earth.
The commentator explains that for ascertaining who are uttama or foremost, the middling, or intermediate ones are first spoken of and their distinctions mentioned in the following verses. Of course, the foremost are foremost, and the intermediate ones can never be superior to them. For all that, intermediate ones are observers of the duties of caste; the foremost ones are not so, they having transcended such distinctions; hence, tentatively, the ignorant or popular opinion is first taken, to the effect that the observers of caste are superior to those who do not observe Jatidharma.
This probably means that as the Vedas had not been reduced to writing, their contents rested or dwelt in memories of men versed in them.
To understand what is birth and what is death, and to avoid birth (and, therefore, death), are the highest fruits of knowledge of the Soul. Those that have no knowledge of the Soul have to travel in a round of repeated rebirths.
i.e., of power that comes of Yoga.
The word para (the locative form of which is used here) always means that which is high or foremost. It is frequently employed to mean either Brahma or the Soul, and as Soul is regarded to be a part of Brahma, para has but one and the same meaning. The Burdwan translator takes it for 'Scriptures other than the Vedas.' K.P. Singha skips over it. Of course, savda-Brahma stands for the Vedas.
To look upon everything in the universe as one's own. Soul is the highest aspiration of a righteous person. It is yoga that enables one to attain to this highest ideal of existence. One who realises this is said to be a true Brahmana, a really regenerate person, in fact, a god on Earth. Adhiyajna and Adhidaivata are words that signify the Soul.
What the distinction is between anta and nidhan is not obvious. The commentator is silent. K.P. Singha translates the verse correctly. The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of the words in the second line.
Whether karma is swabhava or jnanam means (as the commentator explains) whether it is obligatory or optional. Jnanam, of course, means here jnana-janakam, i.e., leading to knowledge. Knowledge is essential to success or emancipation. If acts become necessary for leading to knowledge, the doubt may then arise that they cease to be obligatory, for knowledge may be supposed to be attainable otherwise than by acts. K.P. Singha translates this verse correctly, the Burdwan translator incorrectly, and, as usual, misunderstands the gloss completely.
The first line of this verse is exceedingly terse. The construction, as explained by the commentator, is Tatra (samsaye) purusham prati Jnanam (jnanajanakam) chet (karma) syat, (tarhi) sa (eva) Vedavidhih. One cannot help admiring Nilakantha for his patience and ingenuity.
Daiva is explained by the commentator as Grahah or Kalah. I think, it is used to signify some kind of blind force whose origin is untraceable. Hence, I render it necessity. Vritti in verse 5 is evidently Exertion, for the word implies course of conduct, Avivekam is samuchchayam or a combination of all the three.
'Inspired with doubt,' with reference to the declarations of the Srutis. 'Possessed of tranquil souls,' i.e., not penetrated by doubts of any kind.
In the Treta and the other Yugas people are seen professing attachment or devotion to one only of the Vedas and not to the others, be it the Richs, the Samans, or the Yajuses. The speaker, dissatisfied with this refers to the Krita age as one in which such difference of faith were not observable. The men of that age regarded all the Vedas equally, and, in fact, as even identical.
Jiva or Chit becomes puissant and succeeds in creating the universe by means of penance. By penance one attains to Brahma, and, therefore, universal puissance. This has been sufficiently explained in the previous Sections.
This is one of the most important verses in this section, for, as the commentator explains, this furnishes the answer to the question proposed in the previous section, viz., 'what is that knowledge?' In the Vedas both acts and knowledge have been spoken of. In the province of acts, Brahma has been represented as Indra and the other gods. Brahma, therefore, as spoken of there, is 'gahana', or hidden to (or inconceivable by) even those that are conversant with that province or sphere of the Vedas. In the Vedanta, again, knowledge or Vidya has been spoken of as the means by which to attain to Brahma. The knowledge or Vidya, therefore, which is the subject of the question, is not what is implied by Pravritti dharma or by Nivritti as used in the previous section.
The second line of this verse corresponds with the second line of verse 87 of Chapter II of Manusmriti.
They are seen and not seen is an idiomatic expression for 'becoming invisible.'
i.e., kine do not yield copious and sweet milk; the soil ceases to be fertile; water ceases to be sweet; and the medicinal and edible herbs lose their virtues of healing as also their flavour.
The commentator thinks that Swadharmasthah is connected with asramah in the first line. I prefer the more obvious construction.
Varshati means pushnati. Angani means the observances necessary for the practice of Yoga as also all kinds of rites and vows. The Vedas cause these to grow, and they, in their turn, aid all students of the Vedas in achieving their purposes.
Prabhavah is uttpattih, or origin; sthanam is poshanam. Both the Vernacular translators skip over the last word, thinking that prabhavasthanam, is one word. The commentator notices them as separate. In the beginning of the second line, yatra is understood, Swabhavena, is explained by the commentator as Brahmabhavena, natu vikritena rupena. I think the explanation is correct, and have adopted it accordingly in the text.
Yatha in the first line of verse means, as the commentator explains, yat prakarakam.
The commentator points out that by these four words the four modes of life are indicated.
The commentator explains that this means that amongst embodied creatures they that are ignorant take those great entities which are really non-ego for either the ego or its Possessions.
The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that the Yoga view of the Soul being only the enjoyer but not the actor, is not correct. On the other hand, the Sankhya view of the Soul being neither the enjoyer nor the actor, is true. The deities, remaining in the several senses, act and enjoy. It is through ignorance that the Soul ascribes to itself their enjoyments and their actions.
I render Bhutatma by knowledge, following the commentator who uses the words buddhyupadhirjivah for explaining it.
Niyama and Visarga are explained by the commentator as 'destruction' and 'creation.' I prefer to take them as meaning 'guiding or restraining,' and 'employing.' Practically, the explanations are identical.
What is meant by the objects of the senses residing within the bodies of living creatures is that (as the commentator explains) their concepts exist in 'the cavity of the heart' (probably, mind) so that when necessary or called for, they appear (before the mind's eye). Swabhava is explained as 'attributes' like heat and cold, etc.
This is a very difficult verse. I have rendered it, following Nilakantha's gloss. In verse the speaker lays down what entities dwell in the body. In the rest he expounds the nature of Sattwa which the commentator takes to mean buddhi or knowledge. He begins with the statement that Sattwasya asrayah nasti. This does not mean that the knowledge has no refuge, for that would be absurd, but it means that the asraya of the knowledge, i.e., that in which the knowledge dwells, viz., the body, does not exist, the true doctrine being that the body has no real existence but that it exists like to its image in a dream. The body being non-existent, what then is the real refuge of the knowledge? The speaker answers it by saying Gunah, implying that primeval Prakriti characterised by the three attributes is that real refuge. Then it is said that Chetana (by which is implied the Soul here) is not the refuge of the knowledge for the Soul is dissociated from everything and incapable of transformation of any kind. The question is then mentally stated,--May not the Gunas be the qualities of the knowledge (instead of being, as said above, its refuge)? For dispelling this doubt, it is stated that Sattwa is the product of Tejas (Desire). The Gunas are _not_ the product of Tejas. Hence the Gunas, which have a different origin cannot be the properties of Sattwa. The Gunas exist independently of Desire. Thus the knowledge, which has Desire for its originating cause, rests on the Gunas or has them for its refuge. In this verse, therefore, the nature of the body, the knowledge, and the Gunas, is expounded. The grammatical construction of the first line is exceedingly terse.
Such men behold Brahma in all things. Abhijanah is explained by the commentator as sishyakuladih. This seems to be the true meaning of the word here.
In rendering this word tatam (where it occurs in the Gita), it has been shown that to take it as equivalent to 'spread' is incorrect. In such connections, it is evident that it means 'pervaded.'
If I have understood the gloss aright, this is what the first line of 21 means. Vedatma is explained as Vedic sound, i.e., the instructions inculcated in the Vedas. The word atma in the second clause means simply oneself or a person or individual. The sense then is this. The Vedas teach that all is one's soul. The extent to which one succeeds in realising this is the measure of one's attainment of Brahma. If one can realise it fully, one attains to Brahma fully. If partially, one's attainment of Brahma also is partial.
The track of such a person, it is said, is as invisible as the skies. The commentator explains that the very gods become stupefied in respect of the object which such a man seeks, the object, of course, being Brahma.
That, of course, in which Time is cooked, is Brahma.
By this the speaker says that Brahma is not to be found in any particular spot however holy.
Because Brahma is infinite.
'Niyatah' is explained by the commentator as achanchalah, and vasi as without the fault of upadhi. 'Hansati, i.e., gachechati ite,' hence gatimati.
The sense is that the Soul residing within the body is identical with the Supreme Soul, and men of wisdom only know it.
The construction is Hansoktancha yat aksharam tat (eva) kutastham aksharam, meaning that there is no difference between Jivatman and Paramatman. Both are identical.
Sattwena is explained as 'by intelligence or the knowledge.'
The construction, as explained by the commentator, is Brahma tejomayam sukram; yasya sukrasya sarvam idam tasyapi Brahma rasah. The last word means sarah.
Both the Vernacular translators have skipped over this line. The meaning is this: Brahma opened his eyes for becoming many, as the Srutis declare, and thereupon he became many. This, as the commentator explains, Ikshana-kartritvena sarvatmakatwam gatam, or by a glance Brahma became the Soul of all things mobile and immobile.
The commentator explains that Brahmanah padam means prakritim. He thinks, therefore, that the last clause of the second line means 'should seek to subdue prakriti which is the layasthanam of mahattattwa.' I prefer the obvious sense of the words.
Parimitam Kalam is explained by the commentator as equivalent to six months as the srutis declare.
These two verses set forth the Yoga ideal. By the practice of Yoga all these are capable of being acquired or attained. But then the Yogin who suffers himself to be led away by those valuable possessions is said to fall in hell, for the enjoyment of this kind is nothing but hell compared to the high object for which Yogins should strive. Pramoha, Brahma, and Avarta, are technical terms. Equality with the wind means speed of motion, power to disappear at will, and capacity to move through the skies.
A chaitya is a sacred or a large tree which stands firm on its roots and about which all round a platform of earth is raised. Vrikshagra means 'in the front of a tree,' probably implying 'under the shade of its spreading branches.'
The commentator explains that he should imitate the wind by becoming asangah, i.e., unattached to all things. Aniketah means without a house or fixed abode.
It is difficult to understand what is meant by Savda-Brahmativartate. I follow the commentator. 'Brahma as represented by sound, is, of course, Pranavah or Om, the mystic monosyllable standing for the trinity.' K.P. Singha, taking Savda-Brahma for an accusative, regards it as implying,--'such a man transcends all Vedic rites.' This is precisely the meaning attached to it by the commentator where it occurs in verse 7 of section 236 ante.
The inferior order here referred to is, of course, the Sudra order. The commentator points out that whereas only the three superior orders are regarded to be eligible for the study of Sankhya and for inculcation of such Srutis as Tattwamasi (That thou art), here Vyasa lays down that as regards the Yoga path, _all_ are eligible to betake themselves to it.
'Fixed senses,' i.e., when the senses are fixed on the mind and the mind on the understanding. Ajaram is immutable or unchanging, or that in which there is no change for the worse (or for the better). By subtility is indicated the incapacity of being apprehended, and by mahattaram is meant infinity.
The anu anudrisya is explained as Guruvachanamanu. Thus seems to be the true meaning, otherwise avekshya would be pleonastic, abhutagatim is bhutasamplavaparyantam, i.e., till the destruction of all beings. Imam is sastraprasiddham.
The Vedas proclaim the efficacy of both acts and knowledge. Acts are not laid down for those that have knowledge.
Subhashita is explained by the commentator as ayam tu paramo dharma yat yogena atmadarsanam.
Na vartate does not mean annihilated but, as the commentator explains, aham asmi iti na jana atmanam.
Manasena karmana is explained by the commentator as sankalpena.
The meaning is this: the man of acts is like the new-born moon, i.e., subject to growth and decay.
This has been explained in a previous section.
The soul resides in the body without partaking of any of the attributes of the body. It is, therefore, likened to a drop of water on a lotus leaf, which, though on the leaf, is not yet attached to it, in so much that it may go off without at all soaking or drenching any part of the leaf. Yogajitatmakam is yogena jito niruddha atma chittam yena tam, as explained by the commentator.
Literally, 'Tamas and Rajas and Sattwa have the attribute of Jiva for their essence.' The particular attribute of Jiva here referred to is the Jnanamaya kosha. Jiva, again, is all accident of the Soul. The Soul comes from the Supreme Soul. Thus the chain of existence is traced to the Supreme Soul. In verse 20 again it is said that the body, which by itself is inanimate, when it exists with the Soul, is an accident of Jiva as uninvested with attributes.
I follow Nilakantha substantially in his interpretation of this verse. Two kinds of creation are here referred to as those of which Vyasa has spoken in the previous Sections. The first is Ksharat prabhriti yah sargah, meaning that creation which consists of the four and twenty entities commencing with Kshara or Prakriti. The other creation, consisting of the senses with their objects, represents buddhaiswarya or the puissance of the buddhi, these being all buddhikalpitah. This second creation is also atisargah which means, according to the commentator, utkrishtah and which is also pradhanah or foremost, the reason being bandhakatwam or its power to bind all individuals. I take atisargah to mean 'derivative creation,' the second kind of creation being derived from or based upon the other, or (as I have put it in the text) transcends or overlies the other.
It is explained in previous sections how the course of righteousness is regulated by the character of the particular Yuga that sets in.
Vyasa has already explained the character of the two apparently hostile declarations. The meaning of Suka's question, therefore, is that if two declarations are only apparently hostile,--if, as explained in the Gita, they are identical,--how is that identity to be clearly ascertained? The fact is, Suka wishes his sire to explain the topic more clearly.
The course of conduct of human beings,' i.e., the distinctions between right and wrong. Vimuktatma is taken by the commentator to imply tyaktadehah. The second line may also mean 'having cast off (by Yoga) the consciousness of body, I shall behold my own Soul.'
I do not follow the commentator in his interpretation of this line.
'When the huts become smokeless,' i.e., when the cooking and the eating of the inmates are over. 'When the sound of the husking rod is hushed,' i.e., when the pestle for cleaning rice no longer works, and consequently when the inmates are not likely to be able to give much to the mendicant.
There is an apparent conflict between the two declarations. If both are authoritative, they cannot be regarded to be scriptural declarations in consequence of their conflict; if one is so and the other not so, the scriptural character of the latter at least is lost. The scriptures cannot but be certain and free from fault. How then (the question proceeds) is the scriptural character of both to be maintained?
The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder in rendering Jaghanyasayi, which he takes to mean 'sleeping on a wretched bed.' Jaghanya implies, here as elsewhere, subsequence in point of time.
Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood the last part of the second line. It does not mean that the disciple should approach the preceptor when summoned, implying that he should be prompt to answer the summons, but that he should not disturb his Preceptor by clamouring for lessons or instruction. He should go to his preceptor for taking lessons only when his preceptor summons him for it.
Meaning, he should cast submissive or humble glances instead of staring boldly or rudely.
Learning was never sold in this country in ancient times. The final fee is not a return for the services of the preceptor but a token of gratitude from the pupil. Its value depended upon the ability of the disciple, though there are stories in the scriptures of disciples coming to grief on account of their persistent forwardness in pressing the acceptance of this fee. Vide the story of Galava in the Udyoga Parva.
The fourth kind of conduct, called kapoti is also called unchha. It consists of collecting such seeds of grain as have fallen down from the ears and as have been abandoned by the reapers.
Thus the second is more meritorious than the first, the third than the second, and the fourth than the third. The fourth or last, therefore, is the first in point of merit.
It is said that the householder who cooks must give a share of the cooked food to a Brahmacharin or Yati or any one who comes as a guest. If he does not do it but eats the whole of what has been cooked, he is regarded as eating what belongs to a Brahmana. This, of course, is a high sin.
The commentator supposes that these relatives and kinsmen are named because of the great likelihood there is of disputes arising with them on account of shares of inheritance.
The sense is this: these various persons, if duly reverenced by the householder, are able to send the latter to the places indicated or make him comfortable in those places.
Vide verses 2 and 3 of this Section. Of the four courses, the first or Kusaladhanya, is left out here. The three others, of course, are the Kumbhadhanya, the Aswastana (otherwise called Unchhasila), and the Kapoti. The Burdwan translator makes a blunder in enumerating the three kinds of domesticity here referred to.
The Burdwan version of this verse is incorrect.
The cow is a sacred animal and there is merit in feeding and properly tending a cow. Forest recluses kept kine for merit as also for homa or sacrifice with the ghee obtained from them. The story of Vasishtha's cow is well-known.
These five are Agnihotra, Darsapurnamasi, Chaturmasya, Pasu sacrifice and Soma sacrifice.
The Burdwan translator misunderstands the words abhravakasah. It is a well-known word occurring in almost every lexicon. Wilson explains it correctly.
i.e., They do not use a regular husking or cleaning apparatus for cleaning the grain they use as food.
So that very small portion of the grain comes out for drink or mixes with the water.
i.e., who had no fixed residence and who never sought with any effort for the necessaries of life. The Burdwan translator takes both yathavasah and akritacramah for two independent names of Rishis instead of taking them as adjectives of Sudivatandi.
i.e., whose wishes were immediately crowned with success, in respect of both blessings and curses, etc.
Niranandah is explained as krichcchrachandrayanadiparatwat.
Anakstrah is explained by the commentator as 'different from stars and planets but still freed from darkness' and, therefore, effulgent or luminous. Anadhrishyah is fearless.
Atmayaji is explained as one who performs his own sraddha or obsequial rites. The Sandhi in the next word is arsha; atmakrida is one who does not take pleasure in wife or children but whose source of pleasure is his own self: Similarly, atmasraya is one who without depending upon kings or others takes refuge in himself.
Such sacrifice, for example, as those called Brahma-yajna, etc.
Yajinam yajna is the sacrifice of ordinary sacrifices, i.e., the usual sacrifices consisting of tangible offerings unto the deities, and performed with the aid of Vedic mantras. The ablative implies cause. Atmani ijya is sacrifice in Self, i.e., Yoga. The meaning of the first line, therefore, is when through performance of ordinary sacrifices and rites, the mind becomes pure and the sacrificer is enabled to practise yoga. Unto the three fires he should duly sacrifice on his own self, means, of course, that without any longer adoring his fires by visible rites and actual recitation of mantras, he should, for the sake of emancipation, worship in his own self or seek the extinction of mind and knowledge in Yoga.
To this day every orthodox Brahmana or Kshatriya or Vaisya never eats without offering at the outset five small mouthfuls unto the five vital breaths, i.e., Prana, Apana, Samana, Udana, and Vyana.
Vapya or Vapayitwa means causing or obtaining a shave. The Burdwan translator makes a blunder by supposing it to mean parivyapta. The Sannyasa mode of life, as well-known, can never be entered without a previous shave. K.P. Singha gives the correct version.
It is difficult to render the word abhaya into English. 'To give abhaya to all creatures' is to pledge oneself to a life of total harmlessness, or to practise universal compassion or benevolence. Abstention from every kind of injury is the great duty of the fourth mode of life.
The duties included in yama (as explained by the commentator) are universal benevolence, truthfulness, faith, Brahmacharya, and freedom from attachment. Those that are included in niyama are purity (of body and mind), contentment, study of the Vedas, meditation on the Supreme, etc. Swasastra sutra means the sutras of his own sastras--i.e., the duties laid down in respect of that Sannyasa which he has adopted; the chief of which is enquiry after the Soul or Self: Bhutimanta implies Vedic recitation and the sacred thread. He who has taken to Sannyasa should display energy in these, i.e., persistently enquire after the Soul and throw away all caste-marks, and other indications. 'The desirable end' is of course, gradual Emancipation of that obtained at once. Following the commentator, K.P. Singha gives the correct version. The Burdwan version, containing the very words of the gloss, is based upon a complete misconception of their meaning.
The commentator correctly explains that by the first line of this verse, Vyasa answers his son's question. The two modes referred to are the first and the second, and not the second and the third as K.P. Singha in his vernacular version wrongly states. Having answered the question, the speaker (in the second line) proceeds to indicate the simple or straight path for reaching the highest object of men's endeavour, viz., Paramartham or Brahma.
Bhava-samahitah is explained as chitta-samadhanavan.
The skull is to be used as a drinking vessel. Kuchela, which I render 'rags', is supposed by the commentator to signify reddish or brown cloth which has, from age, lost its colour.
Elephants, when hurled into a well, become utterly helpless and unable to come out. That person, therefore, into whom words enter like elephants into a well, is he who answers not the evil speeches of others. What is said here is that only a person of such forbearance should betake himself to mendicancy or Sannyasa.
I have given a closely literal version of this verse. The commentator explains that first line refers to the person who deems himself to be everything and everything to be himself. The second line refers to the same individual who, by Yoga, can withdraw his senses and the mind and consequently make the most populous place appear as totally solitary or unoccupied. This is the Yoga process called Pratyahara and is described in section 233 ante. The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version. K.P. Singha follows the commentator.
Suhitya, whence sauhitya, means no satiety but the full measure of gratification from eating. The speaker wishes to lay down that a mendicant or renouncer should never take food to the full measure of gratification. He should eat without completely appeasing his hunger.
I follow the commentator in his exposition of kaunjara which he derives as kun (earth or the body which is made of earth) jaravati iti kunjarah, i.e., a Yogin in Samadhi. The sense seems to be that the fruits of Yoga include or absorb the fruits of every other act. The rank and status of Indra himself is absorbed within what is attained to by Yoga. There is no kind of felicity that is not engulfed in the felicity of Emancipation, which Yoga alone can confer.
The commentator thinks that by the 'one duty of abstention from injury' is implied the fourth mode of life or Sannyasa. What is said, therefore, is that the observance of the single duty of harmlessness includes that of every other duty; or, what amounts to the same thing, the fourth mode of life is singly capable of giving merit which all the others may give together.
Haryartham means 'for the sake of Hari.' i.e., one who takes away merit, implying a disciple or attendant. Some texts read Ratyrtham, meaning 'for the happiness (of others).'
Because all acts are fraught with injury to others. Whether 'acts' betaken in its general sense or in the particular sense of 'religious acts,' their character is such.
Both the vernacular translators have completely misunderstood the second line of this Verse. The commentator correctly explains that Tikshnam tanum means the religion of injury, i.e., the religion of sacrifices and acts. 'So' for 'sa' is arsha; as also anantyam for anantyam which, of course, implies moksham or Emancipation. The commentator correctly supplies yatah after apnoti and shows that prajabhyah is equivalent to prajanam. The last clause of the second line, therefore, means sa moksham apnoti, yatah prajabhyah (or prajanam) abhayam. The dative, not ablative as the vernacular translators take it, is not bad grammar, although the genitive is more agreeable with usage.
A tentative version is offered here, following the actual words used in the original.
All these expressions apply to the Supreme Soul. Immeasurable in the firmament implies that the Supreme Being is vaster than the firmament. 'Made of gold' means, as the commentator explains, Chit having knowledge only for its attribute.' 'Born of the egg,' i.e., belonging to the universe. 'Within the egg' means 'capable of being apprehended in the heart.' 'Equipped with many feathers,' i.e., having many limbs each of which is presided over by a particular deity. The two wings are absence of attachment or complete dissociation from everything, and joy and gladness and aptitude for enjoyment. 'Rendered effulgent by many rays of light,' i.e., transformed into a living and active agent by means of eyes, cars, etc.
The sense is that he who understands the wheel of Time is a person worthy of universal regard. The excellent joints of that wheel are the parva days, viz., those sacred lunations on which religious rites are performed.
I give a little version of verse 33, following the commentator as regards the meaning of samprasadam. The sense, however, of the verse is this: Brahma, in the previous sections, has often been spoken of as Sushupti or the unconsciousness of dreamless slumber. The universe flows from Brahma. Unconsciousness, therefore, is the cause or origin or body of the universe. That unconsciousness, therefore, pervades all things, viz., gross and subtile. Jiva, finding a place within that unconsciousness existing in the form of gross and subtile, gratifies the deities, prana and the senses. These, thus gratified by jiva, at last gratify the open mouth of the original unconsciousness that waits to receive or swallow them. All these verses are based upon the figurative ideas that find expression in the Upanishads.
Smriti is memory. One whose smriti is lost means one whose conceptions of right and wrong are confounded. Atmanah sampradanena is 'by the surrender of oneself' to one's own passions or Kamadibhyah as the commentator explains.
Chittam is explained by the commentator as the gross understanding, and Sattwa as the subtile understanding. The understanding that is concerned with the images brought by the mind or the senses is called gross; while that which is concerned with ideas about Brahma is called subtile. Kalanjara is explained by the commentator either as standing for the mountain of that name, i.e., irremovable as the mountain so called; or, as one who destroys the effect of Time, i.e., one who subdues Time instead of being subdued by that universal conqueror.
The purification here referred to consists in transcending the consciousness of duality. Righteousness should be avoided because of its incapacity to lead to Emancipation which is much higher than heaven. Atmani sthitwa means living in one's real or true nature, i.e., merging everything into the Soul. This is attained when the consciousness of duality is transcended.
Atmanam in the first line is the Jiva-soul, and atmani is the Supreme Soul. In the second line also, the same distinction is observed between the two words.
Brahmanas, who having completed the study of the Vedas have betaken themselves to the domestic mode of life, are so called. Here, probably, the reference is to persons having faith in the Vedas and of pure conduct.
Adhyatma is topic bearing on the Soul. Here it signifies the seven and twenty usual topics of philosophical discourse, viz., the five organs of action, the five organs of knowledge, the mind and three others called Chitta, etc., the five vital breaths, the five elementary substances, Desire. Acts, and Avidya.
The second clause of the second line is explained by the commentator as yasmin kamani nimitte sati yat anupasyati.
The grammatical construction is Gunebhyah paramagatah gunan na ativartante. The meaning is this: Mind, Understanding, and Nature (or individual disposition of man or animal or vegetable, etc) are all due to their own previous states. Nature in particular being the result of the desires of a past state of existence. Such being their origin, they too are due to the five entities named. As regards their functions, it is said that having reached to that which is Gunebhyah parama, i.e., Srotradikaryam swarupam, they do not transcend the gunas themselves; or in other words having become endued with the faculty or power of seizing particular attributes (such as scent, form, etc)., they actually seize or apprehend them.
In other words, the senses and the mind are nothing but the understanding displayed in a particular shape or form. The principal function of the mind is to cherish and discard impressions. The understanding is nischayatmika or engaged in arriving at certainty of conclusions.
Everything above the soles of the feet and below the crown of the head, is, of course, the whole body or self or the person. Asmin kritye is, aham iti yat darsanam tasmin karaniye. There can be no doubt that the commentator correctly explains the meaning.
Neniyate is as the commentator explains, an instance of karmakartari prayogah. Hence, the meaning is that both the attributes of form etc., and the senses with mind which apprehend those attributes, are the understanding itself, so that when the understanding is not, these also are not. The object of this verse is to establish the identity of the understanding with the senses, the mind, and the attribute with the senses and the mind apprehend. Both the vernacular versions are inaccurate.
The three attributes of Rajas, Tamas, and Sattwa do not spring from any different thing but from their own counterparts existing in a previous state of existence or life. They arise from their respective states as they existed with the Chitta or understanding in a previous life. Hence Chitta, and the objects of the senses and the senses also arising from it, are all affected by these three Gunas.
The last word in the first line is not prabodhita but aprabodhita.
In the original, the word atman is used in various senses. Sometimes it stands for the Jiva-soul, sometimes for the Supreme Soul, sometimes for essence or the principal portion of anything, sometimes for one's own self, and sometimes even for the person or body. It is not difficult to distinguish in which sense the word is used in what place.
Vela is tide or current. The Understanding, although it exists with the three states of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas, can yet transcend them by Yoga. The ordinary and extraordinary states of the understanding are spoken of in this verse.
The Bengal texts make this a verse of one line. In the Bombay text, verse 9 is made a triplet, so that this line is included in it. Medhyani is explained as medha, rupadi jnanam, tatra tani.
If I have understood this verse correctly, the theory of perception laid down is a sort of idealism which has not, perhaps, its counterpart in European metaphysics. The senses are first said to be only modifications of the understanding. The mind also is only a modification of the same. A particular sense, say the eye, becomes subservient to the understanding at a particular moment. As soon as this happens, the understanding, though in reality it is only the eye, becomes united with the eye, and entering the mind raises an image there, the consequence of which is that that image is said to be seen. External world there is, of course, as independent of mind and understanding. That which is called a tree is only an idea or image created in the mind by the understanding with the aid of the sense of vision.
The speaker here combats the theory that the qualities of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas inhere to the objects themselves of the senses. His own view is that they inhere to the Mind, the Understanding, and Consciousness. The qualities may be seen to exist with objects, but in reality they follow objects in consequence of their permanent connection with the mind, the understanding, and consciousness which have agency in the production of objects. The commentator cites the instance of a wife's beautiful and symmetrical limbs. These excite pleasure in the husband, envy in a co-wife, and desire (mixed with pain at its not being gratified) in a weak-hearted gazer. All the while the limbs remain unchanged. Then again, the husband is not always pleased with them, nor is the co-wife always filled with envy at their sight, nor is the gazer always agitated. Like the spokes of a wheel which are attached to the circumference and which move with circumference, the qualities of Sattwa, etc., attached to the mind, understanding and consciousness, move along with them, i.e., follow those objects in the production of which the mind, etc., are causes.
This version of verse is offered tentatively. I give the substance without following the exact order of the original. Compare this verse with 42 of section 194 ante.
As soon as the darkness of the understanding is dispelled and true knowledge succeeds, the Soul becomes visible.
i.e., who adopts the Sannyasa or the last mode of life after having duly gone through the preceding modes.
Gunan in the first line means Vishayan, in the second line it means Sattivadin, Vikriyatah is vikram bhajamanan. How the understanding creates objects has been explained in previous sections.
Na nivartante is explained by the commentator as na ghatadivat nasyanti kintu rajjuragadiva badha eva, etc., and he concludes by saying that according to this theory niranvayanasa eva gunanam, or, in other words, that the Gunas are not so destroyed by knowledge that they do not return.
According to the speaker then, there is not much practical difference between the two opinions here adverted to, and one's course of conduct will not be much affected by either of the theories that one may, after reflection, adopt.
Janmasamartham is explained as certain to be acquired by virtue of birth or of the practice of the duties laid down for one's own order. Parayanam is moksha-prapakam.
The Bengal reading buddhah is preferable to the Bombay reading Suddhah which would be pleonastic in view of what follows in the second line.
Lokam is explained as lokyate iti lokah, i.e., objects of enjoyment such as wife, etc., aturam, is afflicted with faults or defects. Ubhayam kritakritam is as the commentator explains, sokasokarupam or aropitam and anaropitam.
Many of the verses of this and the previous section correspond with those of section 194 ante. Many verbal changes, however, are noticeable. In consequences of those changes, the meaning sometimes becomes lightly and sometimes materially different.
Gocharaebhyah, literally, pastures, is used here to signify all external and internal objects upon which the senses and the mind are employed. Their proper home or abode is said to be Brahma.
The absence of anything like precision in the language employed in such verses frequently causes confusion. The word atma as used in the first line is very indefinite. The commentator thinks it implies achetanabuddhi, i.e., the perishable understanding. I prefer, however, to take it as employed in the sense of Chit as modified by birth. It comes, I think, to the same thing in the end. The 'inner Soul' is, perhaps, the Soul or Chit as unmodified by birth and attributes.
Abhavapratipattyartham is explained by the commentator as 'for the attainment of the unborn or the soul.'
The commentator explains the first line thus: yatha sarvani matani tatha etani vachansi me. He takes the words: yatha tatha kathitani maya as implying that 'I have treated of the topic yathatathyena.'
The commentator explains that tasya tasya has reference to gandhadeh. Pracharah means vyavahara. Pasyatah is Vidushah.
i.e., one that only knows the Vedas and has observed the vow of Brahmacharya is not a superior Brahmana. To become so requires something more.
I follow the commentator closely in rendering this verse. Sarvavit is taken in the sense of Brahmavit. Akamah is one contented with knowledge of Self. Such a man, the Srutis declare, never dies or perishes. The two negatives in the last clause nullify each other. The Burdwan translator, with the gloss before him, for he cites copiously from it, misunderstands the negatives. K.P. Singha is correct.
Avidhanat is explained as dayanaishkainyayorananusaranat.
Kamakantah is explained as kamaih kantah, i.e., manoharah.
Heaven is Brahma invested with attributes. Tranquillity of soul is Brahma uninvested with attributes. Upanishat is explained as rahasyam. This renders 'recondite object'. The sense of the verse is that each of the things mentioned is useless without that which comes next; and as tranquillity or Brahma uninvested with attributes is the ultimate end, the Vedas and truth, etc., are valuable only because they lead to tranquillity.
Both the Vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. In the first place, ichcchasi is equivalent to ichccheta. Santoshat is for the sake of santosha. Sattwam is buddhiprasadam. Manas is explained as sankalpa or samsaya. The grammatical order is sokamanasoh santapya kledanam. The commentator adds santapamiti namulantam, i.e., formed by the suffix namul.
Samagrah is literally 'full or complete,' implying that such a man becomes jnana-triptah. Only five attributes are mentioned in this verse but santosha mentioned in verse 13 should be taken to make up six.
Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse incorrectly. In the first place shadbhih has reference to the six things mentioned in verse 11 and 12 above. These six again should be satwagunopetaih, i.e., destitute of the attributes of Rajas and Tamas. Unless freed from those two, even the six, of themselves, will not lead to knowledge of the Soul. Tribhih has reference to Sravana, manana, and nididhyasana. Ihastham is 'residing within the body.' Pretya implies transcending consciousness of body or jivati eva dehe dehabhimanadutthaya. Tam gunam is muktalakshanam. The sense, in simple words, is this: transcending all consciousness of body they that succeed in knowing the Soul which resides within the body become emancipated. The first line of the verse simply points out how the Soul may be known.
Anweti is explained as vardhate.
The reading I adopt is saviseshani, and not aviseshani although the latter is not incorrect. In treatises on yoga, viseshah imply the gross elements and the eleven senses including the mind. Aviseshah imply the five subtile elements (tanmatrani) and buddhi. By Gunan is meant Mahat and Avyakta or Prakriti. If aviseshani be taken, the reference to the subtile elements would imply that the grosser once have already been transcended.
Atikrantaguna-kshayam, i.e., one who has transcended disregards the very puissance that the destruction of the gunas is said to bring about.
Karyyatam is Prakriti which alone is active, Purusha being inactive. Paramam karanam is, of course, Brahma uninvested with attributes.
Dwandwani is governed by anushthitah. Mahat here is elaborate. The speaker, having first discussed the subject elaborately, intends to speak of it in brief in this Section.
Panchasu is explained by the commentator as Panchatmakeshu. Hence, he properly points out that bhava and abhava and kala are included by the speaker within bhutas or primary elements. Bhava implies the four entities called karma, samanya, visesha and samavaya. By abhava is meant a negative state with respect to attributes not possessed by a thing. We cannot think of a thing without thinking of it as uninvested with certain attributes whatever other attributes it may possess.
Enlarged, the constructions of the original becomes thus: 'uttareshu (bhuteshu) (purvabhuta) gunah (santi).'
Uttarah imply the three entities known by the names of Avidya (Ignorance), Kama (desire), and Karma (acts). This part of the verse is skipped over by the vernacular translators.
i.e., the soul when invested with Avidya and desire becomes a living creature and engages in acts. It is through consequences then that are derived from acts that the infinite Soul (or Chit) becomes Jivatman.
This is a very difficult verse and no wonder that both the vernacular versions are defective. K.P. Singha gives the substance, skipping over many of the words. The Burdwan translator, though citing largely from the gloss, misunderstands both verse and gloss completely. The grammatical construction is this: Ebhih sarvaih kalatmakaih bhavaih anwitam sarvam yah akalushiam pasyati (sah) samoham karma nanuvartate. Sarvam here refers to pranijatam or the entire assemblage of living creatures. Kalatmakaih bhavaih is punyapapadi samskaratmabhih. Bhavaih is taken by the commentator as equivalent to bhavanabhih. I prefer to take it in the sense of entity. He who looks upon these as akalusham, i.e., as unstained Chit (that is, he who has a knowledge of the Soul), becomes freed from samoham karma, i.e., succeeds in becoming nishkamah in consequence of his acquaintance with atmatattwa.
'Conversant with the scriptures,' i.e., Yogin; 'acts laid down in the scriptures' are the practices connected with Yoga. Saririnam, the commentator takes, implies the Soul as invested with a subtile body; of course, Saririn as distinguished from Sariram generally means the Soul or the owner of the Sariram without reference to the body. Hence, the word cannot be taken as referring to the Soul as uninvested with the lingasarira.
I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Sahitah is nividah; drisyamanah is explained as 'though unseen by the eye is yet realised through instruction and by the aid of reason.'
Tapah is rasmi-mandalam. Prati-rupam is pratyupa-dhi. Sattwam is sattwapradhanalingam. The sense, in simple words, seems to be that the Yogin beholds within his own body and those of others the Souls or Chits residing there as invested in subtile forms.
Both atmachintitam and karmajam rajas are governed by Jahatam. The first means all that is: 'kalpitah in self' i.e., the creations of the understanding or the mind, implying, of course, the objects of the senses or the external world. The second means kamadi vyasanam, i.e., the calamities constituted by desire, etc. Pradhanadwaidhamuktah is one who is freed from identity with Pradhana or the Universal cause; hence, the puissance that Yoga brings about. Such Yogins have their subtile forms under complete control under all conditions and at all times. They can enter at will into other forms. Sattwatma is linga-dehah.
Satatam qualifies anwitah. Nityam qualifies charishnuh. Sadanityah is explained by the commentator as in reality terminable, though the words always etc., have been used. The plain meaning of the verse is that Yogins, in their linga body, rove everywhere, not excluding the most blissful regions in heaven itself.
The meaning is this: like Yogins, ordinary men even have the linga-sariram. In dreams, the gross body is inactive. Only the subtile body acts and feels. The Burdwan translator misunderstands this verse completely.
Atikramanti is understood at the end of the verse. Vajropamani is explained by the commentator as 'so undying that they are not destroyed at even the universal destruction; hence, of course, the karana bodies.' The karana bodies are the potentialities, existing in the tanmatra of the elemental substances, of forming diverse kinds of linga bodies in consequence of the acts of Jiva in previous periods of existence.
Etat is: maduktam vakyam; yogam implies yogapradhanam. Samadhau samam has reference to 'yogam.' What the speaker wishes to say in this verse is that dhyana is not laid down for Sannyasins alone but it is laid down for all others as well.
Pradhanam is Avidya or Ignorance. Viniyoga is Viparinama. The particle anu always interpreted as 'following' the scriptures or some special branch of knowledge that treats of the subject spoken of.
The correct reading is ayasaih meaning 'made of iron,' and not 'ayasaih.' K.P. Singha adheres to the incorrect reading. The chains of iron here are either the diverse longings cherished by worldly men, or, perhaps, the bodies with which men are invested.
The dual genitive duhkhayoh is used because worldly sukha also is regarded as duhkha. 'Tyajamannah' is equivalent to 'tyaktum ichccha.' It is an instance of hetau sanach.
Yena is explained as Stryadina hetuna. 'Sah' is Stryadih. Samrohati is Vardhayati. 'Tam' is Vardhakam.
'Uddhriyate' is literally 'tears up.' The use of the word 'asina' suggests also 'cutting.' The root of the tree, of course, is Avidya or Ignorance.
K.P. Singha wrongly translates the first line. The Burdwan translator quotes the gloss without understanding it. The first half of the first line, literally rendered, is 'the senses are the mind-citizens,' meaning, as the commentator rightly explains, that they are citizens under the lead of the mind. 'Tadartham' means 'for the sake of the senses,' i.e., 'for cherishing them.' Prakritih is mahati kriya pravrittih, Tadartham is kriyaphalam, i.e., happiness or misery. The meaning, in brief, is this: the body is a city. The understanding is its mistress. The mind is her principal servitor. The senses are the citizens under the lead of the mind. In order to cherish the senses the mind engages in acts productive of visible and invisible fruits i.e., sacrifices and gifts, and the acquisition of houses and gardens, etc. Those acts are liable to two faults, viz., Rajas and Tamas. The senses (both in this life and the succeeding ones) depend upon the fruits (happiness or misery) of those acts.
The meaning is this: the senses, the mind, the understanding, etc., are all due to acts. These, therefore, are said to rest upon acts and draw their sustenance therefrom.
I expand the first line of 14 for giving the meaning clearly.
The sense is that the understanding, being stained or afflicted, the Soul also becomes stained or afflicted. Enam is atmanam. Vidhritam is 'placed like an image upon a mirror.'
Because the son had not yet obtained the light of full knowledge.
It is curious to note how carelessly this verse is rendered in the Burdwan version. In the Bengal texts there is a misprint, viz., tatha for rasah. The Burdwan translator does not notice it, but gives just eight qualities instead of ten. Capacity to be congealed is to be inferred from cha. K.P. Singha is correct.
The Rishis, it is evident, regarded an entity not as an unknown substance in which certain known properties inhered, but as the sum total of those properties themselves. So far as the human mind is concerned, there is no warrant for the proposition that matter is an unknown substance in which extension, and divisibility etc., inhere; on the other hand, matter, as it appears to us, is only extension, divisibility, etc., existing in a combined state.
The elements are five in number. Their properties number fifty. The five especial properties of the understanding should be added to those five and fifty. The total, therefore, of the properties of the understanding comes up to sixty.
This is a difficult verse. Anagatam is agama-viruddham. The grammatical construction, as explained by the commentator, is this: tat (tasmin or purvaslokokokte vishaya yat) anagatam tava uktam tat chintakalilam. (Twam tu) samprati iha (loke) tat (maduktam) bhutarthatattwamsarvam avapya bhuta-prabhavat santabuddhi bhava. Bhutarthah is Brahma, and bhutaprabhavat is Brahmaiswaryat. (This is an instance of the ablative with 'lyap' understood). What Bhishma wishes Yudhishthira to do is not so much to attend to the various theories about the origin of the universe but to carefully attend to the method of attaining to Brahma. To be of tranquil heart, of course, implies the possession of a nirvrittika buddhi.
i.e., they could be slain by only their equals who were engaged with them, meaning that all those warriors were very superior men. They could not possibly be slain by others than those with whom they fought.
In the case of gods and Rishis, thinking and summoning are the same.
The commentator explains that the accusatives in the first line of verse 5 governed by hareyam in the previous verse.
A Padmaka consists of ten digits, i.e., a thousand millions or a billion according to the French method of calculation.
To lead a life in the woods with the deer and after the manner of the deer confers great merit. Vide the story of Yayati's daughter Madhavi in the Udyoga Parvam ante.
The commentator explains that this means that Death would attain to the status of all-pervading Brahma. Even this is the boon that the Self-born grants her for protecting her against iniquity and allaying her fears.
i.e., being freed from wrath and aversion.
Vasishtha's work commences with the query--What is dharmah? The first answer is 'anything consistent with the Srutis and the Smritis.' Then comes Sishtacharah or the conduct of those called Sishta or the good.
However casuists may argue and moralists pretend, a lie like that of Sir Henry Lee for saving his prince from the hands of Cromwell (vide Woodstock), or like that of the goldsmith's son, even when he was dying, for saving the prince Chevalier from the hands of his would-be captors, is excusable in the estimation of many and even meritorious according to some. The world again is agreed that if an adulterer be called into the witness box, perjury would be a venal offence compared with the meanness of betraying the honour of a confiding woman. Hence, the exclusion of such a witness (according to almost every system of law) in trials for adultery. The Rishis wrote for men and not angels. The conduct referred to is that of the good and pious.
In explaining verse 7, the commentator uses the words that I have enclosed within parenthesis. According to him, verse 9 hath reference to the robbed thief while he goes to the king for invoking justice.
There is another reason why one should not give way to intoxication of might and should not set at naught the eternal injunction against taking what belongs to another. K.P. Singha incorrectly translates this line.
Implying that such a man is always alive to his own faults. He never thinks that others are guilty of an offence which he, in a moment of temptation, may have committed.
K.P. Singha wrongly translates this line.
The construction is not at all difficult; yet both the vernacular translators have misunderstood it, the Burdwan version being thoroughly unintelligible. This is only another form of the well-known saying--'do to others as you would that they should do to you.'
The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version of the second line: yad is equivalent to yadi: anyasya stands for anyam. The genitive inflection is used for the accusative. Tatah stands for tasmin implying aupapatye vishaye. Kuryat is driggochari-kuryat.
The surplus should not be coveted for its own sake but for such use.
The second line is incorrectly rendered by K.P. Singha.
Priyabhyupagatam is priyena praptam and not hinsaya.
I am not sure that I have understood the original correctly. Nilakantha says that the sense intended to be conveyed is that Yudhishthira finds fault with Bhishma's previous course on the indications of righteousness.
The argument, as explained by the commentator is this: Bhishma has said that righteousness and its reverse arise from one's acts producing happiness or misery to others, and that they both affect one's future life in respect to the happiness and misery enjoyed or endured therein. But living creatures, says Yudhishthira, are seen to take their births, exist, and die, of their own nature. Nature, therefore, seems to be the efficient cause of birth, existence, and death, and not the declarations in the Srutis, consistent though those declarations be with considerations of felicity or the reverse. The study of the Vedas, therefore, cannot alone lead to a knowledge of righteousness and its reverse.
Distress may be of infinite variety. Derogation also from duty may, therefore, be of infinite variety. It is impossible to note these derogations (justifiable in view of the degree of distress felt) in any code of morals, however comprehensive.
The commentator cites the example of Sudras listening to forbidden scriptures in expectation of merit. They commit sin by such acts. Then again high Brahmanas like Agastya, by cursing the denizens of the Dandaka forest, achieved great merit. In persons universally called ordinary or even low, indications are observable of good behaviour, and in those acknowledged to be good and respectable, acts may be noticed that are not good. That therefore, which is called the conduct of the good is extremely unascertainable.
The commentator cites the instance of the stoppage of the Horse-sacrifice in consequence of the interference of Indra with Janamejaya while the latter was bent upon celebrating one for the acquisition of merit.
The vapoury edifices and forms seen in the distant sky are called Gandharva-nagara from the peculiar belief that they are cities or towns inhabited by the Gandharvas, a class of beings superior to men. They appear to the view only to disappear very soon. What the speaker wishes to say is that sacrifices and religious acts at first appear romantic and delightful in consequence of the fruits they hold forth, viz., heaven and felicity. But when they are examined by the light of philosophy, they disappear or shrink into nothingness, for as acts, they are transitory and their consequences too are of the same character.
The object of this verse is to show that it is extremely difficult to ascertain who the good are whose conduct should be taken as the standard of righteousness.
The commentator cites the instance of Drona and others of that class. These men must be regarded as Mahajanas and Sadhus, but how can their conduct be regarded as righteous? What Yudhishthira means to say is that the standards of righteousness or that by which a good man may be known, is difficult of ascertainment.
The example of Viswamitra, Jamadagnya, and Vasishtha are cited by the commentator. The first won pre-eminence by his mastery over weapons. The second lost his character as a Brahmana by the profession of arms. The third lost nothing although he punished Viswamitra's insolence by using even carnal weapons.
What Yudhishthira says here is that righteousness or virtue or duty does not depend upon the Srutis or the Smritis, nor upon considerations of happiness or misery. On the other hand, righteousness is arbitrary in respect of its standard, that being called righteous which was called so by the learned of ancient times. As regards happiness or misery, its cause is eternal nature.
'In this connection,' i.e., the subject of the true cause to which is to be ascribed the dispensation of happiness or its reverse.
His gross body was within the water. Nevertheless, by Yoga power, he was able to rove over the world in his subtile body and beheld everything he wished to see.
Criya is explained by the commentator as implying the possession of Vedic lore.
This was a new vow that Jajali began to observe, the vow, viz., of travelling over the entire earth, sleeping there where evening overtook him.
A Beniya's shop is a miscellaneous depot. It contains chiefly spices and drugs, but there is no article for domestic use that may not be found in such a shop.
Bhandajivanah is one who lays out capital and lives upon its profits.
Charin is sancharanam for food.
In some of the Bengal texts, verse consists of 3 lines. The 3rd line, however, is omitted in the Bombay edition.
The commentator observes that in the second line the speaker explains what morality with its mysteries is.
Padmaka or Padma-kashta is the rootstock of Nymphoea lotus. A kind of medicinal wood also is indicated by it, which is brought from Malwa and Southern India. To this day, it enters into the composition of many drugs used by Hindu Physicians. Tunga is either the filaments of the lotus, or the tree called Punnaga which is identified with the Calophyllum inophyllum of the Linnean genera. The Bombay reading parichcchinnaih for parachcchinnaih does not seem to be correct.
In the Bengal editions, verse consists of one line. In the Bombay text, it is included with the 10th verse which is made a triplet. The meaning is that weighing creatures I regard all of them as equal. In my scales a Brahmana does not weigh heavier than a Chandala, or an elephant heavier than a dog or cat.
The sense is this: there is variety in this world. It is, however, like the variety of aspects which the sky shows. It is the same Godhead that manifests itself in diverse forms even as it is the same sky that puts forth various aspects in consequence of the appearance and disappearance of clouds.
Devairapihita-dwarah means persons whose doors (senses) have been closed by the deities, i.e., men with senses that are defective or lost.
That state is Brahma, and there is no fear of return from it. Hence, it is called abhayam padam.
The commentator explains that the mention of putra-pautrinam indicates that kulachara or family practices (if not very cruel) are authoritative.
The correct reading seems to be vimuchyate.--The sense is this: there is an eternal course of righteousness as laid down in the Vedas. That which is called the conduct of the good may sometimes be stained by some errors. Fools, led by this, give up righteousness itself. On the other hand, wise men, avoiding those errors, take what is good and are saved. An old saying is cited by the commentator to the effect that when all is threatened, a wise man gives up half for saving the remainder. A fool, however, gives up the whole when only half is threatened with destruction.
The word iha in verse is the only indication of the speaker's desire to allude to the union of relatives in this world.
K.P. Singha quietly omits the second half of the second line. The Burdwan translator, as usual, blunders in rendering it. The fact is, krosatah is not an adjective of vrikat, but stands for the roaring Vadava fire. The commentator distinctly mentions drishtante Vadavagnih.
Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse.
Alpahrillekhah is explained by the commentator as alpam vahyasukham hridilekheva pratishthitam yesham; hence, men who seek ordinary felicity, viz., that which has a termination. The patavah are of course, the truly wise, i.e., those that seek felicity that is unending. Kritsna is Brahma; tadartham abhayadanamitinirnaya yesham, i.e., the truly wise practice it for the sake of Brahma. It is almost impossible to understand verses such as these without the aid of the commentator.
Padashinah has reference to Devah. The sandhi in Devapi is arsha. The deities become stupefied in his _track_, i.e., fail to see or find it out, for such a man is apadah, i.e., transcends the highest regions of felicity, such as even the region of Brahman, because of their non-eternity. Such a man attains to Brahma, which is infinite and eternal.
Bhuta is explained by the commentator as Brahma, and Bhavya, as heaven or the regions of felicity in the next world. In the Vedas both kinds of duties occur, such as Samah, etc., for Brahma, and sacrifices, &c., for heaven.
The commentator cites some conflicting ordinances about the slaughter of kine. The subject of duty, is thus confused, contradictory declarations being noticeable in the Vedas.
Badha here means striking or beating. If taken in the sense of 'death' the meaning would be putting some to death so that others may be frightened. These verses are a noble protest against the institution of slavery.
Some texts read Prishadhro-gamlavanniva, meaning Prishadhara perpetrated a great sin by killing a cow (mistaking it for a tiger, as the story goes).
The cow is called the mother because of the use to which she is subservient. Her milk nourishes every infant as much as the mother's bosom. The bull, again, is Prajapati, because like Prajapati he creates offspring and assists man in the production of food.
Nahusha had killed a cow and a bull for honouring the Rishis. The latter, however, expressed their dissatisfaction at the act, and cleansed him of the sin in the manner indicated in the text. The commentator cites the instance of how Indra was cleansed of the sin of Brahmanicide. The Rishis, in compassion, distributed the sin among all beings of the feminine sex. That sin manifests itself in their periodical flows and the consequent impurity.
The commentator explains that the Rishis addressed Nahusha in that style even when they knew that he had not intentionally slain the cow and the bull. The object of the speaker is to show the enormity of the act when done intentionally.
The fact is, all Sacrifices, in which injury is done to animal and vegetable life are Sacrifices for Kshatriyas. The only Sacrifice that Brahmanas should perform is Yoga.
Sacrifices are always attractive for the fame they bring. Their performance depends upon wealth. The acquisition of wealth leads to the commission of many evil acts.
The sense is that in former days when the true meaning of Sacrifice was understood and all men performed them without being urged by the desire of fruit, the beneficial consequences that flowed were the production of crops without tillage (and without injury to animals that live in holes and burrows). The good wishes the Rishis cherished for all creatures were sufficient to produce herbs and plants and trees. May not this be taken as an indication of the traditional idea of the happiness of Eden before the fall of man?
'Bereft of wisdom' is explained by the commentator as implying the non-attainment of emancipation.
This verse is exceedingly terse and condensed. In the second line, the words Brahmana vartate loke, literally rendered, mean 'who believes that only Brahma exists in the world.' The commentator takes these words as implying 'who regards every essential of Sacrifice as Brahma.' Although I have followed the commentator, yet I think his interpretation to be rather far-fetched. Why may not the words be taken in a literal sense? He who takes Brahma to be all things and all things to be Brahma, becomes sinless and deserves to be called a Brahmana. The last word of the second tine simply means 'who does not regard his own self as the actor.' The view expressed in the Gita is that we should do all acts believing ourselves to be only agents or instruments of the Supreme deity. Acts are His, we are only His tools. Such a conviction is sure to guard us against all evil acts.
What is said in verse 17 is that when Sacrifices are done from a sense of duty, notwithstanding their incompleteness, they become efficacious. It is only when they are performed from desire of fruit that expiation becomes necessary if their completion be obstructed by any cause. Having thus applauded the Sacrifices (represented by acts) of the truly wise, other kinds of Sacrifices are indicated in verse 18. K.P. Singha translates 18 correctly. The Burdwan version is erroneous.
Swayajna is literally 'sacrifice in one's own self'; hence, Yoga, Brahmam vedam is Pranava or Om.
K.P. Singha erroneously translates this verse. The Burdwan version, so far as it goes, is correct. Sarvam Brahma is explained as Pranava, which is akhilam daivatam, for the Srutis declare that Omkarah sarvadaivatyah, Brahmani is Brahmavidi. What is intended to be said in this verse is that when such a man eats and is gratified, the whole universe becomes gratified. In the Vana Parvam, Krishna, by swallowing a particle of pottage gratified the hunger of thousands of Durvasa's pupils.
Such a man regards all things as Brahma, and himself as Brahma.
K.P. Singha blunders in rendering the second half of the first line. Yasah, the commentator explains, is Mahadyasah or Brahma. 'The path of the righteous,' the commentator thinks, is Yoga.
i.e., they perform mental Sacrifices.
'For the reason,' i.e., because they cannot officiate at the Sacrifices of those that are truly good. In the second line (28 is a triplet), the nominative sadhavah is understood. The meaning is that such men, that is, the truly good, accomplish their own duties not for benefiting their own selves but for the good of others. What is said in the third line is that observing both kinds of behaviour, i.e., that of the good and that of the misguided, I follow the path of the former by abstaining from every kind of injury.
Yajneshu is 'among Sacrifices.' Yani has reference to the different kinds of the Sacrifices, viz., those performed from desire of fruit and consequently productive of Return, and those not performed from desire of fruit and consequently leading to Emancipation. Tena stands for tena Yajnena. What the speaker wishes to lay down is that only a certain class of sacrificers succeed in attaining to an end whence there is no return.
The sense seems to be that they perform mental Sacrifices, and not actual sacrifices after having created by Yoga-power all the necessary articles.
The sin of slaughtering a cow will not touch such a person, his soul being above the influence of acts.
i.e., I have for this reason spoken in praise of Renunciation and not that frame of mind in which one acts from desire of fruit.
These are, of course, the indications of complete Renunciation. Such a man never bends his head to another and never flatters another, for he is above all want.
Verse 35 is a triplet. In the first two lines the speaker says that one who does not accomplish the acts specified, fails to attain to a desirable end. In the last line, idam, refers to the duties of a true Brahmana or the indications of the Renunciation as laid down in verse 34. Daivatam kritwa, is explained by the commentator as Daivatamiva sevaniyam kritwa, Yajnam is Vishnu or Brahma as the Srutis declare.
The Munis referred to in the first line are those mentioned in verse 31 above. They are the atmayajins or mental sacrificers. Kashtam is gahanam. Asya in the second line refers to the particular Yoga of those Munis. Lest the Yoga propounded by Tuladhara be regarded as altogether new, a circumstance that would detract from their merit, the commentator explains the words natah as preceded by Avekshamana api understood.
Yasmin here is equivalent to Yadi, it being, as the commentator explains, Vibhaktipratirupakam avyayam. Eva is equivalent to Evam, meaning Twaduktaprakarena; atmatirtha means atmaiva tirtham or Yajnabhumistatra. Prapnuyat in the second line stands for prapnuyuh. The use of the singular for the plural is arsha.
What is said here is this: the sacrifices of some men become lost through absence of faith. These men, it is plain, are not worthy of performing any kind of sacrifice internal or external. The performance of sacrifice, however, is easy. The cow and her products can minister to all sacrifices. In the case of those that are able, full libations of clarified butter, of milk, and of curds, are sufficient to enable them to perform whatever sacrifice they wish. As regards those that are poor, the dust of a cow's hoof and the water in which a cow's tail and horns have been washed, are quite sufficient to enable them to perform their sacrifices. Purnahuti should not, I think, be taken as different from clarified butter, etc.
All these verses are exceedingly terse. Anena vidhina is the mode which the speaker himself advocates, viz., the performance of sacrifices without slaughter of animals. Niyojayan is an instance hetau satri. After prakaroti Sraddham is understood. Ishtam here means Yagam. Yajunam (as in verse 35 above) is Brahma.
The soul is itself a tirtha. A tirtha, of course, is a spot containing sacred water. One should seek the acquisition of merit in the soul instead of going to places called sacred and lying in different parts of the earth. 'According to his own ability' means 'according to the best of his power.' If one can perform a sacrifice with clarified butter, one should not do it with the dust of a cow's hoofs.
Dharmasya vachanat kila is explained by the commentator as Dharmasya ahinsatmakasya samvandhino vachanat. I think the words may also mean, 'obeying the voice of Dharma.'
The two negatives in the second line amount to an affirmative assertion.
Vaivaswati is 'appertaining to Vivaswat or prakasarapachidatma', hence 'Brahma-vishayini'. 'Daughter of Surya' means Sattwiki. Faith is vahirvangamanasi, i.e., is 'the outward form of speech and mind,' implying that it 'transcends (the merit born of) speech (recitation) and mind (meditation).'
'Defects of speech' are the incorrect utterance of mantras. 'Defects of mind' are such as listlessness, haste, etc.
Kadarya is explained by the commentator as 'miserly.' I think it may be taken also in a more extended sense. Then again vardhushi is a usurer and not necessarily a dealer in corn.
The commentator is entirely silent upon this verse. The two Bengali versions have proceeded in two different ways. The four classes of persons indicated in the previous verses are (1) he that is destitute of faith but is (outwardly) pure, (2) he that has faith but is not (outwardly) pure, (3) a miserly person possessed of learning, and (4) a usurer endued with liberality. The answer of Brahman, without touching other points, refers particularly to faith. The liberal man's food is sanctified by faith. The food of him that has no faith is lost. For this reason, the liberal man's food, even if he happens to be a usurer, is worthy of acceptance, and not so the food of the miser even though he may be possessed of Vedic lore.
The commentator takes the word divam as implying hardakasam. They sported (not in the ordinary felicity of heaven but) in the puissance of Yoga.
Gograhe is explained by the commentator as 'a sacrifice in which kine are slain.' Yajnavatasya is an instance of the genitive for the accusative. It means Yajnavatsthan nirdayan Brahmanan. The expression may also mean 'in the cow-pen within the sacrificial enclosure.'
Avyaktaih is explained by the commentator as Yajnadi-dwaraiva khyatimichchhadbhih.
Kamakara may also mean recklessness, Vahirvedyam is 'on the outer Vedi or altar.' The actual slaughter takes place on this vedi. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word.
Upasya, is explained by the commentator as 'living near an inhabited place.' Vedakritah Srutih are the fruits indicated in the Vedas of the acts laid down in them. Acharah has reference to the duties of the domestic mode of life. Acharah should be made anacharah, i.e., should not be followed. The Sannyasa mode of life is thus recommended.
The meaning is this: ordinary men abstain from tainted meat, regarding all meat as tainted which is obtained from animals that are not killed in sacrifices and in course of religious acts. The speaker, however, holds that this practise is not worthy of applause, for all meat is tainted, including that of animals slain in sacrifices. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly though his rendering is not literal. The Burdwan translator, misunderstanding text and commentary, jumbles them together and gives an incorrect rendering.
Hence there is no need for sacrifices with slaughter of animals, and alcohol, etc.
The sense is this: dangers are always seeking to destroy the body. The body is always seeking to destroy those destroyers. This perpetual war or struggle implies the desire to injure. How then, asks Yudhishthira, is it possible for any man to lead a perfectly harmless life, harm being implied in the very fact of continued existence?
The sense, of course, is that one should acquire religious merit without wasting one's body; one should not, that is, cause one's body to be destroyed for the sake of earning merit.
On the occasion of the Jata-karma the sire says 'be thou as hard as adamant,' 'be thou an axe (unto all my foes).' The upakarma or subsidiary rite is performed on the occasion of the samavartana or return from the preceptor's abode. It is called subsidiary because it does not occur among the rites laid down in the Griha Sutras. The words uttered on that occasion are, 'Thou art my own self, O Son.'
Bhogya implies such articles as dress,--etc. Bhojya implies food, etc. Pravachana is instruction in the scriptures. Garbhadhana is the ceremonial in connection with the attainment of puberty by the wife. Simantonnayana is performed by the husband in the fourth, sixth or eighth month of gestation, the principal rite being the putting of the minimum mark on the head of the wife. The mark is put on the line of partition of her locks.
In India in every house two sticks were kept for producing fire by rubbing. These were replaced by the flint-stone and a piece of steel. Of course, Bryant and May's matches have now replaced those primitive arrangements almost everywhere, and in the hands of children have become a source of great danger to both life and property.
Prana is the organ of generation. Samslesha is union. The desires cherished are indicated in the Griha Sutras. 'Let our child be fair of complexion.' 'Let him be long-lived!' Though both parents cherish such wishes, yet their fruition depends more on the mother than the father. This is a scientific truth.
The sense seems to be this. The mother only has correct knowledge of who the father is. The commands of the father, therefore, may be set aside on the ground of the suspicion that attaches to his very status as father. Then, again, if the father be adulterous, he should not be regarded on account of his sinfulness. Chirakarin asks, 'How shall I know that Gautama is my father? How again shall I know that he is not sinful?'
The object of this verse is to indicate that when Gautama had ceased to protect his wife he had ceased to be her husband. His command, therefore, to slay her could not be obeyed.
The commentator argue that 'man being the tempted, takes the guilt upon himself; woman, being the tempted, escapes the guilt.'
The sense is this: the sire is all the deities together, for by reverencing the sire, all the deities are pleased. The mother, however, is all mortal and immortal creatures together, for by gratifying her one is sure to obtain success both here and hereafter.
Dharmasya is explained by the commentator as Yogadharma-sambandhi. Probably, Gautama blames his own carelessness in not having provided, by Yoga-puissance, against the commission of the offence. The commentator observes that the Rishi's exculpation of Indra himself is due to his own purity of nature and the entire absence of a desire to wrong other people. In reality, however, there can be no doubt that it was Indra who was to blame.
i.e., prince Satyavat said that the persons brought out for execution should not be executed. The power of kings did not extend over the lives of their subjects. In other words the prince argued against the propriety of inflicting capital punishment upon even grave offenders.
Verse 10 is a triplet.
The Burdwan translator gives a very incorrect version of this verse. He misunderstands both text and commentary completely. K.P. Singha is correct.
The commentator explains that the object of this line is to show that the very Sannyasin, when he offends, deserves to be chastised. K.P. Singha misunderstands the line completely. The Burdwan version is correct.
Both the vernacular versions of this verse are incorrect. The first half of the first line should be taken independently. The commentator explains that after gariyamsam the words api sasyu should be supplied. Aparadhe tu punah punah, etc., is said of offenders in general, and not eminent offenders only.
i.e., punishments were not necessary in former times, or very light ones were sufficient. The Burdwan version of this verse is thoroughly ridiculous.
Hence extermination is the punishment that has become desirable.
Hence, by slaying them no injury is done to any one in this or the other world.
Padma means, the ornaments of corpses. Grave-stealers that were in every country. Pisachat is Pisachopahatat. Evidently, idiots and mad men were the persons who were regarded to have been possessed by evil spirits. Daiyatam is an accusative which, like, Samayam is governed by the transitive verb Kurvita. Yah kaschit means yah kaschit mudyhah, na tu prajnah. The Burdwan version of this verse shows that the person entrusted with this portion of the Canti was altogether incompetent for the task. K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly.
The commentator supposes that after sadhun the word kartum is understood. The line may also be taken as meaning,--'If thou dost not succeed in rescuing the honest without slaying (the wicked).' Bhuta bhavya is sacrifice. The prince speaks of exterminating the rogues by slaying them as animals in a sacrifice because of the declaration in the Srutis that those killed in sacrifices ascend to heaven, purged of all their sins. Such acts, therefore, seem to be merciful to the prince, compared to death by hanging or on the block.
The world thus improves in conduct and morality through the king only behaving in a proper way. Cruel punishments are scarcely needed to reform the world.
The period of human life decreases proportionately in every succeeding age, as also the strength of human beings. In awarding punishments, the king should be guided by these considerations.
The word satya is used here for Emancipation. Mahaddahrmaphalam is true knowledge, so called because of its superiority to heaven, etc. The way pointed out by Manu is, of course, the religion of harmlessness. In verse 35, there is an address to prince Satyavat. It seems, as I have pointed out, that verses 32 to 35 represent the words of the grandsire to whom the prince refers in verse 31.
The redundant syllable is arsha.
Both acts and knowledge have been pointed out in the Vedas. The Vedas, therefore, being authority for both, one or the other cannot be censured or applauded.
Arsha means here Vedic injunctions declared through the mouths of inspired Rishis and compiled by Rishis. Viditatmanah is the Supreme Being himself. The object of the speaker is to show that no part of the Vedas can be censured, for every word in them is equally authoritative, all being God's own.
Deva-yanah is explained by the commentator as Devam atmanam janti ebhiriti, i.e., those by which the Soul is reached. The relative strength or weakness of the four modes of life hath been thus indicated. The Sannyasin attains to Moksha or Emancipation; the forest recluse to the region of Brahman; the house-holder attains to heaven (region of the deities presided over by Indra) and the Brahmacharin attains to the region of the Rishis.
The commentator explains that having commenced with the assertion that men should sacrifice from desire of heaven, the speaker fears that the hearer may deny the very existence of heaven. Hence, he takes a surer ground for justifying slaughter, viz., the ground that is connected with the consideration of food. Living creatures must eat in order to live. The very support of life requires the slaughter of life. Slaughter, therefore, is justified by the highest necessity.
i.e., there are the essential requisites of sacrifice.
The seven domestic animals are cow, goat, man, horse, sheep, mule, and ass. The seven wild ones are lion, tiger, boar, buffalo, elephant, bear, and monkey.
Vichinwita is Vivechayet with alamvartham understood; atmanah is equivalent to jivat.
All the products of the cow that are named here are not required in all sacrifices. Some are required in some, others in others. Those then that _are_ required, when coupled with Ritwijas and Dakshina, complete the respective sacrifices or uphold or sustain them.
Samhritya means Ekikritya and not 'destroying' as the Burdwan translator wrongly takes it.
The Burdwan translator, notwithstanding the clear language of both the text and commentary, wrongly connects the first line of verse 31 with the last line of 30, and makes nonsense of both verses.
By taking the two lines of 32 with the last line of 30, the Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the passage.
'Brahmanas' here means that part of the Vedas which contains the ritual.
Each constitutes the refuge of the other.
There are many such expletives, such as hayi, havu, etc.
For, as the commentator explains, one who has acquired an empire does not seek the dole of charity. In view of the high end that Renunciation is certain to bring, what need has a person of the domestic mode of life which leads to rewards that are insignificant compared to the other.
Varhi is grass or straw. Oshadhi here implies paddy and other grain. Vahiranya adrija implies 'other kinds of Oshadhi born on mountains,' i.e., the Soma and other useful hill plants and shrubs. Teshamapi mulam garhastyam should be supplied after the first line. Domesticity is the root of these, because these are cultivated or collected by persons leading the domestic mode of life. The argument in the second line is this: Oschadhibhyah pranah, pranat vahihna kinchit drisyate, atah viswasyapi mulam garhastyam.
Literally rendered, the words are,--'Without doubt, Vedic mantras enter into persons of the regenerate classes in respect of acts whose effects are seen and acts whose effects instead of being seen depend upon the evidence of the scriptures.' Practically, what is said here is that all the acts of a Brahmana are performed with the aid of Vedic mantras.
Mantras are necessary in cremating a Brahmana's dead body. Mantras are needed for assisting the dead spirit to attain to a brilliant form (either in the next world or in this if there be rebirth). These mantras are, of course, uttered in Sraddhas. After the dead spirit has been provided, with the aid of mantras, with a body, food and drink are offered to him with the aid of mantras. Kine and animals are given away by the representatives of the dead for enabling the dead ancestor to cross the Vaitarani (the river that flows between the two worlds) and for enabling him to become happy in heaven. The funeral cake, again, according to the ordinance, is sunk in water for making it easily attainable by him to whom it is offered. By becoming a human being one inherits three debts. By study he pays off his debt to the Rishis, by the performance of sacrifices he pays off his debt to the gods, and by begetting children he frees himself from the debt he owes to the Pitris. The argument then is this: when the Vedas, which are the words of Supreme Godhead, have laid down these mantras for the attainment of such objects in the next world, how can Emancipation, which involves an incorporeal existence transcending the very Karana (form) be possible? The very declarations of the Vedas in favour of acts are inconsistent with incorporeal existence or with the negation of existence with dual consciousness of knower and known.
The mention of 'Devan' as the commentator points out--Rishis and also Pitris. The amrita here that these covet is, of course, the Sacrificial libation. 'Brahma-sanjnitah' implies 'conversant with Brahma,' for the Srutis say that 'Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati.'
The terseness of the original has not been removed in the translation. Enam is the universal Soul dwelling within this physical frame. It refers to the person who constitutes himself to be the soul of all creatures or one who is conversant with Brahma or has become Brahma itself. That soul is said to have a fourfold nature, viz., it is virat (all-embracing), sutra (fine as the finest thread and pervading everything), antaryamin (possessed of omniscience), and suddha (stainless). Its four mouths, by which are meant the four sources of enjoyment or pleasure, are the body, the senses, the mind, and the understanding. What the speaker wishes to point out by this is the Bhotkritwa (power of enjoyment) of the Soul. The Kartritwa (power of action) is then pointed out by the mention of the doors which are the two arms, the organ of speech, the stomach and the organ of the pleasure (generation). These last operate as doors for shutting or confining the soul within its chamber. They are the screens or avaranas that conceal its real nature. The very gods feel their force, being unable to transcend them or their demands. He who would transcend them and shine in his own stainless nature should seek to control or restrain them. Practically, it is Yoga that is recommended for enabling one to attain to the position of the universal Soul.
'One who has cast off his upper garment' is one who clothes himself very scantily only for the sake of decency and not for splendour.
Dwandwarama very likely means here the joys of wedded couples and not 'the pleasures derived from pairs of opposites'. The sense seems to be this that man is a Brahmana who, without marrying succeeds in enjoying singly all the felicity that attaches to married life.
In reality all things are, of course, Brahma. Their external aspects are only transformations. The end of all creatures is death and rebirth till absorption takes place into Brahma by means of Yoga.
The original is very terse. I have expanded it, following the commentator. Dana-yajna kriya phalam is chitta suddhi of purity or heart; antarena is equivalent to vina; anujananti governs Brahmanyam understood. Anyat phalam in the second line implies heaven and its joys (which satisfy ordinary men). The particle anu before jananti is taken to imply gurum anu, i.e., following the instructions of preceptors.
These three verses run together and are extremely abstruse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. The construction is this: Yam sadacharam asritya samsritanam swakarmabhih (sahitam) tapah ghoratwam agatam, tam (sadacharam) puranam puranam saswatam dhruvam dharmeshu cha sutritamkitichit charitum asaknuvantah phalavanti vyushtimanti dhruvam cha karmani (mudah) vigunani, etc., pasyanti. The second line of 36 stands by itself as an explanatory sentence referring to some of the characteristics of the sadachara that is spoken of. Samsritanam, refers to men observing the different modes of life; ghoratwam agatam is samsarandhakaranasakam bhavati. What is meant by this is that the penances of such men, along with the duties they are called upon to observe by the particular mode of life they follow, become a terrible weapon, in consequence of their sadacharah, for destroying the evils of worldliness. The sadacharah spoken of here is nishkamadharmah. The latter is no new-fangled theory of men of learning but is puranam saswatam, and dhruvam. The phalavanti vyushtimanti, and dhruva karmani which fools regard to be vigyunani and anaikatitikani are, of course, those acts which are included within the word 'Yoga.' In brief, the speaker, in these three verses, wishes to inculcate that wise men, whatever their mode of life, observe its duties. But by virtue of the nishkama dharma they follow, they convert those duties and their penances into efficient means for dispelling the darkness of ignorance. Fools, on the other hand, unable to practise that nishkama dharma, look upon it and Yoga itself as fruitless and valueless although the rewards these confer are visible.
The sciences that have disputation only for their foremost object, are, according to the commentator, the sciences of the Lokayatikas, the Saughatas (or Buddhists), the Kapalikas, etc. The other sciences based on Logic that are included within the word Agama are the two Mimamsas, Sankhya, and Patanjala.
Aikatmyam is explained by the commentator as Eka eva dwaita darsana hina atma yatra bhavati. Practically, it is that state of the mind in which one perceives one's identity with everything in the universe. This is that true knowledge which brings about Emancipation or is Emancipation itself.
They are called 'robbers of the scriptures' because they always seek to rob the scriptures of their true meaning. They are 'depredators of Brahma' because they deny the very existence of Godhead. Nirarambhah is Camadyarambha-sunyah.
The particle anu means 'following the instructions of preceptors.' Samyame refers to Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. Some texts read Siddhante for samyame.
What is intended to be said here is that only a life of Renunciation, so hard to follow, can lead to Emancipation. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the second line of 64 by connecting it with the first line of 65, K.P. Singha omits it entirely.
The Vedas are Savda-Brahma or Brahma as represented by sound.
I have expanded this verse, following the lead of the commentator. Some idea may be given of the extreme terseness of such verses by offering a literal rendering: 'That lump of matter which is made a (human) body by what is contained in the Veda, is (afterwards) made (a body by the same means).' One approaches one's wife after performing the rite of Garbhadhana. In this rite, different deities are invoked to develop different organs and parts of the body of the child to be begotten. Thus begotten, the body of the child is, subsequent to birth, cleansed or purified. All this requires the aid of the Vedic mantras. What Kapila wishes to teach is that commencing with acts, knowledge should finally be acquired.
Yoga is the only way to true knowledge, hence Jnana-nishthah is Yoga-nishthah.
These and men like these are pointed out as persons deserving of gifts.
i.e., in Brahma as possessed of attributes and as freed from attributes.
Matra is explained as miyante vishya anya i.e., the understanding. What is meant by guile in the practice of righteousness may be exemplified as follows. Individual grains of barley may be given away instead of clothes by one unable to obtain clothes for gift. But one giving away barley grains when perfectly able to give away clothes would be guilty of guile.
The scriptures frequently lay down ordinances in the alternative. The absolute or substantive provisions are for the able. Those in the alternative are for them that are unable.
What is meant by the sacrifices, etc., of such men being identical with infinite Brahma is that these men were identical with Brahma and whatever they did was Brahma. They had no consciousness of self, or they did nothing for self. They were the Soul of the universe.
What is said here in effect is that at first there was only one course of duties, called sadachara or good conduct, for all men. In progress of time men became unable to obey all its dictates in their entirety. It then became necessary to distribute those duties into four subdivisions corresponding with the four modes of life.
Both K.P. Singha and the Burdwan translator have completely misunderstood verse 23 and the first line of 24, which, as the commentator explains, should be construed together. The construction is Tam (sadacharam) santah grihebhyah nishkramya eva (sannyasam kritwaiva) vidhivatprapya paramam gatim gachcchanti. Anye santo vanamasritah tam vidhivat prapya, etc. Similarly, Grihameva bhisamsritya anye santah, etc. Jato-anye, etc. Thus, all the four modes, commencing with the last, are spoken of.
It is impossible for any one to read the Burdwan version of such verses without pitying the Pandit responsible for its accuracy. Without understanding the commentary in the least, the words of the great commentator have been reproduced in the Burdwan version in a strange order, rejecting some of the connecting links without any excuse, and making the Collocation utterly unintelligible. K.P. Singha gives the substance very briefly without endeavouring to translate the words. And yet the verse presents almost no difficulty. The last line of 29 and the first line of 30 make one sentence. Chaturthopanishaddharmah is explained by the commentator as implying paramatma-vishayini vidya, tadartham dharmah. There are four states of consciousness: 1st, wakefulness; 2nd, dream; 3rd, dreamless slumber (sushupti); and 4th, Turiya, which is reached by Samadhi (abstraction of Yoga-meditation), and in which Brahma becomes realisable. What is said in these two lines is simply this: the duties (dharmah), relating to the Chaturthopanishat or, the Knowledge of Paramatman, are sadharanah or common to all the four orders of men and modes of life. Those duties, of course, are sama, dama, uparama, titiksha, sraddha, samadhi. What is said in the last line of 30 is that Brahmanas of pure hearts and restrained souls always succeed (by the help of those duties) in acquiring or attaining to that Turiya or consciousness of Brahma.
Apavargamiti is explained by the commentator as apavargaprada vidya or Brahmasakshatkararupa vrittiryasmin iti. Nityin is avasyakah. Yatidharmah is a life of Renunciation. What is meant by sanatanah is sampradayagatah.
Sadharana is opposed to kevala. Yathavalam implies yathavaira-gyam, Gachcchatam Gachcchatam means purushamatrasyavanigvya-dhadeh. The Burdwan translator misses the sense altogether and K.P. Singha quietly passes over the entire second line of this triplet. Durvala means he who is wanting in vairagya.
The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that even if there be equality in respect of the end that is attained in next life, there is more of real felicity in a life of Renunciation than in a life of enjoyment. The Burdwan translator misses the sense entirely.
The Burdwan translator gives a very erroneous version of this verse.
For by Knowledge Emancipation is obtained.
Vatarechaka is bhastra or a bellows. What is implied is, perhaps, that such a man breathes or lives in vain.
Nasti is explained by the commentator as the past and the future. Nishtha is swarupam. Literally, what is said is that everything is the Vedas, or the Vedas are everything. This is, perhaps, only an exaggerated mode of saying that the Vedas deal with everything.
The sense seems to be that while they that are ignorant regard the universe to be as existent and durable as the thunder or adamant, the man of knowledge regards it to be truly non-existent though it puts forth the appearance of existence.
I have endeavoured to give a literal version of verse 45. It is difficult, however, to seize the meaning from such versions. The word used in the first line is Tyaga implying Renunciation. The commentator correctly explains that this is that complete Renunciation which takes place in Samadhi or the perfect abstraction of Yoga. Samaptam is samyak aptam (bhavati). This samyak is Brahma. Similarly, santosha is not ordinary contentment but Brahmananda or the Supreme felicity of one who has attained to Brahma. The meaning, then, is this: in the complete abstraction of Yoga (i.e., Samadhi) is Brahma. This all the Vedas teach. In Emancipation again is the Supreme felicity of Brahma. Apavargah is not annihilation but Emancipation, which is existence in Brahma without the dual consciousness of knower and known.
I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the adjectives in the text.
The grammatical construction of this verse is very difficult to catch. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. Tehjah, kshama, santih,--these are anamayam subham, i.e., nirdukhasya sukhasyapraptau hetuh. Tatha, separates these from what follows. Abidham Vyoma Santanam, and dhruvam are governed by gamyate, Etaih sarvaih refers to Tejah and the two others. Abidham is explained as akittrimam; vyoma as jagatkaranam. The Burdwan translator gives a correct version, although his punctuation is incorrect. He errs, however, in not taking anamayam subham as one and the same. K.P. Singha errs in connecting anamayam with what follows tatha.
Nishkriti is literally escape. There is escape for those referred to; of course, the escape is to be sought by expiation. There is none for an ingrate, for ingratitude is inexpiable.
Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.
The Brahman evidently refers to the indifference of Kundadhara towards him. He had thought that Kundadhara would, in return for his adorations, grant him wealth. Disappointed in this, he says, when Kundadhara does not mind my adorations, who else will? I had, therefore, better give up all desire for wealth and retire into the woods. The passage, however, seems to be inconsistent with the Brahmana's indifference to the fine fabrics of cloth lying around him.
Persons who have won ascetic success utter a wish and it is immediately fulfilled. 'I give thee this,' and forthwith what is given in words appears bodily, ready to be taken and appropriated. The words of such persons do not follow their meanings, but meanings follow their words.
The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of this verse. He forgets his grammar so completely as to take etaih as qualifying lokah.
The verse is not difficult; the commentator, again, is very clear. The Burdwan translator, however, while citing the very words of the commentary, totally misunderstands them and makes utter nonsense of them. Ekarthanam is explained as Ekam chitiasuddhih Iswarapritirva tadarthanam madhya. The question asked is dharmartham yo yajnah samahitah (viniyuktah) tadeva vruhi and not that Yajna which sukhartham (bhavati).
One that subsists upon grains of corn picked up from the fields after the reapers have abandoned them is called a person leading the unchha mode of life. The Burdwan translator commits the ridiculous error of taking unchhavrittih as the _name_ of the Brahmana. The commentator supposes that Yajna here implies Vishnu, as expounded in the Srutis.
Syamaka is a variety of paddy called Panicum frumentaceum. 'Suryaparni' is otherwise called 'Mashaparni' (Ayurvedhartha chandrika). It is identified with Tiramus labialis, syn.--Glycine deblis. 'Suvarchala' is a name applied to various plants. Here, very probably, 'Brahmisaka,' or Herpestes Monnjera (syn.--Gratiola Monniera, Linn) is intended.
i.e., he never slaughtered living animals for offering them in sacrifices because of his inability to procure them. He, therefore, substituted vegetable products for those animals. His sacrifices, intended to take him to heaven, were really cruel in intention.
Following the Bombay text I read the last line of 8 as Sukrasya punarajatih Parnadonamadharmavit, or Sukrasya punarjnabhih, etc.; ajatih is a 'descendant.' If ajnabhih be taken as the reading it would mean 'at the repeated commands of Sukra.' The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit seems to be vicious. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect; K.P. Singha supplying something of his own will for making sense of what, he writes, and the Burdwan translator writing nonsense as usual.
K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan translator is correct.
Both the vernacular versions of this verse were incorrect. The commentator explains that the grammar is rasatalam didrikshuh sa Yajna-pavakam pravishtah. Yajne duscharitam kinnu, samipavarti mudo janah i.e., fearing to see many other defects in the sacrifice which was being celebrated by an ignorant person.
Vaddhanjalim is an adverb, qualifying ayachata. The Burdwan translator wrongly takes it as an adjective of Satyam.
In verse 8, it is said that it was a descendant of Sukra, viz., the virtuous Parnada, who had become a deer and lived in those woods as the Brahmana's neighbour. Here it is said that it was the deity Dharma who had become so. The two statements may be reconciled supposing that Dharma first became the Rishi Parnada and then, as Parnada, was metamorphosed into a deer. Tasya nishkritim adhatta is explained by the commentator in a very far-fetched way. He takes these words to mean that Dharma, who had become a deer, provided at this juncture for his liberation from that metamorphosis. I think tasya has reference to the misled Brahmana.
Yajnia is explained as yajnaya hita.
Samadhanam is the absorption of meditation, or that state of mind in which one has no longer any affection for the world, Bharyayh is genitive, but the Burdwan translator takes it for the instrumental singular.
Yo dhamah is the reading I take, and not no dharmah.
The commentator explains the grammar as panchanam (madhya ekam) artham prapya, etc.
This is the mastery or puissance that is brought by Yoga, so that the person succeeds, fiats of the will, in creating whatever he desires.
The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculous version of this verse. He cites the commentator's words without understanding them aright.
What he does is to abandon sakamah dharmah for betaking himself to nishaamah dharmah or the practice of duties without desire of fruit, for only such a course of conduct can lead to Emancipation.
By dharma here is meant nishkama dharma, for the fruits of sakama dharma are not eternal, heaven like all things else having an end.
What is said in this verse is this: when a man wants an earthen jar, he works for creating one. When he has got one, he no longer finds himself in the same state of mind, his want having been satisfied. Similarly, with men desirous of heaven and earthly prosperity as the reward of virtue, the means is Pravritti or acts. This or these cease to operate with those who having acquired such virtue set themselves for the achievement of Emancipation, for with them the religion of Nivritti is all in all.
i.e., by abandoning all kinds of idleness, as explained by the commentator.
i.e., by Yoga-meditation one should regulate and finally suspend one's breath. The Yogin can suspend all physical functions and yet live on from age to age.
Nidra here is explained as ananusandhana or the absence of inquisitiveness or curiosity. By pratibha is meant inquiry after improper things or things that are of no interest.
The truth is that the world is unreal and has no end.
Hunger is to be subdued by Yoga, i.e., by regulating the wind within the body. Doubt is to be dispelled by certainty; this implies that certain knowledge should be sought for by driving off doubt. The commentator thinks that this means that all sceptical conclusions should be dispelled by faith in the scriptures. By 'fear,' in this verse, is meant the source of fear, or the world. That is to be conquered by the conquest of the six, i.e., desire, wrath, covetousness, error, pride, and envy.
What is laid down here is the same course of training that is indicated for Yoga. First, the senses are to be merged into the mind, then the mind is to be merged into the Understanding, then the Understanding is to be merged into the Soul or what is known as the Ego. This Ego is to be merged at last into the Supreme Soul. When the Ego is understood, it comes to be viewed as Brahma.
'Pure acts' are, of course, those that are included in 'Nishkama dharmah,' and 'tranquillity of soul' is the cleansing of the soul by driving away all passions and desires.
Such restraint of speech, etc., or niyamah is yogah. Kamaoanyatha is kama-vaiparityena. The sense, the commentator adds, is that one should not desire 'yoga-siddhi,' for then, as has been repeatedly indicated in the previous Sections, the Yogin would fall into hell and succeed not in attaining to Emancipation, heaven itself being hell in comparison with the felicity of Emancipation. K.P. Singha quietly skips over the last line and the Burdwan translator offers a ridiculously incorrect version.
Yebhyah means 'the materials from which.' (Srijati) has Paramatma for its nominative (understood). Kale is the time of creation as selected by the Supreme Soul in his own wisdom. Bhavaprachoditah is 'induced by the desire of becoming many, or led by the desire of existence as many or in infinite diversity.'
Kala here is, perhaps, the embodiment of the abstract idea of life of living creatures. Impelled by the Understanding, Kala or life sets itself to the creation of other creatures. These last also are equally the result of the same five primal essences.
The construction of the second line is this: etan shad abhinivrittan (sarveshu karyeshu anugatam) vettha; then ete yasya rasayah (karyani, tat asat). The sense of the last clause is that all this is the effect of those primal essences. All this, therefore, is of those essences. The latter are included in the word asat, or unreal, as distinguished from sat or real of substantial. The soul is sat, everything else is asat.
In previous Sections it has been explained how when the Chit, which has pure knowledge for its attribute, becomes invested with Ignorance, it begins to attract the primal essences towards itself in consequence of the potencies of past acts and take birth in various shapes. (The idea of past acts is due to the infinite cycles of creation and destruction, the very first creation being inconceivable). The causes of creation are, therefore, the five primal essences, Jiva (or chit), the potencies of past acts, and Ignorance.
Jnanani is Jnana-karanani, i.e., perceptions for causes of perception.
The second line of 13 is very condensed. The meaning is this: the eye is the sense of vision. Vision or sight is its function. The object it apprehends is form. The eye has light for its cause, and form is an attribute of light. Hence the eye seizes or apprehends form. By the inference of reason, there is similitude, in respect of attribute or property, between the eye, vision, and form. The commentator explains this clearly Drashtri-darsanadrisya nam trayanamapi gunatamatyam upapannam. This is indicated with a little variation in the next verse. K.P. Singha skips over the line. The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version.
Manas is mind, Buddhi is Understanding, and Kshetrajna is the Soul. What, however, is Chitta is difficult to ascertain, unless it means vague or indefinite perception. In some systems of philosophy the Chitta is placed above the Understanding.
The Bengal reading yathagantam is preferable to the Bombay reading yatha mama.
The first line of 27 is grammatically connected with the last line of 26. The second line of 27 is very abstruse. The grammatical construction is this: tayorbhavayogamanam (sushuptau) pratyaksham (drishtam); (tadeva) nityam, ipsitam (cha). What is meant by this is that in ordinary men, the notions during wakefulness are not the notions they cherish during dreams: nor are their notions during dreams identifiable with those they entertain while wakeful. There is similarity but not identity. In eternal Sushupti, however, which is Emancipation, the notions of wakefulness pass into those of dream and those of dream pass into those of wakefulness, i.e., both (or, rather, the same, for there is then perfect identity between them) become directly apprehensible in Sushupti or Emancipation. Sushupti or Emancipation, therefore, is a state, in which there is neither the consciousness of wakefulness nor that of dream, but both run together, their differences disappearing totally.
This is a triplet.
Brahmabhava is explained as follows: when one succeeds in understanding Brahma, one is said to attain to Brahma, as the Srutis declare. The commentator explains that Pasyanti is used with reference to those that are learned in the scriptures. They behold the attainment of the highest end by Jiva _not_ with their physical eyes but with the eye of the scriptures, for they that are themselves emancipated cannot be said to behold the emancipation of another. This is grave trifling for explaining the use of the word pasyanti.
The commentator points out that possessions of value include even the region of Brahman. Men of knowledge, who seek Emancipation, do not set any value on even the joy of the region of the Creator.
The commentator explains that one should not cherish the desire for wealth even for the sake of acquiring virtue therewith. When, however, wealth is obtained without effort, such wealth should be applied to the acquisition of virtue. One is also directed to give up the desire of acquiring wealth (by even innocent means) the reason being that desire, when cherished, is sure to increase and get the better of one's heart.
The commentator observes that the first line means that the man of knowledge should wish for happiness to all, and never wish sorrow to any one. Sarvam includes virtue and vice. Of course, the practice of nishkama dharma is recommended.
All Brahmanas have to pluck flowers in the morning for offering them to the deities they worship. The task takes many minutes, because a good many have to be plucked for the purpose. This being a daily occupation and they going as they do to places where flowers abound, the act of plucking goes on while the plucker is mentally engaged with other things.
The Bengal reading sputam vyaghro mrigamiva, etc. is preferable to the Bombay reading sputam vyaghram mahaughova. If the Bombay reading be accepted, the meaning would be 'Him Death snatches away as a mighty wave sweeps away a sleeping tiger.' The idea of a sleeping tiger being swept away by a surging wave is very unfamiliar.
Devas here evidently refer to the senses. The senses are, as it were, cattle. Their true fold is the forest and not peopled cities and towns. In the forest there are no temptations to try them as in the midst of cities and towns.
Jivitarthapanayenaih is connected with hinsati. To take it (as the Burdwan translator does) as an adjective qualifying 'pranibhih' would be incorrect.
The Sacrifice of Peace is opposed to the Sacrifice of Slaughter. The Sacrifice of Brahma is Yoga which leads to a knowledge of the Soul. The Sacrifice of Speech is Vedic recitation or Japa. The Sacrifice of Mind is contemplation, and that of Acts is baths, performance of other acts of purity, waiting dutifully upon the preceptor, etc.
To perform the Sacrifice of Self is to merge the Soul in the Supreme Soul.
The Bombay reading danda-vidhanam is a blunder for the Bengal reading danda nidhanam. To interpret vidhanam as equivalent to abandonment or giving up, by taking the prefix vi, in the sense of vigata would be an act of violence to the word.
The guha or cave referred to is the body.
By Prakriti, as explained in previous Sections, is meant primal nature consisting of the five great essences of earth, water, etc.
Samupodeshu is explained as upasthiteshu api, i.e., even when such objects are present and ready for enjoyment.
Maitrayangatah, as explained by the commentator, is Suryavat-pratyaha-vibhinna-margah, i.e., roving like the Sun every day in a different path. The object of the speaker is to lay it down that one solicitous of Emancipation should never confine oneself to one spot, but rove or wander over the world without owning a fixed habitation or home. K.P. Singha translates the word wrongly.
In the first line, the Bengal reading madhya na chacharet is better than madhya cha nacharet. Pradakshinam is ankulam, and savyam is pratikulam. The grammar of the second line is not difficult. Besides, the commentator explains it clearly. The Burdwan translator, leaving out the words bhaikshacharyam and taking anapannah as equivalent to vipadapannah, gives a thoroughly ridiculous version. K.P. Singha, also, is not correct. The commentator explains that charyam means anekagrihatanam; anapannam is akurvan. The second foot is unconnected with the first.
Muni, here, is one who has restrained his senses, or who has betaken himself to the path of Renunciation. Patrasamchara, I think, is the act of setting the dishes for those who are to dine off them. The commentator explains that it means 'the motion of those who are to distribute the food.' Of course, their motions from the kitchen to the dining hall and back are implied if the word is taken for 'setting of dishes.' The sense remains unaltered. The Muni must be abstemious and hence he should select an hour like this for begging his dole, when there would be very little in the house to give.
Matra is a technical word signifying the taking of food to the extent of only gratification of hunger, or, as explained by Chakrapani Datta in his commentary on Charaka, triptimatram. When matra is to be disregarded, clothes, etc., need not be mentioned. Vihanyeta is equivalent to hinsito na syat.
The second line is passed over by K.P. Singha. What is meant by it is that when such a man is respectfully presented with anything, he should hold it in reprobation. Vide the Sanatsujatiya Sections in Udyoga Parva, particularly the verses beginning with Yatra akathayamanasya, etc.
The second line is skipped over by K.P. Singha. The Burdwan translator gives a wrong version. The commentator explains that anyam refers to paisachim, and anyatra to atmani. In the Sanatsujatiya Sections also, a Brahmana's practices are directed to be concealed. 'To enter his own Self' is to turn self on Self, i.e., to withdraw oneself from everything for understanding and contemplating the Soul.
By totally abstaining from acts he should avoid both merit and demerit.
This is a triplet. The Burdwan translator misses the meaning of the first half of the first line. The commentator explains that abhayastam is continuous; bhautikam is tattwajatam, atmanodehendriyadi. Hence, bhutanam means anyesham bhutanam.
To think beforehand of the food one is to take is to convert oneself into gourmand. The Sannyasin, without thinking of the food he would take, and without mentally indulging in a foretaste thereof should take what he gets without exertion.
Sanjnakam from the root jna meaning marana or killing.
The two negatives in the first line are equivalent to an affirmative. Prasangatah is explained by the commentator in a slightly different way. Affluence, in consequence of the attachment it generates, stands in the way of Emancipation. Hence, i.e., in consequence of this consideration, the king's opinion regarding affluence, is correct. With respect to the certainty of attaining to Emancipation, compare Gita, Vahunam janmanamante jnanavan mam prapadyate, etc.
The object of this verse, as explained by the commentator, is to exhort Yudhishthira to strive after Emancipation without being at all moved by his happiness or misery which (as stated here) come to Jiva as accidents.
The wind has space for its progenitor. Jiva has the stainless and immutable Chit for his progenitor. Like the wind, which is hueless, catching hues from surrounding objects and making its own hueless progenitor look as if it has hues, Jiva also, though in reality stainless, catches stains from Ignorance and Acts and makes his own progenitor, the stainless and immutable Chit, display stains of every kind. This is how the commentator puts the simile, supplying the points that have been omitted in the text.
These aphorisms are very abstruse. What is meant by saying that the attainment of Brahma does not depend upon Acts is this: Acts are terminable. Their consequences also are terminable. Acts, therefore, can never be the means by which Brahma can be attained, for Brahma is interminable and eternal, not like the felicity of heaven which is changeful. The only means by which Jiva may revert to Brahma is by dispelling Ignorance through Knowledge; or, as the Upanishads declare, one attains to it as one gets one's forgotten necklace of gold, which all the while is on the neck though sought for with assiduity everywhere. K.P. Singha misunderstands it completely. What is meant by the direction about reverencing persons who have attained to Brahma is this: the existence of Brahma and the possibility of Jiva's reverting to that Immutable status are matters that depend upon the conception of such men. Brahma, again, is so difficult to keep, that the great sages never desist for a moment from the culture that is necessary for its retention.
Intermediate i.e., as animals and birds and reptiles and worms, etc.
i.e., if righteous, one attains to happiness; if otherwise, to the reverse.
Verse 21 and the first line of 22 are grammatically connected.
Me in the second line is equivalent to Maya. Tatah is tatra yuddhakale. Hari had come to aid Indra, and hence Vritra had beheld him. He is called Hari because he takes away one's sins. Besides the well-known derivation of the word Narayana, the commentator here offers another, viz., the ayanam or layasthanam of Nara or Jivasangha.
Vaikuntha has various etymologies. The commentator inclines to explain it as 'one who brings together all creatures.' Purusha is full; as applied to Narayana, it, of course, means one who has no defect but who is the sole representative of fullness. Sukla or Suddha or pure. Vishnu is all-pervading. Sanatan is kutastha or uniform or immutable. Munjakesa, is possessed of yellow hair, or hair of the hue of Munja grass. Harismasru is having a tawny beard.
Penances are meritorious. The very sight of Hari that I obtain was as efficacious as a course of the austerest penances. Of course, in consequence of that and my other penances great have been the rewards that I have enjoyed. It seems, however, that the full measure of rewards has not been reaped; the remnant is to be enjoyed by me now, for I am about to ask thee about the fruits of acts. Sacred and highly auspicious is my enquiry. To make it is, in itself, a reward.
Vaya acts are, of course, sacrifices and other religious acts; by abhyantara acts are meant santi, danti, uparati, titiksha, and samadhi, i.e., the usual course of mental training necessary for Yoga. What the speaker intends to lay down in this verse is that sacrifices are not entirely useless. These may lead to chitta-suddhi or the cleansing of the heart, which, when attained, leads to knowledge of Him or the Soul or to Emancipation or Infinity.
The comparison lies in the fact of the desirability of the two acts. No one likes the stains the body may catch to remain unwashed or unwiped off. Similarly, no one should neglect to wash off the faults that the heart may catch. There is no comparison between the two acts with regard to the degree of effort necessary to accomplish each.
'Efforts born of practice' refer to both external and internal Sadhana.
Karmaviseshan is explained by the commentator as equivalent to ragaviraga-hetun.
Sampravartante and tishthanti are thus explained by the commentator.
In the previous verses the speaker describes the training that one should undergo. In this and the following ones, he speaks of the object to be known. Sreeman is explained as asriyate iti srih, i.e., upadhih, tadvan. Hari is Sambharata. Narayana is saravasrayah. Prabhu is sarvaniyanta. Deva is dyotate-iti i.e., Chinmatrah. These etymologies must be grasped for understanding this verse.
The 'mutable' in all creatures is the combination of the five primal essences. The 'immutable' in them is Jiva, or Chit as invested with ignorance. The eleven modifications that constitute. His essence are the eleven senses of knowledge and action with the mind. Equipped with these eleven. He drinketh the universe, i.e., enjoys it. The rays are these senses themselves. Equipped with the senses. He enjoys the universe with the senses.
'His mind is _in_ the Moon.' i.e., His mind is the Moon. The expression 'waters in the Ganges,' implies a distinction that does not exist between container and contained, for 'Ganges,' means the water so named.
The sandhi between sa and acramanam is arsha.
Dharma has various meanings all of which, however, are closely created with one another. As duty, or the assemblage of all acts which we should do, it is both Righteousness and Religion.
The Sacrificial grahas or patras (vessels) are called after the names of the deities Indra, Vayu, Soma, etc. The sixteen Ritwijes are Brahman, Hotri, Adhyaryu, Udgatri, etc.
Verse 21 to 23 show the unity of the Divine Being. The variety perceived is only apparent, not real.
Verse 31 and 32 are not difficult; yet the Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the same.
This is elaborated in the Vishnu Purana, Part I, Sec. V. There are three primary creations, viz., Mahat, the five primal essences in their subtile forms and the senses. From the Six colours again six other creations have sprung. To the Dark colour is due all immobile creatures; to the Tawny all the intermediate order of creatures (viz., the lower animals and birds, etc.); to the Blue are due human beings, to the Red the Prajapatyas; to the Yellow the deities; and to the White are due the Kumara, i.e., Sanatkumara and others.
Emancipation is so difficult.
The construction of the first line is this: subham darsanam (auspicious scriptures) gatwa (prapya) Devah yam gatim (identical with) darsanam (atmanubhavatmikam) aha, Gati is naturally dependent on Varna, and Varna upon 'Time or acts.'
There are ten senses of knowledge and action. To this must be added Manas, Buddhi, Ahankara and Chitta, which are sometimes called the four Karanas. In consequence of these fourteen, fourteen different kinds or merit and demerit may be achieved by Jiva who is their possessor. These fourteen kinds of merit and demerit also, are subdivided into hundreds of thousands each. Jiva, in course of his wanderings through the universe, ascends in the scale of Being, stays in particular rungs, and falls down from them into lower rungs, accordingly, What the speaker wishes to inculcate is that these fourteen should always be towards the attribute of Sattwa or Goodness.
This life, it should be noted, leadeth to Jiva's transformation as an immobile object. A creature of Dark hue becomes addicted to wicked acts and rots in hell His existence as an immobile object is hell itself.
Prajavisargah is the period for which one Creation lasts, being equal to what is called a Kalpa.
The Dark and the Tawny hues of their corresponding states of existence, viz., the immobile and the intermediate, are regarded as states of endurance. Hence, when the misery that is their portion has been fully endured, the recollection is suddenly irradiated into the mind, of the righteousness that distinguished Jiva in ages far remote. Anisa is helpless or cheerless.
Cha at the end of the second line is equivalent to va. Unless cha be taken as equivalent to va the verse would yield no meaning. After Tawny comes Blue, i.e., after attainment of existence as an Intermediate creature Jiva attains to humanity. This occurs when Sattwa does not predominate. Hence anyatha should be supplied after upaiti.
Vyatite is a finite verb in indicative mood, as pointed out by the commentator. It comes from root i with suffix vi. After sate supply jate sati. The Burdwan translator takes it as a participial adjective in the locative singular, which is, of course, wrong. The version he gives of this line is most ridiculous, containing as it does a self-contradictory assertion. K. P. Singha gives the right meaning.
When Jiva becomes a Deva, he has still the ten senses, the five Pranas, and the four internal possessions of mind, understanding, Chitta, and Ahankara, amounting in all to nineteen. These nineteen impel him to thousands of acts. Hence, even when transformed into Deva, Jiva is _not_ freed from acts, but is in niraya or hell,--acts being, under all circumstances, equivalent to hell.
Vyuha implies the varied forms of one and the same thing Daivani in Sattwa-pradhanani. The five senses, with the mind, the understanding form a total of seven. The acts achieved through each of these may be subdivided a hundredfold. As these seven possessions adhere to Jiva till he becomes emancipated, he acts through these seven in a variety of ways, Relying, therefore, upon these seven hundred kinds of acts (which are but varied forms of one and the same thing, viz., Action), Jiva successively becomes Red and Yellow and White. Arrived at White, he courses through certain highly effulgent regions which are superior to the region of Brahman himself, and which leave behind or beneath them the Eight Puris (by which, perhaps, is meant the puri of Indra, that of Varuna, etc., or, Kasi, Mathura, Maya, etc., or symbolical stages of progress, which are fraught with great felicity). Those highly effulgent and adorable regions are obtainable by Knowledge alone or the fruit of Yoga.
This is an exceedingly abstruse verse. The Burdwan version, in which unconnected bits of the commentary have been jumbled together, is utter nonsense. K.P. Singha skips over nearly the whole verse. The Eight puris referred to in the previous verse are here stated to be identical with the Sixty well-known incidents of even Sukla or White existence. This tale of Sixty is arrived at in this way: 1st, the state of wakefulness; 2nd, the gross body made up of the five primal essences; 3rd, the five attributes of sound, scent, form, taste, and touch; these come up to seven. Then come the ten senses of action and knowledge; the five breaths; mind, understanding, consciousness, and chitta: these form 19. Then come Avidya, Kama, and Karma. With Soul or the Beholder, the sum comes up to 30. The number becomes doubled when the state of Dream is taken into consideration, for like Wakefulness existing with the 29, Dream also exists with the 29. With those that are effulgent, i.e., with Beings that are Sukla or White, these 60 are simply mano-viruddhani or manomatrani eva. Unlike other Beings in lower spheres of existence, they that are effulgent or Sukla do not regard the states of Wakefulness and Dream as different but as the same. Hence, the para gati of such Beings is a state of existence that transcends both Wakefulness and Dream, and transcends Dreamless slumber also (for in Dreamless slumber the 30 exist suspended, to be revived with the return of wakefulness), and is identical with the fourth state called Turiya.
What the speaker wishes to lay down here is that even he that is Jivanmukta or has achieved his Emancipation though living like other, is incapable of transcending the effects of his past acts. Every kind of existence or life (save that which is identical with Brahma) is anistha or inauspiciousness. That Yogin who is Jivan-mukta but who is not able to cast off the felicities of Yoga-puissance, resides in one and the same body for a full century of Kalpas, in a superior form of life, and after the expiry, of that century of Kalpas, he passes through four other regions named Mahar, Jana, Tapas, and Satya. Now, _this_ is the end of such a Yogin, who, of course, belongs to the sixth colour which is White, and who is freed from attachments and who is unsuccessful though successful, i.e., who has achieved Yoga-success but who has not still been able to achieve that success which consists in beholding Brahma or Brahma-sakshatkara. By anisah in this verse is meant that Yogin who is incapable of casting off the felicities brought about by Yoga-puissance. K.P. Singha gives the substance of the verse not very accurately. The Burdwan translator, in the version he gives, introduces three nominatives in the three sentences into which he splits it, viz., Jiva, the Yogin who is unable to cast off the felicities brought about by Yoga-puissance, and the Yogin who has achieved Brahma-sakshatkara, without understanding that all three refer to one and the same person.
Anisah here means one who, after having attained to eminence by Yoga, falls off from Yoga. Tatra means heaven or the superior regions that are his in consequence of Yoga-eminence. For a century of Kalpas such a person has to dwell in heaven, with the unexhausted remnant of his senses, i.e., the senses of knowledge with mind and understanding, being always predisposed towards the attribute of Sattwa. Upon the expiry of that century of Kalpas, such a person, without ascending, descends to the world of men, but then here eminence of station becomes his.
Saptakritwah is seven times. Paraiti is 'courseth through.' Lokah refers to the seven regions called respectively, Bhur, Bhuvar, Sivah, Mahar, Jana, Tapas, and Satya (or Brahmaloka). What is intended to be said here is this: If the Yogin, having attained to only the first stage of Yoga, dies, he ascends to heaven. Thence falling down on Earth, he becomes an Emperor and thus conquers the Earth or Bhu. In this way, as the Yogin gradually ascends in the path of Yoga, he ascends higher and higher. In this verse Sambarevikshepa has been used to signify Samadhi and awakening from Samadhi, for in the first the universe is destroyed, and in the second it is re-created. At the end, he reaches the region of Satya or Brahma. Thence even he has to return if he has not been able to achieve Brahma-sakshatkara.
The seven that the Yogin desirous of Emancipation casts off are either the seven regions already referred to viz., Bhu, Bhuva, Swah, Maha, Jana, Tapa, and Satya, or the five senses of knowledge with mind and understanding. Samharam is equivalent to Samhritya, having been formed by the suffix namul. Upaplavoni are sources of grief or misfortune. The first Devasya refers to Mahadeva. The Saivas call that region Kailasa. The Vaishnavas call it Vaikuntha. The Hiranya-garbhas call it Brahman's or Brahmaloka. Sesha is Ananta, a particular form of Narayana. They who call it the region of Nara are, of course, the Sankhyas, for these regard Emancipation as the goal of Jiva or every creature. The Devasya vishnoh (in the third line) is Dyotamanasya Brahmanah i.e., Chinmatrasya, or of the pure Chit when uninvested with ignorance or Avidya. The Aupanishadas regard it as the region of Para-Brahma. The commentator clearly points out what the seven regions are. K.P. Singha, misunderstanding the verse, mentions only five; the Burdwan translator six.
This verse is not at all difficult; yet the Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of it. K.P. Singha gives the substance of the first line, but skips over the second. Without giving a literal version of the first line, I expand it, following the lead of the commentator.
Sa here indicates the person conversant with Brahma. The construction is Sa yavat saseshabhuk asti tavat prajah tathaiva te sukle dyvyau cha tadangeshu (vartante). Etat in the second line is this paridrisyamanam viyadadi. What the speaker wishes to inculcate in this verse is that unto one conversant with Brahma, the whole universe up to complete identity with Brahma is as contiguous as a plum in the palm of the hand. When the Chitta is cleansed by Yoga as practised by Dhyana, Dharana, and Samadhis, then the perceptible universe appears to him as identical with his own senses. The two white sciences referred to are Paravidya and Aparavidya, i.e., all knowledge including that of Brahma.
Suddhena manasa,--with cleansed mind, i.e., with the aid of Sarvana (hearing), Manana (attention), Dhyana (contemplation), and Abhyasa (repeated meditation). Two stages are indicated in this verse. The first is the attention of the suddham and paramam gatim or the stainless and high end. This is equivalent to Brahma-sakshatkara. After this comes the second stage, which is the avayam sthanam or the spot which knows no deterioration, i.e., Emancipation. This is identical with the attainment of Eternal Brahma which is dushprapyam or difficult of attainment.
The commentator says that the object of this verse is to inculcate the Impersonality of God. God is at the Root of all things, i.e., (as the commentator supposes according to the teaching of the Vedanta philosophy). He exists in His own unmodified nature, even as pure Chit. Both Vidya (Knowledge) and Avidya (Ignorance or illusion) exist in Him. In consequence of the latter he is Bhagavan, i.e., endued with the six grand attributes of puissance, etc.
In the form of all things,--causes and effects--which constitute them.
A Pyakta-parsant is explained by the commentator in this way. Vritra was a firm devotee of Vishnu. He did not, therefore, deserve defeat and fall. How, then, was he vanquished by Indra? Avyaktam is equivalent to aspashtam.
The word used in verse 4 is vinihatah and that in verse 5 is nirjitah. There can be no doubt that both imply the same idea.
Astha is efforts.
Rathantara is another name for certain Samans, which are so called because of men being able to cross the world with their aid as by a car. (Ratha car, and tri to cross).
'Praising thee, for thy victory, etc.,' i.e.. the Rishis are uttering hymns of praise for conferring victory on thee.
Raudrah may mean also 'appertaining to Rudra, which is another name of Mahadeva.'
This account of the encounter between Vritra and Indra is substantially different from what occurs in the Vana Parva. Then again the part the Rishis are made to take in the slaughter of the Asura is certainly censurable. The great Rishis, even for benefiting the three worlds, would not certainly injure any creature. In the above account, Vasishtha and Vrihaspati and the others are very much represented as persons who have bet largely on Indra's success. In the account occurring in the Vana Parva, Indra is represented as standing in awful dread of Vritra and hurling his thunderbolt without even deliberate aim, and refusing to believe that his foe was dead till assured by all the deities. The present account seems to be a much older than that in the Vana Parva.
Amanusham is literally inhuman. The use of such words are due to temporary forgetfulness in such connections. Like Homer, Vyasa also nods.
Vadhya is the slaughter in her embodied form.
Dwijapravarvadhya means the slaughter of a superior person of the regenerate order. Indeed, Vritra was a lineal descendant of the great sage Kasyapa, the common progenitor of the Devas and Asuras. Then, again, Vritra was certainly a very superior person.
The rules or ordinance referred to it is about the killer of a Brahmana being liable to be overtaken by the sin of Brahmanicide.
Anadhrishyam is, literally, unvanquishable.
Uma or Parvati, the daughter of Himavat, the spouse of Siva.
The self-created Brahman at first created, by fiats of his holy will, certain beings who were charged to procreate for filling the universe with living creatures. These are the Prajapatis or lords of all creatures. Amongst them was Daksha. Other accounts represent Daksha as the grandson of Brahman.
There are three vocatives in this verse, expressive, of course, of great surprise. I omit them in the translation.
A kind of substance like lac that oozes out of the stones of certain mountains during the hot months. It is also called Silajit, is taken internally by many men in the belief that it increases digestion and strength.
The Indian cuckoo, noted for his clear musical kuhus. This is the favourite bird of Indian poets.
i.e., Thou, however, art not so; therefore, it is a matter of surprise that thou shouldst not yet know me. The sense is not at all difficult, but K.P. Singha skips over it.
Both the vernacular translators have erred in rendering this line. What Mahadeva says to Uma is, how is it that you have thus been stupefied? It is thou that stupefiest others! To see thee stupefied has created surprise in me.
Mahadeva is called Virupaksha in consequence of his three eyes, the third eye making his features dreadful to behold. He is also called Tryaksha for his possession of three eyes.
Every worshipper of Mahadeva must fill his mouth with air and then, shutting his lips, strike his cheeks, letting the air gently out at each stroke, and helping it with air from the lungs for keeping the current steady. By doing this a kind of noise is made like Bom, Bom, Babam, Bom. Mahadeva is himself fond of this music and is represented as often making ???.
Vrisha is explained by the commentator as vrishti-kartri; Vrishya as Dharmavriddhikartri; Go-vrisha as Nandirupa; Katankata as Nityagamanasila; Danda as Niyantri.
Godhead is frequently likened to anahatasavda or sound not perceptible by the ear, or sound in its nascent state.
Huns are mystic sounds that stand as emblems for various things. 'Beyond three Huns' means, perhaps, 'beyond the influence of wrath.'
In Sacrifice the butter is poured with mantras into the mouth of a selected Brahmana who represents the gods, and into also the sacred fire. What is said here is that the great god is of the form of that Brahmana and of the sacred fire.
This alludes to the sports of Krishna in the groves of Vrinda with the rustic children who were his companions.
The sacred stream of the Ganges, issuing out of Vishnu's feet, is held by Brahman in his Kamandalu or jar. Thence it issues out, and coursing through the heavens fall down on the head of Siva, for Siva alone is mighty enough to bear that fall. The matted locks of Siva bear the mark of the fall. This six well-known acts here referred to are Yajana, Yajana, Adhyayana, Adhyapana, Dana, and Pratigraha (i.e., performing sacrifices, assisting at the sacrifices of others, studying, teaching, making gifts, and accepting gifts). The three acts in which Siva is engaged are Yajana, Adhyayana, and Dana (i.e., the first, the third, and the fifth in the above enumeration).
The commentator explains that by Sankhya the speaker means 'the propounder of the sceptical philosophy.' By Sankhya-mukhya which I render, 'the foremost of Sankhyas' is meant 'follower of the theistic philosophy of Patanjala.' By Sankhya-yoga is meant both Vedanta and Yoga.
'That hast a car and that hast no car' means, as the commentator explains, 'capable of coursing, without obstruction, through Water, Fire, Wind, and Space.'
Isana is 'much desired' or 'much coveted by all persons.'
i.e., thou createst and destroyest these repeatedly or settest them in motion.
These are syllables which all singers of the Samans utter for lengthening short words in order to keep up the metre.
i.e., He who is adored in these hymns is thyself and no other.
These are the ten colours known to the Rishis.
Lohitantargata-drishtih is explained by the commentator as Lohita antargata cha drishtirasya. By 'red eyes' is, of course, meant eyes of the colour of the lotus. By 'eyes turned inwards' is meant one whose gaze is upon his soul, i.e., one who is engaged in Samadhi.
Chalachalah is explained as exceedingly chalah or swift. Achalah is nasti chalo yasmat; hence chaleshu (api) achalah is swift amongst the swift, or swifter than the swiftest.
The great god is a fish wandering in the waters, i.e., as Jiva wanders in space; he is a fish in the net, i.e., as Jiva, invested with Darkness or Illusion, is obliged to take birth.
Meghakala is the time when clouds appear, i.e., the time of the universal deluge. Samvartaka and Valahaka are the two clouds that appear on the occasion of the universal destruction.
Mili-Mili is explained by the commentator differently. According to him, one connected with all things as cause is Mili. It is duplicated to show that Siva is always so. I prefer taking the word as meaning 'cause of causes.' 'The bearer of Danda, with, again, a bald head' is a Paramahansa, i.e., one who has renounced the world and its ways.
The four Sacrificial fires are Treta, Avasathya, Dakshina, and Sahya.
Silpika is one who is not well-skilled, or is ill-skilled, in the arts. It implies a common artisan.
Dhatri is adikartri or Vishnu. Vidhatri is the four-headed. Brahman Sandhatri is he who joins all things into one; the second Vidhatri means the designer of destinies.
The identity of Maheswara with Narayana or Krishna is here preached. In his incarnation of Krishna, Vishnu sported with the children of the cowherds of Vrinda and sportively lowed as a cow. He also protected the kine of Vrinda from floods, poison, etc. Govrisheswara is Nandi, the attendant of Mahadeva.
The word Go in Gomargah is used to signify the senses.
Durvaranah is explained by the commentator as 'irresistible when coming as Death.' Durvishah is 'destroyer of all kinds of poison in thy form of Amrita.' Durdharshah is incapable of being frightened. Durvishah is incapable of being measured.
Vishagnipah is drinker of poison and fire. Siva is represented as the acceptor of all things that are rejected by others. In this consists his true divinity, for to the Deity nothing in the universe can be unacceptable or worthy of being cast off. The ashes of the funeral pyre are his, the poison produced by the churning of the ocean was his. He saved the universe by swallowing the poison on that occasion.
Tushitadyapah is the correct reading. Thou protectest him who is the adya of the tushita, i.e., thou protectest Brahman himself.
The commentator explains that what is meant by Mahadeva's staying 'alone' is that he is the knower, the known, and knowledge. 'On the other side of the ocean' means 'on the other side of desire and attachment, etc.' 'Overwhelming many thousands of persons' means 'overwhelming all creatures,' i.e., transcending them by his energy and knowledge.
Of course, Yogins are spoken of.
The eclipses of both the Moon and the Sun are caused, according to the Pauranic mythology, by Rahu devouring the Moon and the Sun at certain well-known intervals. Rahu is an Asura whose head only is still alive. Vide Adi Parva, On Churning of the Ocean.
Garbhah means embryos or infants in the womb. The deities were referred to by this word, for they are embryos that have been born in Mahadeva. Patitah has twattah understood after it. Anu means 'after' i.e., 'after Brahman's creation.'
These Beings are Rudras or portions of the great Rudra.
Tasmaih paramgatah,--param is utkrishtam i.e., Renunciation and other superior practices. Tasmai is 'for the sake of That,' i.e., for Iswarah.
Hence in this, the present Kalpa too, I am obliged to do the same, for all Kalpas must be similar in respect of the events that transpire in them.
Matri-pakshe seems to be a misreading for bhartripakshe.
By gunah which I have rendered 'virtues,' is, of course, intended all that constitute the body, including mind and understanding, all, in fact, that become the accompaniments of the Soul.
Karma-buddhi is to be taken as one. It means the consciousness or apprehension of functions. Each sense or organ instinctively knows what its object is and apprehends that object immediately. This apprehension of its own functions, which every sense possesses, is here designated as Karma-buddhi. Mana-shashththani here simply means 'mind completing the tale of six.' It has no reference to the five senses having the mind for the sixth, for the senses have already been named in the previous verses.
Acts here means the acts of past lives, or the desire dwelling in an incipient form, due to the acts of past lives. The commentator explains that the cha in the second line means the five attributes indicated in the first line.
The word Buddhya in the first line is taken by the commentator as an instrumental and not as a genitive. Hence he takes it that Kalpitani is understood after it.
i.e., occupies them one after another.
Murti is a misreading for apurti or discontentedness. The Burdwan translator retains murti in his Bengali version. It is not clear which reading K.P. Singha adopts. The Bengali substitute he gives is murchccha or stupefaction.
i.e., there are no materials of which it is constituted. Hence Sattwa or Buddhi has no asrayah or upadana.
What the speaker inculcates in verses 41 and 42 is this: some are of opinion that with the apparent destruction of the body, the attributes that make up the body do not cease to exist. It is true that they cease to become apprehensible by the senses; but then, though removed from the ken of the senses, their existence may be affirmed by inference. The argument is that, if destroyed, their reappearance would be impossible. The reappearance, however, is certain. (For rebirth is a doctrine that is believed to be a solemn truth requiring no argument to prove it). Hence, the attributes, when apparently destroyed, do continue to exist. They are regarded as then inhering in the linga or subtile body. The counter opinion is that, when destroyed, they are destroyed for ever. The latter opinion is condemned by the speaker.
In the second line the word is Gadhamavidwansah, i.e., 'ignorant of its bottom or depth.' K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly, without translating the verse literally. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of it. Both however, wrongly take agadha as the final word in yathagadha, forgetting that agadham is a masculine adjective incapable of qualifying nadim which is feminine. Ayam is Jiva. The last clause is to be taken as buddhiyogam anuprachyuta ayam tatha.
This is not a difficult verse, yet both the vernacular translators have misunderstood it. What is said in the first line is this: yat vahudosham karoti, yat (cha) purakritam, ekatah cha dushyati. Both the finite verbs have jnanin (the man of knowledge) for their nominative understood. Dushyati means nasyati or destroys. The meaning then is that the man of Knowledge destroys his sinful acts of both this and past lives. The commentator cites the well-known simile of the lotus leaf not being drenched or soaked with water even when dipped in water. Now, this is that unseen fruit of Knowledge. In the second line, the visible fruits are indicated. The man of Knowledge refrains from censuring the wicked acts of others and from perpetrating any wicked act himself. Yat cha dushyati means yat parakritam anishtam dushyati or nindati, yat karoti means yat swayam ragadi-doshat karoti; tadubhayam apriyam (sa) na karoti, the reason being dwaitadarsana-bhavah. Such a man truly regards the universe as identifiable with himself.
i.e., in even thy direst distress thou dependest on thyself. To cross the fearful river of life without a raft and with the aid of only one's bare arms implies great self-dependence.
That which did not exist and will not exist, exists not at the present moment. Everything, therefore, which is of the nature of asat is non-existent. Our sorrows are connected with the asat. Knowing this, I have cast off all sorrows.
I have understood that acts are for sorrow; that the fruits also of acts are for sorrow in spite of the apparent character of some; and that the fruits of acts are varied, sometimes other fruits appearing than those expected. Hence, I do not indulge in sorrow, for I avoid acts and do not grieve for not obtaining the fruits of acts or for the accession of fruits other than those apparently agreeable.
The sense is that we who avoid acts, are not dead; in fact, we live quite as others do; and those others, how unequally circumstanced! The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the first line simple though it is.
Ignorance lies at the root of sorrow. By casting off ignorance, we have avoided sorrow. Hence, neither religion or religious acts such as Sacrifices, etc., can do us any good or harm. As regards happiness and misery again, these two cannot agitate us at all, since we know their value, both being ephemeral in comparison with the period for which we are to exist.
Hence, no one should indulge in pride, saying, 'I am happy,' nor yield to sorrow, saying, 'I am miserable.' Both happiness and misery are transitory. The man of wisdom should never suffer himself to be agitated by these transitory states of his mind.
The first word is read either as bhavatmakam or bhavatmakam. The first means samsararupam; the second, drisyatmakam.
I am obliged to behold them because I am a living being having a body, but then I behold them as an unconcerned witness.
The scriptures contain both kinds of instruction. There are declarations that are entirely in favour of Acts or observances. There are again declarations in favour of Knowledge. What the speaker asks is that the Rishi should discourse upon what the speaker should do, i.e., whether he should betake himself to the acquisition of Knowledge or to the doing of acts.
i.e., Each Asrama speaks of particular observances and courses of conduct as beneficial. This, therefore, is a source of confusion to men of plain understandings. Is there no distinction then among duties or observances in respect of their beneficial character? This is the question propounded. The commentator thinks by the word asramas is meant the four principal faiths and _not_ the modes of life.
I retain the word asrama in the English version as it is very doubtful in what sense it has been used in the original. The commentator explains that by four asramas are meant the four principal forms of creed prevalent at one time in India. The first is that there is no such thing as virtue or righteousness. This is ascribed to Sakya Simha or Buddha. The second is that righteousness consists in only the worship of trees, etc. The third is that only is righteousness which the Vedas have laid down. The fourth is that transcending righteousness and its reverse there is something for whose attainment one should strive. Yatha samkalpitah is explained by the commentator as yo yena sreyastena bhavitastasya tadeva sreyah.
Gunoddesam is Gunakirtanam or the announcement of merits. What Narada says here is this: the asramas are four. The merits of each have been proclaimed by their respective founders. The principal merit each claims is that it leads to knowledge of Self. Now, the announcement is nanarupam; it is also prithak; and lastly, it is viprasthitam or contradictory, for, as the commentator points out, that which a particular asrama announces to be righteous is according to another unrighteous. Both the vernacular translators give incorrect versions.
Te refers to asramas. Abhipretam is atma-tattwarupam. Yanti is equivalent to prapayanti.
Mitranam is taken by the commentator to be equivalent to sarva-bhuta-labhayapadanam, i.e., they who have given the pledge of harmlessness to all creatures. By enemies is meant here the envious and harmful.
In previous Sections the nature of Truth has been discussed. A formal truth may be as sinful as a lie, and a lie may be as meritorious as a Truth. Hence, the ascertainment of Truth is not easy.
Atiyoga and Ayoga are well-known words which have no chance of being misunderstood in the way in which they have been misunderstood by both the vernacular translators. Indeed, K.P. Singha blunders ridiculously, while the Burdwan translator limits them to only the use of food, supposing the commentator's concrete examples exhaust the meaning.
i.e., where an intermingling takes place of the four orders of men, viz., where Varna-sankara occurs.
Mere companionship with the righteous leads to righteous acts; while that with the sinful leads to acts of sinfulness.
Anuvishayam is vishayam anu vartate, i.e., rasah or flavour. An eater of vighasa is a good or pious man. What is said here is that such men eat for only filling their stomachs and not because eating is source of enjoyment or gratification. Atmavishayan is Buddherviseshatovandhakan, i.e., rasa-viseshan.
Agamayamanam is Agamam pramanajam jnanam atmana ichcchatam.
Akasasthah is niralamvanah, i.e., men who have no foundations to stand upon. The Bombay text reads dosham, the Bengal texts, doshan; the sense remains unaltered. The Bombay reading is atmapujabhikama, while the Bengal reading is the same word in the plural form. I accept the singular form and take it as qualifying panditah.
Some of the Bengal texts read khattam. The Bombay reading is khatwam. The commentator explains that khatwam samarudhah Tibra duhkha-grastah. Anusayi means purvakarmavasanavan. The sense seems to be this: the desires born of one's past acts, i.e., acts of previous lives, adhere to the mind. Nothing can wipe them off, save Nivritti and Tattwajnanam or knowledge of truth. One should, therefore, practise the religion of Nivritti and seek to acquire knowledge of Truth.
Both the vernacular translators quietly skip over the word pratyanantarah.
i.e., where the people are virtuous and given to the performance of their duties.
Kamesah is possessor of all objects of desire or enjoyment. The sense is this: where the king, casting off desire, wins prosperity for himself; i.e., though possessed of wealth, is not attached to wealth. The expression may also mean 'master of desire,' i.e., where the king casts off desire and masters his desires without allowing the latter to master him.
Pratyupasthite is pritipatwena upasthite, i.e., hiyantanesati.
I am not sure that I have understood aright the second line of this verse. It may also mean, 'No one is able to enumerate all that is beneficial for the Soul in consequence of the wideness of subject.'
Vrittam has uddisya understood after it. The Bombay text reads pranihitatmanah; the Bengal reading is pranihitatmanah. If the Bengal reading be accepted, it would mean 'whose soul is fixed or established on Yoga.' Tapasa is explained by the commentator as swadharmena, in view of the question of Galava which Narada answers. The sense, however, would remain unaltered if it be taken as standing for Self-control or penances.
Sampadam is explained by the commentator as upadesa-yogyata-sriyam.
Some texts read sakyam; the reading sakyah also occurs. If the former be accepted, it must be taken as referring to tadawayam as the commentator explains. No alteration in sense occurs by adhering to the one reading or the other.
In the second line some of the Bengal texts read lobheshu. The correct reading is lokeshu. Both the vernacular translators adhere to the wrong reading.
Mokshartha is moksha-prayojanah.
The argument contained in these verses is this: as thou dost not know what becomes of thy relatives when they die, thou canst not help them then. It seems plain, therefore, that when thou shalt die thy relatives will not be able to do thee any good. Hence, thou gainest nothing by bestowing thy thoughts on thy relatives, forgetting thy own great concern, viz., the acquisition of Emancipation. Similarly, when thy relatives live and suffer irrespective of thy life or death, and thou too must enjoy or endure irrespective of their existence or efforts, it is meant that thou shouldst not be forgetful of thy own highest good by busying thyself with the concerns of thy relatives.
The sense is that one who takes only a handful of corn for the support of life even when millions upon millions of carts loaded with corn await his acceptance, is certainly to be regarded as freed. Literally rendered, the second line is--'who beholds a shed of bamboo or reeds in a palace,' meaning, of course, as put above, 'one who sees no difference between the two.'
Avritti is want of the means of sustaining life: thence, scarcity or famine.
The sense is that as the maintenance of wives and children is painful, one should withdraw from the world and retire into solitude.
The sense seems to be this: Is it a life of domesticity that thou wouldst lead? There is no harm in thy doing this, provided thou behavest in the way pointed out. Is it Emancipation that thou wouldst pursue (in the usual way), i.e., by retiring into solitude and betaking thyself to Sannyasa? Thou mayst then behave in the way pointed out, and, indeed, that is the way of Sannyasa which leads to Emancipation.
The planet Venus is supposed to be the sage Usanas or Sukra.
The commentator explains the allusion by saying that formerly Vishnu, induced by the deities, used his discus for striking off the head of Usanas' mother. Hence the wrath of Usanas against the deities and his desire to succour their foes, the Danavas.
The construction of this verse is very difficult. The order of the words, is--Indrotha jagatah prabhuh. Dhanada, etc., tasya kosasaya prabhavishnuh.
Persons crowned with Yoga-success are competent to enter the bodies of others and deprive the latter of the power of will. Indeed, the belief is that the latter then become mere automata incapable of acting in any other way except as directed by the enlivening possessor.
The etymology of Pinaka is panina anamayat. The initial and final letter of pani (pi) and the middle letter of anamayat (na), with the suffix ka make Pinaka.
The last half of the last line may be taken as applying to Usanas.
The vriddhim that Mahadeva saw could not be his own, for the greatest cannot be greater. The commentator, therefore, is right in holding that vriddhim refers to the greatness of Usanas within Mahadeva's stomach.
The sa refers to Usanas and not to Mahadeva, as the commentator rightly points out.
i.e., the religions of all the orders and all the modes of life.
The scriptural injunctions are that one should sacrifice in honour of the gods, pour libations on the sacred fire, make gifts etc. In these exists Righteousness.
The grammar of the third line is a little involved. Tasmin refers to Dharme. Supply nisthavantah after tasmin. The sense, of course, is that believing in the efficacy of righteousness, people of all modes of life accomplish the duties of their respective modes.
The sinful become intermediate animals. The virtuous attain to heaven. They that are both virtuous and sinful attain to the status of humanity. They that acquire Knowledge become Emancipated.
Destiny here means the result of the acts of past lives.
The reading I adopt is jatikritam karma etc. Hence, this Verse also represents the arguments of the sceptic or the Charvakas. The four kinds of acts are Nitya, Naimittika, Kamya, and Nishiddha. If, however, for 'jatikritam karma, etc.,' the reading yantyakritam karma be adopted, the meaning would be--'In one's next life one does not meet with fruits that are not the results of one's acts of past life.' This must be so, for the opposite opinion would imply the destruction of acts and their consequences. Then again, such an opinion would conflict with the received opinion of mankind, for men, when they obtain the fruits of any act, always recollect the four kinds of acts of a past life for explaining the accession of those fruits.
Verses 12 to 14 represent the theory of the sceptic, and I have rendered them as such. Only by reading verse 13 as 'yantyakritam karma, etc.,' the commentator points out that it may be taken as an observation of Parasara himself. As regards verse 15, it represents the ipse dixit of the speaker. He does not think that the sceptic is at all entitled to a reply. It is scarcely necessary to say that the Burdwan translator makes a thorough mess of these verses. K.P. Singha gives the substance correctly.
The commentator shows that this is an answer to the sceptic's averment about Nature being the cause of everything. Fire is hot by nature, therefore, it does not become hot at one time, cold at another, and _lukewarm_ at another time. One becomes either wholly happy or wholly unhappy or wholly happy and unhappy at the same time. Man's nature should not be such. The difference of state is produced by difference of causes.
A Brahmana is precluded from eating many things. Many things again that he is competent to eat on all days of the year. In fact, there are many rules for regulating the fare of a Brahmana. To this day, an orthodox Brahmana abstains from many kinds of food. A Brahmana, therefore, who is unscrupulous in respect of his food, is no Brahmana and deserves to be pitied. Similarly, a man who cooks food for himself is an object of pity. Raw food, such as fruits, etc., one may take without offering a share thereof to guests and others. But cooked food can never be taken without a share thereof being given to others. Yati cha Brahmachari cha pakvannaswaminavubhau, hence he that takes cooked food without giving a share to these is said to eat Brahmaswam or that which belongs to a Brahmana.
This is a very abstruse verse. The grammatical construction of the first line is asritena manasa vrittihinasya seva sasyate. Asritena is niralamvanena. By seva is meant homage paid to the Supreme in the form of devotion and concentrated meditation. It implies, of course, a thorough reliance on God. Vrittihina is one who has cast off the means of livelihood, implying one who abstains from worldly objects. In the second line, dwija is a vocative. Nirvritta is nishpanna, qualifying seva. Atihastat is 'from one who has transcended the use of the hand,' i.e., the necessity of acts. Atihastanirvritta, means 'obtained from a competent preceptor.' In brief, what is stated here is that such seva should be learnt from competent preceptors and not by discussion among persons in the stage of spiritual progress.
The object of this verse, the commentator points out, is to show the desirability of practising that seva soon or without loss of time.
In the discourse of Sanatkumara to Vritra, these six colours have been mentioned, and the nature of the acts by which one attains to a superior colour or falls down from a superior to an inferior one. Vide Sec. 280, ante.
A particular kind of Chandala is called kusalin.
Pratyapannasya is viparita-drishteh. Natma is dehadih. Tatah is papaddhetoh. Virochate, is viseshena atmatwena rochate.
Pratyapattih is Vairagyam or Renunciation. As regards Prasthitasya it may be taken either as implying one that is dead or one that has betaken himself to Yoga. In the latter case, the verse would mean that that man who betakes himself to Yoga without adopting Renunciation meets with much sorrow.
The object of this verse is to show that conscious sin can never be destroyed by expiation. The only means by which sin can be destroyed is by enduring its fruits.
The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of this verse. Guna-yuktam is explained by the commentator as equivalent to punyakarma. Prakasam is equivalent to budhipurvakam prakasya or jnatwa. It is formed by the suffix namul.
Yathatatham is sthula-sukshma-taratamyena. The sense is that all acts done knowingly produce fruits according to their nature. If gross, the fruits produced are gross; if subtile, the fruits produced are subtile.
The speaker's opinion is that all acts are productive of fruits. If good, the fruits are good. If bad, the fruits are bad. There is this difference, however, between acts done knowingly and those done in ignorance: the former produce commensurate fruits i.e., if gross, their fruits are gross; if subtile, the fruits are subtile; but the latter produce fruits that are not so, so that even if heinous, the fruits do not involve a large but only a small measure of misery. There is no other difference between the two kinds of acts.
The object of this verse is to show that such acts form the exception and they are kept out of my sight in this discourse on acts. The Rishi Viswamitra caused the death of the hundred sons of Vasishtha, and yet he had not to go to hell for it.
The sense seems to be that when even such near relatives are cast off if found to be wanting in affection, the fact cannot be gainsaid that people never do good to others except when they hope to benefit themselves by such acts.
What is intended to be said is that the acceptance of a gift from a superior person is equal in point of merit to a gift made by a poor person. A wealthy man, by making a gift, earns greater merit than by accepting a gift.
i.e., by Dhyana and Dharana.
This has reference to Usanas' attaining to the status of a planet (Venus) in the firmament.
Nadantah is one word. It means Hinsa-sunyah. Danti cchinatti iti danta. Its reverse is Nadantah.
Nirdishta refers to Seva.
i.e., they take the hues of the society they keep. Hence, it is very desirable for them to live with the good.
This son of Dhatri is the god of the clouds.
The Burdwan translator gives a most ridiculous version of the expression Dhigdandasasanah. Unable to catch the sense, which however is certainly very plain, he actually interprets the words to mean 'living under the sway of king Dhigdanda.' K.P. Singha gives the correct meaning.
In this verse also, the Burdwan translator takes Dhigdanda as the name of a king. He gives an equally ridiculous version of the second line. Abhyagachchan is explained by the commentator as having vishayan understood after it. The sense is that they began to enjoy all objects of the senses to an excess. Both Devan and Brahman are accusatives governed by Avamanya. K.P. Singha translates both the lines correctly.
This verse is taken as a metaphorical statement. The three Asuras are, of course, Kama, Krodha, and Lobha. Gaganagah (staying in the firmament) is interpreted as 'existing in Maya'. Sapurah as 'with their gross, subtile, and potential forms;' 'felled on the earth is explained as 'merged into the pure chit.' The whole is taken to imply a spiritual destruction of all the evil passions and a restoration of man to his original state of purity.
This chief of the Asura passions was Mahamoha or great Heedlessness. The word Devas here is taken to mean the senses. Of course, if verse 16 be not taken metaphorically, then may Devas be taken in its ordinary sense of the deities.
The genius of the two languages being different, it is very difficult to render the phraseology of the first line. Literally rendered, the line would read 'they remain or stay on those acts, and establish them.' Besides being unidiomatic, the sentence would be unmeaning. 'To stay or remain on any act' is to adhere to it. 'To establish it' is to regard it as a precedent and cause it to be regarded by others as a precedent.
Samsiddhadhigamam is explained by the commentator thus: Samsiddhah is nityasiddah, i.e., atman; tadadhigamam is atmajnanam.
The very gods are subject to prosperity and adversity, and their effects of loves and hates. There is no mode of life in which these may not be found.
After sukham supply bhavati or some such verb. Tyajatam stands by itself and refers to kamya karma, meaning they that abstain from such acts as are not nitya but as are only kamya or optional.
The sense is that those who betake themselves to penances as the consequence of despair, are many. Those men, however, are very rare who adopt penances, being at once impressed that the happiness of domesticity is unreal and ends in misery.
i.e., their penances of past lives.
I am not sure that I have correctly understood the second line of this verse. Akrita-karmanam is explained by the commentator as anut-pannatattwajnanam and upabhogavarityagah is Renunciation or Vairagyam phalani has tapasah understood before it. But why phalani instead of phalam?
The second line of this verse concludes the argument. The tasmat has reference to all the statements before, and _not_ to only the first line of 26. The statement in the second line is the same as the second line of verse 13 above.
I expand the second line a little for making it intelligible.
By 'stainless penances' is meant nishkamam tapah or penances undertaken without desire of fruit.
Tyaktwa has nishkalmasham tapah understood after it. The order of the words is Phalarthi apriyani etc., vishyatmakam tat phalam prapnoti. The distinction between nishkamam and sakamam tapah is this; through the former one attains to happiness. Even the earthly wealth he earns becomes fraught with happiness; through the latter, however, one meets with diverse kinds of sorrow resulting from the earthly possessions he succeeds in obtaining.
The grammar of the first line is this: Dharme tapasi dane cha (sati avihitakarme) vidhitsa, etc. If vidhitsa be taken with 'dharma, etc.,' the verse would be unmeaning.
The first line is difficult to construe. Tatah means 'inconsequence of the pain that attends the gratification of the senses.' Sarvasya refers to vivekinah; jyayase phalartham is 'for the sake of the highest fruit,' which, of course, is Emancipation. Gunah is 'same', 'dama, etc.'
The commentator points out that the object of this verse is to show that everything one owns or does is not the result of the past acts. Spouses, food, drink, etc., one obtains as the result of past acts or praravdha karma. In respect of these, purushakara or Exertion is weak. Hence, to put forth Exertion for their acquisition would not be wise. As regards the acquisition of righteousness, however, there Exertion is efficacious. Hence, one should, with Exertion, seek to conform to one's own duties as laid down in the scriptures. Without such a distinction between destiny (praravdha) and Exertion (purushakara), the injunctions and interdictions of the Scriptures would be unmeaning. The Burdwan translator, citing portions of the commentary without at all understanding them, makes utter nonsense of the verse. K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly.
Sacrifices and all other acts undertaken from a sense of vanity, are destructible as regards their consequences, for heaven is terminable. Penances, however, that are undertaken without desire of fruit are not so, for these lead to Emancipation. Tesham refers to those mentioned in the first line of verse 37. It should not be taken to mean men in general, as the Burdwan translator wrongly does.
Kam is Brahmanam. The commentator explains that Brahmana (the Creator) is equivalent to Brahmana; and that Vishnu is equivalent to Kshatriya. What is said, therefore, in this verse (according to him) is that a Sudra, by practising the common duties of all the four orders, succeeds in his next life in becoming a Brahmana. Thus say Brahmanas learned in the scriptures; but the opinion of Parasara is that such a Sudra, in his next life, takes birth as a Kshatriya.
I am not sure that I have understood these two verses correctly. Verse 33 is evidently a cruce.
Yathakarman means 'from one stage to another.' Karmapatham is yogam. The stages here referred to are vichara, vitarka, Ananda, and Asmita. What is stated in this verse is that one who casts off all attachments, and who devotes himself to Yoga, succeeds in attaining to the felicity of Emancipation.
The Burdwan translator wrongly renders the second line of this verse. All the texts read this line in the same way.
Snigdhais implies affectionate seniors such as mothers, etc.; karmani is explained by the Commentator as abhyanga-karmani, i.e., the rubbing of oil, etc., Such acts, when children are ill, are often done unto them by mothers. This is forbidden, for they are menial offices which seniors should never be permitted to perform.
Vinasamabhikankhatam is explained in the alternative by the commentator in a very fanciful way. Kriyavatam is explained as 'observant of the duties of Tirthavasins.'
The commentator is for explaining the second line exoterically.
Dehat is Deham prapya. Yena is yena pumsa. Upapaditam has reference to panchatwam in the previous verse. The sense of the verse is this: he who meets with a sudden death in a tirtha or sacred place, does not become emancipated but obtains another body in his next life similar to the one he loses. Adhyanam gatakah is that though set or placed on the path of Emancipation, yet he becomes a traveller: his state is due to the inglorious manner of his dissolution.
The object of this verse is to show that the man dying in a sacred place becomes reborn as a Rudra or a Pisacha and quickly attains to Emancipation in consequence of his contiguity to Siva. Mokshabhuteshu is Moksha-yogyeshu. The neuter form of taddeham is arsha.
Gunanancha in the second line of verse 14 refers to the objects of the senses, which, as explained in previous Sections, have no independent existence, for they exist only as they exist in desire. The compound of the primal essences and the other things mentioned assumes different shapes through the force of the desires of previous lives.
Acts are all perishable in respect of their consequences.
It is difficult to give foreigners an idea of what is called Apamrityu. All deaths that are caused by such accidents as involve ignominy are called Apamrityu. Death from snake-bite, from a fall, by drowning, at the horns of an animal, etc., are instances of Apamrityu.
Both yasya and sa refer to the foe called Ignorance. Rajaputra is a vocative. Paraiti is nasyati.
Vanchate is preceded by kamena understood.
It has been explained in previous sections that sreyas or nisreyas means good or excellent as applied to moral merit.
By buddhiman is meant the man who is freed from attachment. Similarly, by durbuddhih is meant the man who is the slave of attachments.
Karanapekshi is thus explained by the commentator: karanaphaladanatmika kriya tannirvittyapekshi. The sense is that sin can never be destroyed except by endurance of its fruits.
The sense is that after the manner of the fabulous gem, Jiva attracts to itself, through Yoga, the status of Brahma.
The Burdwan translator, without understanding the commentary, makes utter nonsense of this verse. K.P. Singha is not far wrong, but he does not bring out the principal point which is sought to be inculcated here. Sesame seeds are repeatedly mixed with fragrant oil. The more they are so mixed the more fragrant do they become. After the same manner, men acquire the quality of Sattwa by associating with persons of cleansed souls. The measure of Sattwa is dependent on the measure of the association.
The track is that of Knowledge. Vide verse 3 above.
Having used the words vistaran (Diverse) and samkshepah (Few), in the second line of this triplet, the speaker explains their meaning in the third. By 'Diverse' is meant all those fruits that consist of unstable enjoyments; hence, the diverse acts laid down in the Vedas and other scriptures. By 'Few' is meant Renunciation, or abstention from acts. What is said, therefore, in this verse is this: they that betake themselves to acts, which for their fruits all sorts of enjoyment, meet with misery; while they that abstain from acts or practise Renunciation meet with happiness. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect.
It is difficult to understand what is meant by this verse. By progress in Yoga, the Soul can certainly cast off the mind and other attributes by which it is invested. The simile is unintelligible. The stalk of the lotus has its roots in mire. Does the first line mean, therefore, that the stalk speedily springs upwards and leaves the mire at its roots?
The commentator explains that the intention of this verse is to explain that the universe which is created by the mind is destroyed afterwards by the mind itself.
The sense is that one who has cast off objects of enjoyment and become emancipated, does not obtain rebirth.
I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. The practice of fishermen (in India) is to sink their boats when they leave them for their homes, and to raise them again when they require them the next day. They do not leave their boats afloat for fear of the injury the waves may do to them by tossing them too much.
By Prakriti here is meant the harmony of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas. As long as these three qualities are in harmony with one another, i.e., as long as there is no preponderance in any of them over the other two, so long there cannot be creation or the operations of the buddhi or understanding.
In this verse the word Prakriti is used in an entirely different sense. It means here Ignorance.
Sariragriha-sanjnasya is 'of one who regards his body to be an accompaniment of the Soul instead of regarding it to be the Soul.' 'Who regards purity as its sacred water', i.e., who, without resorting to the sacred waters whither others go for cleansing themselves, thinks that purity, both internal and external, is capable of cleansing him.
Vide note to verse 21 above.
The object of the verse is to show that one should not, for the sake of friends and kinsmen and spouses and children, abstain from pursuing one's true end. The practice of charity again is the true diet which supports a man.
Astapadapada is a weight of gold. The word, as used in this verse, means a quantity of gold. Whether the reading be mudreva or sutrena, the sense remains unchanged. What is said here is that the mother, etc., are like lines traced with gold by the side of real gold; i.e., the mother, etc., are of no value or use in the acquisition of prosperity. K.P. Singha misses the meaning. The Burdwan translator, however, makes a most ridiculous exhibition of himself. Without understanding the commentary at all, in fact, not having been able to read the words of the commentary aright, he has produced a ridiculous jargon that is utterly unintelligible. Daksha is a vocative, meaning 'possessed of cleverness.' The words he daksha yatha, etc., of the commentator are read by the Burdwan Pundit as: deha-kshaya, etc.
Apariharavan is incapable of being resisted. Samagatih as wind. Asmasara-vihitam is 'made by means of iron or the saw.' Asmasara stands here for krakacha or karapatra.
The commentator explains that by tapah is meant the practice or observance of one's own duties. Damah is restraining the senses. Satyam is truthfulness of speech, and atmaguptih is subjugation of the mind. The knots are attachments and desires, etc.
i.e., the assailant, finding his victim forgiving, himself burns with repentance.
Vishayena yami is the correct reading; i.e., then here is palatal, and vishayena is in the instrumental case. The Bengal reading is vicious, for it reads Vishaye nayami.
The Moon is endued with nectar, and, therefore, might have been such a man's equal; but the Moon waxes and wanes; therefore, the Moon cannot approach to an equality with such a man who is the same under all changes. Similarly, the wind, though unstained by the dust it bears is not the equal of such a man; for the wind is changeful, having slow, middling and quick motion. The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of the reference to the Moon and the wind. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly.
The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show the merits of that man whose ignorance has disappeared.
i.e., when Brahmanas incur obloquy they are said to become impure; they are again regarded as possessing the status of humanity only because they die.
The examples of Viswamitra and others may be cited in this instance.
Dharana is holding the soul in self-reflection, preventing it the while from wandering. Samadhi is complete abstraction.
Akhandam is Sarvakalam; uposhya is tyaktwa. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse. He takes mansam for masam; but no difference of reading occurs between the Bengal and Bombay texts.
The ten properties included in Sattwa or Goodness are gladness, cheerfulness, enthusiasm, fame, righteousness, contentment, faith, sincerity, liberality, and lordship. The nine properties included in Rajas or Passion are belief in the deities, (ostentatious) charity, enjoyment and endurance of happiness and sorrow, disunion, exhibition of manliness, lust and wrath, intoxication, pride, malice, and disposition to revile. The eight qualities included in Tamas or Darkness are unconsciousness, stupefaction, excess of stupefaction, muddiness of the understanding, blindness (of results), sleep, heedlessness, and procrastination. The seven incidents of Buddhi or the Understanding are Mahat, consciousness, and the five subtile essences. The six incidents of Mind are Mind and the five senses. The five incidents appertaining to Space are space, water, wind, light, and earth. According to a different school of philosophy, Buddhi, or the Understanding is said to have four incidents appertaining to it, viz., doubt, ascertainment, pride, and memory. Tamas (darkness) also is otherwise regarded to have only three incidents, viz., inability of comprehension, partial comprehension, and totally erroneous comprehension. Rajas (Passion) is (according to this school) regarding as having only the two incidents of inclination (to act) and sorrow. Sattwa has but one incident viz., Enlightenment.
'Durga' is an inaccessible region such as a forest or wilderness which cannot be passed through except with great pain and danger.
The correct reading seems to be sthira-vratati-samkulam.
Udadhi is, literally, a water-jar. In this country most people, while swimming, use water jars as buoys. The mouth of jar being dipped into the water the air confined within it serve to support heavy weights. I have heard that the most rapid currents are crossed by milkmaids in this way, all the while bearing milk pails on their heads.
In the second line of 72, dustaram janma means janma-yuktam dustaram.
The sense seems to be that by practising the Sankhya doctrine men cease to have any regard for even their gross bodies. They succeed in realising their existence as independent of all earthly or heavenly objects. What is meant by the Sun bearing them in his rays and conveying to them all things from every part of the universe is that these men acquire great puissance. This is not the puissance of Yoga but of knowledge. Everything being regarded as unsubstantial and transitory, the position of Indra himself, or of Brahman, is looked upon as desirable and unworthy of acquisition. Sincere conviction of this kind and the course of conduct that is confirmable to it is literally puissance of the highest kind, for all the purposes of puissance are capable of being served by it.
This is taken as meaning that the Sankhyas are conveyed to the firmament of the heart. Perhaps, what is intended by it is that they become withdrawn from external objects and even the impressions of all external things.
Perhaps, this means the pleasures of heaven.
i.e., they who have identified themselves with Brahma.
Yudhishthira's question seems to be this. Is there or is there not consciousness in the emancipate state? Different scriptures answer this question differently. If it be said that there is consciousness in that state, then why discard heaven and its pleasures, or the religion of Pravritti or acts which lead to those pleasures? Where is the necessity then of Sannyasa or the religion of Nivritti or abstention from all acts? On the supposition of there being consciousness in the emancipate state, the Religion of Pravritti should be taken as superior. If, on the other hand, the existence of consciousness be denied, that would be an error. Dnkshataram is ayuktaram.
Although I make use of the word 'perceive' yet remembering that the mind is included among the senses and regarded as the sixth sense, the functions of recollection, representation, etc., are also implied by the word pasyati. The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculously erroneous version of this verse.
The commentator explains that the simile of the froth is introduced in consequence of its disappearance with the disappearance of water. K. P. Singha is incorrect in taking the instance of froth as illustrative of the quickness of the destruction.
Sarvatra does not mean 'through every part of the sleeper's body' as K. P. Singha takes it, but sarvavishaye as the commentator correctly explains it.
Iha is sapne Anisah is nasti isah or pravartaah yasya.
For the Soul, in dreams, sees and hears and touches and smells etc., precisely as it does while awake.
The sense seems to be that a person who becomes emancipate in this life becomes so in Samadhi. When the state of Samadhi is over, his mind and senses return; and returning they do the bidding of the Supreme, i.e., bring about both happiness and misery, which, of course, are the consequences of the acts of past lives though that happiness and misery are not felt. In the next verse is said that these men very soon leave their bodies and become freed from rebirth.
There are two kinds of Emancipation: one is attainable here, in this body, it is Jivan-mukti; the other is Videha-kaivalya or that which becomes one's when one is bodiless. In 98, Jivan-mukti has been spoken of. In this verse, the observations apply to Videha-kaivalya.
Vadanti is stuvanti. Such men hymn its praises by regarding it as Supreme Deity possessed of attributes. Those attributes, of course, are the result of illusion, for in its real nature there can be no attributes in Brahma.
Brahma is knowledge without duality i.e., knowledge without the consciousness of knower and known. The knowledge or cognition of an object, when object is annihilated, assumes the form of that knowledge which is called Brahma.
The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that among mobile creatures those endued with knowledge are superior, and among all kinds of knowledge, the knowledge occurring in the Sankhya system is the highest.
i.e., if in consequence of any defect of practice or Sadhana, the Sankhyas fail to attain to Emancipation, they at least become translated into gods.
i.e., it is everything.
That Narayana who does all this is the embodiment of the Sankhya system.
The commentator explains the compound Adhyatmagatinischayam differently.
Both the vernacular translator render this verse wrongly.
Vasyante is explained by the commentator as implying Brahmanah ante and not 'at the end of that night'. The line occurs in Manu (Chap. 1. 74) where ante refers to Brahmana's day and night. Vasishtha here refers to Mohapralaya and not any intermediate Pralaya.
In the creation of Mahan or Prajapati or Virat, and of Consciousness, the element of Tamas or ignorance predominates.
This is a very abstruse verse. I am not sure that I have understood it correctly, What is said here seems to be this from Akshara arose Hiranyagarbha: from Hiranyagarbha arose Virat. This, that or the other is worshipped by ordinary men, while persons possessed of real insight do not invest any of them with attributes worthy of worship. The speaker says that the ascription of attributes, called Ignorance, and the non-ascription for destruction of that ascriptions called Knowledge, (with respect to Virat or Hiranyagarbha or Akshara) then arose. It might be asked that when there were no men as yet to worship or to condemn such worship, how could the two arise? The answer is that the two, in their subtile forms, came into existence and were afterwards availed of by men when men come into being.
From Akshara or the Indestructible is Hiranyagarbha. From Hiranyagarbha is Mahan or Virat and Consciousness. From the last are the subtile elements.
The meanings of such verses depend upon the grammatical significations of certain words that are used. They can scarcely be rendered accurately into any other language not derived from Sanskrit. What is said here is that it is Prakriti which must be said to be the Adhishthatri of the universe. Vishnu is not so. Vishnu, Brahma, Akshara, or the Indestructible, however, is said to cover or _pervade_ the universe (vyapnoti). Vishnu is Vyapka but not Adhishthatri.
In the previous section it has been said that through Tamas he takes birth among the intermediate orders, through Rajas among human beings, and through Sattwa among gods. The root kshi in Gunakshayat means aisarvya or puissance.
The soul weaves a cocoon with attributes (or, acts which result from attributes), and though free deprives himself of freedom.
Made of Chit and Not-Chit combined.
The sense seems to be that the obligation to explain a treatise in the midst of a conclave always stimulates the best faculties, and if it is a conclave of the learned the friction of intellects is sure to bring out the correct sense.
For enables them to conquer Ignorance.
When Pranayama is performed with the aid of mantras or yapa, it is said to be saguna or sagarbha or endued with substance. Concentration of mind, however, is made without the aid of such yapa.
The two and twenty sanchodans of Preranas are the two and twenty modes of transmitting the Prana breath from the toe of the foot to the crown of the head. That which transcends Prakriti is the Supreme Soul.
The reading I adopt is na-kathyate.
Atmanah is Iswarat parah.
Parisankhyadarsanam is explained by the commentator thus: Parisankhyanam, is parivarianam, i.e., the gradual pravilapam of errors; Lena darsanam or sakshatkaram.
The commentator explains that nistattwah means nirgatam tattwam aparoksham yasmat.
Param Aparam, and Avyayam are theirs in consequence of Ajksharabhavatwa. Aparam means satyakamatwa, satyasamkalpatwa, etc. i.e., puissance. Param is the indescribable felicity of Samadhi. The Srutis declare that knower of Brahma becomes Brahma.
Hence, as the commentator explains, by knowing what is called the Unmanifest one is capable of attaining to omniscience.
What is stated here is this, the Unmanifest or Prakriti, by modification, produces Mahat and the other principles. But the agency of Purusha also is necessary for such production, for Prakriti can do nothing without Purusha, and Purusha also can do nothing without Prakriti. The principles of Mahat and the rest, therefore, may be said to have their origin as much in Purusha as in Prakriti. Beside, the two being naturally dependent on each other, if Prakriti be called Kshara, Purusha also may be so called.
i.e., Jiva or Purusha.
High, such as gods, middling, such as human beings and low, such as animals.
Budha is Bodha or pure Knowledge. Abudha is the reverse of Budha. The Supreme Soul is Knowledge, while Jiva is Ignorance.
In consequence of Jiva's union with or attachment to Prakriti. Jiva takes this object for a vessel; that for a mountain, and that other for a third. When knowledge comes, Jiva succeeds in understanding that all his impressions are erroneous and that the external world is only a modification of Self. In consequence of Jiva's capacity to comprehend this, he is called Budhyamana or Comprehender.
Drisya and Adrisya, are the Seen and the Unseen, that is the gross and the subtile, or effects and causes. Swabhavena anugatam is inhering (unto all of them,) in its own nature, that is, Brahma pervades all things and unites with them without itself being changed as regards its own nature. Vudyate has manishibhih understood it.
Tattwa is explained by the commentator as anaropitaruom, i.e., invested with any form in consequence of Ignorance; Not-Tattwa is nityaparoksham i.e., always within the ken of the understanding.
That indication is 'I am Brahma.' Such conviction or knowledge even which characterises those that are awakened or Buddha, is cast off by the twenty-sixth.
These examples are often used to explain the difference between the Jiva-soul and the Supreme Soul. The Udumvara is the fruit of the Ficus glomerate. When ripe and broken, the hollow centre is seen to contain many full-grown gnats. The gnat lives in the fruit but is not the fruit, just as the fish though living in the water is not the water that is its home. Jiva, after the same way, though living in the Supreme Soul, is not the Supreme Soul.
Parah is Anyah or Chidatman. Paradharma means 'partaking' of the nature of Kshetra in which he resides. Sameyta is 'kshetrena iva ekebhya.'
This is a simile very often used for illustrating the danger of pursuing objects of the senses. Collectors of honey used to rove over mountains, guided by the sight of flying bees. These men frequently met with death from falls from precipices.
The Burdwan translator renders this verse incorrectly.
This has been repeatedly laid down in the Hindu scriptures. Gifts produce no merit unless made to deserving persons. If made to the undeserving, instead of ceasing to produce any merit, they become positively sinful. The considerations of time and place also are to be attended to. By failing to attend to them, sin is incurred where merit is expected. Truth becomes as sinful as a lie, under particular circumstances; and a falsehood becomes as meritorious as truth under circumstances. The Hindu scriptures make circumstance the test of acts.
These, including Mind, form the tale of sixteen called Vikriti or modifications of Prakriti.
These are the subtile principles or Tanmatras and not the gross elements.
Mahat is sometimes called Buddhi hence the creation of Consciousness from Mahat must be creation relating to Buddha.
Arjjava mean 'relating to straight paths or courses,' so called from the straight course of these winds or breaths. By reference to these breaths is intended the other limbs of the physical system besides those already indicated.
Rishi here means Mahan or Great. Consciousness is said to have an excellent essence, and is also a Bhuta because of its capacity to produce the Great Bhutas, five in number.
These, the commentator explains, are Mind, Buddhi or Understanding Consciousness, and Chitwa, considered as Vyashti instead of as Samashthi. These are the sires of the primeval sires, i.e., from these sprung the Mahabhutas or Great creatures (viz., the five primal elements).
Devah's is explained by the commentator as meaning the Senses and the four inner faculties. Devaih he thinks, refers to the Bhutas or Great elements. Literally rendered, the verse would read as 'the Devas are the Children of the Pitris; with the Devas, all the worlds of Mobile Being have been covered.' It is not safe to reject the learned commentator.
These two verses refer to the power of the attributes of sound etc., over Jiva. Loves and hates, and all kinds of relationship of Jiva are due to the action of the attributes named.
The duration here given has reference to the day and the night of the Mahabhutas.
Prakritisthah means 'in his own Prakriti or nature.' The sense of the line is that Purusha, even when residing in the case that Prakriti provides him with, does not partake of the nature of Prakriti but continues to be undefiled by her.
I expand this verse for bringing out the meaning. A verbal rendering will become unintelligible.
This is a difficult verse, I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. The sense to be that Prakriti, which is really unintelligent and incapable of enjoyment or endurance, becomes intelligent and capable of enjoyment or endurance in consequence of being united with Purusha who is intelligent. Thus when pleasurable or painful sensation are felt, it is the body that seems to feel it only in consequence of the Soul that presides over it.
The first line of 7 is the same in sense as the second line of 8. In the Bombay text, only the second line of 8 occurs, while the first line of 7 has been justly omitted. In fact, Tattwa and the Prakriti are the same thing.
This refers to the opinion of the atheistic Sankhyas.
By the word Rudra is meant Prana and the other breaths. The commentator explains that the etymology is utkramana kale dehinam rodayanti iti Rudrah Pranah. By regulating the vital breaths and the senses, Yogins attain to Yoga puissance and succeed in roving wherever they please in their linga-sarira or subtile bodies.
The eight limbs of Yoga are Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, Tarka, Samadhi, with the two additional ones of Yama and Niyama.
In the first line of 9 the word Pranayama is used to mean regulation of the vital breaths. In the second line, the same word implies the ayamah or nigraha of the senses with the mind. By Dharana is meant the fixing of the mind, one after another, on the sixteen things named in treatises on Yoga. By ekagrata of the mind is meant that concentration in which there is no longer any consciousness of difference between Dhyatri, Dhyeya, and Dhyana.
It is difficult for those who do not practise Pranayama to understand this fully. The fact is, Saguna Pranayama, when the breath is inhaled, the inhalation is measured by the time taken up in mentally reciting a well-known mantra. So when inhaled breath is suspended, the suspension is measured by the time taken in mentally reciting a particular mantra. When therefore, the suspended breath should be exhaled, it should be done by similarly measuring the time of exhaling. For beginners, this Saguna Pranayama is recommended. Of course only exhalation has been spoken of but it applies equally to inhalation and suspension. These three processes, in Yoga language, are Puraka, Kumbhaka, and Rechaka.
Ekantasilin means a Sannyasin, Atmarama is one who takes pleasure in one's soul instead of in spouses and children.
The pole-star.
Chakre literally means 'I made'. The commentator explains it as equivalent to swayam avirbhut.
Vipriya evidently means 'what is not agreeable.' There was evidently a dispute between Yajnavalkya and his maternal uncle Vaisampayana, the celebrated disciple of Vyasa. This dispute is particularly referred to in the next verse. Vaisampayana had been a recognised teacher of the Vedas and had collected a large number of disciples around him. When, therefore, the nephew Yajnavalkya, having obtaining the Vedas from Surya, began to teach them, he was naturally looked upon with a jealousy, which culminated (as referred to in the next verse) into an open dispute about the Dakshina to be appropriated in the Sacrifice of Janaka. The Burdwan translator incorrectly renders the word vipriya which he takes to mean as 'very agreeable.' In the Vishnu Purana it is mentioned that a dispute took place between Yajnavalkya and Paila. The latter's preceptor, Vyasa, came, and taking his side, asked Yajnavalkya to return him the Vedas which he had obtained from him. Yajnavalkya vomited forth the Vedas. These were instantly devoured by two other Rishis in the form of Tittiri birds. These afterwards promulgated the Taittiriya Upanishads.
This shows that I was then regarded as the equal of Vaisampayana himself in the matter of Vedic knowledge. Sumanta and Paila and Jaimini, with Vaisampayana, were the Rishis that assisted the great Vyasa in the task of arranging the Vedas.
This is called the fourth science, the three others being the three Vedas, Axis culture, and the science of morality and chastisement.
Prakriti is regarded as something in which Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas reside in exactly equal proportion. All the principles of Mahat, etc. which flow from Prakriti, are characterised by these three attributes in diverse measure.
By Mitra is meant here the deity giving light and heat. By Varuna is meant the waters that compose the universe.
Kah, the commentator explained, is anandah or felicity.
The comparison lies in the folly of the two persons indicated. One churning ass's milk for butter is only a fool. Similarly, one failing to understand the nature of Prakriti and Purusha from the Vedas is only a fool.
Gives a literal rendering of this verse for showing how difficult it is to understand the meaning. The commentator correctly explains the sense which is as follows: anyah or the other is the Soul as distinguished from its reflection upon Prakriti, that is the Soul in its real character as independent of Prakriti. What is said here is that when the Soul, in its real character beholds, or acts as a witness of everything (i.e., as exists in the states of wakefulness and dream), becomes conscious of both itself (the Twenty-fifth) and Prakriti (the Twenty-fourth) when, however, it ceases to behold or act as such witness (i.e., in the state of dreamless slumber of Yoga-samadhi), it succeeds in beholding the Supreme Soul or the Twenty-sixth. In simple language what is said here is that the Soul becomes conscious of both itself and Prakriti in the state of wakefulness and dream. In Samadhi alone, it beholds the Supreme Soul.
What is said here is that the Twenty-sixth or the Supreme Soul always beholds the Twenty-fifth or the Jiva-soul. The latter, however, filled with vanity, regards that there is nothing higher than it. It can easily, in Yoga-samadhi, behold the Twenty-sixth. Though thus competent to behold the Supreme Soul, it fails ordinarily to behold it. The commentator sees in this verse a repudiation of the doctrine of the Charvakas and the Saugatas who deny that there is a Twenty-sixth Tattwa or even a Twenty-fifth which they identify with the Twenty-fourth.
Tatsthanat is explained by the commentator as Varasya avaradhisrhanat, i.e., in consequence of vara overlying the avara. The instance of the string and the snake is cited. At first the string is erroneously taken for the snake. When the error is dispelled, the string appears as the string. Thus the Supreme and the Jiva-soul come to be taken as one when true knowledge comes.
The ordinary doctrine is that the Jiva-soul is indestructible, for it is both unborn and deathless, its so called births and deaths being only changes of the forms which Prakriti undergoes in course of her association with it, an association that continues as long as the Jiva-soul does not succeed in effecting its emancipation. In this verse the ordinary doctrine is abandoned. What is said here is that the Jiva-soul is _not_ deathless, for when it becomes identified with the Supreme Soul, that alteration may be taken as its death.
This is a very difficult verse. Pasya and apasya are drashtri and drisya, i.e., knower and known (or Soul and Prakriti) Kshemaya and Tattwo are drik and drisya, i.e., knowledge and known. One that sees no difference between these that is, one that regards all things as one and the same, is both Kevala and not-Kevala, etc, meaning that such a person, though still appearing as a Jiva (to others) is in reality identifiable with the Supreme Soul.
This may mean that as men speak, and as speech is Brahma, all men must be regarded as utterers of Brahma. If, again, Brahma be taken to mean the Vedas in special, it may imply that all men utter the Vedas or are competent to study the Vedas. Such an exceedingly liberal sentiment from the mouth of Yajnavalkya is compatible only with the religion of Emancipation which he taught.
The doctrine is that unless acts are destroyed, there can be no Emancipation.
Literally, 'these are not obstacles by external nature,' and are therefore irremovable by personal exertion of the ordinary kind.
Sanchodayishyanti implies questioned. Here it means questioning the king internally or by Yoga power.
Utsmayan is explained by the Commentators as 'priding himself upon his own invincibleness.' Ayaya bhavam implies her determination to make the king dumb. Visesayan is abhibhavan.
Sammantum is explained by the Commentator as equivalent to samyak jnatum.
It is difficult to say in what sense the word vaiseshikam is used here. There is a particular system of philosophy called Vaiseshika or Kanada; the system believed to have been originally promulgated by a Rishi of the name of Kanada. That system has close resemblance to the atomic theory of European philosophers. It has many points of striking resemblance with Kapila's system or Sankhya. Then, again, some of the original principles, as enunciated in the Sankhya system, are called by the name of Visesha.
The mention of Vidhi indicated, as the commentator explains, Karmakanda. The value of Karma in the path of Emancipation is to purify the Soul.
K. P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.
There is equal reason in taking up etc., implies that the bearing of the sceptre is only a mode of life like that of holders of the triple-stick. Both the king and the Sannyasin are free to acquire knowledge and both, therefore, may attain to Emancipation notwithstanding their respective emblems. In the emblems themselves there is no efficacy or disqualification.
The object of this verse is to show that all persons, led by interest, become attached to particular things. The littleness or greatness of those things cannot aid or bar people's way to Emancipation. 'I may be a king, says Janaka, and thou mayst be a mendicant. Neither thy mendicancy nor my royalty can aid or obstruct our Emancipation. Both of us, by Knowledge, can achieve what we wish, notwithstanding our outward surroundings.'
Hence, by changing my royal life for that of a bearer of the triple-stick I can gain nothing.
Yukte in the first line means in the Yogin. The Bombay reading Tridandanke is a mistake for Tridandakam. The Bombay text reads na muktasyasti gopana, meaning that 'there is no relief for one that has fallen down after having arisen in Yoga.' The Bengal text reads vimuktasya. I adopt the Bengal reading.
What the king says is that he, the king, had made no assignation with the lady is consequence of which she could be justified in entering his body. The word Sannikarsha here means sanketa. Both the vernacular translators render this word wrongly.
These faults and merits are set forth in the verses that follow.
Saukshmyam, is literally minuteness. It means ambiguity here. I have rendered verse 81 very closely to give the reader an idea of the extreme terseness of these verses. For bringing out the meaning of the verse, the following illustration may serve. A sentence is composed containing some words each of which is employed in diverse senses, as the well-known verse of Parasara which has been interpreted to sanction the remarriage of Hindu widows. Here, the object indicated by the words used are varied. Definite knowledge of the meaning of each word is arrived at by means of distinctions, i.e., by distinguishing each meaning from every other. In such cases, the understanding before arriving at the definite meaning, rests in succession upon diverse points, now upon one, now upon another. Indeed, the true meaning is to be arrived at in such cases by a process of elimination. When such processes become necessary and or seizing the sense of any sentence, the fault is said to be the fault of minuteness or ambiguity.
To take the same example; first take the well-known words of Parasara as really sanctioning the remarriage of widows. Several words in the verse would point to this meaning, several others would not. Weighing probabilities and reasons, let the meaning be tentatively adopted that second husbands are sanctioned by the Rishi for the Hindu widow. This is Sankhya.
Having tentatively adopted the meaning the second husbands are sanctioned by the verse referred to, the conclusion should be either its acceptance or rejection. By seeing the incompatibility of the tentative meaning with other settled conclusions in respect of other texts or other writers, the tentative meaning is capable of being rejected, and the final conclusion arrived at, to the effect, that the second husband is to be taken only according to the Niyoga-vidhi and not by marriage.
By prayojanam is meant the conduct one pursues for gratifying one's wish to acquire or avoid any object. Wish, in respect of either acquisition or avoidance, if ungratified, becomes a source of pain. The section or conduct that one adopts for removing that pain is called Prayojanam. In the Gautama-sutras it is said that yamarthamadhikritya pravartate, tat prayojanam. The two definitions are identical.
By occurrence of these five characteristics together is meant that when these are properly attended to by a speaker or writer, only then can his sentence be said to be complete and intelligible. In Nyaya philosophy, the five requisites are Pratijna, Hetu, Udaharana, Upanaya, and Nigamana. In the Mimansa philosophy, the five requisites have been named differently. Vishaya, Samsaya, Purvapaksha, Uttara, and Nirnaya.
These characteristics, the commentator points out, though numbering sixteen, include the four and twenty mentioned by Bhojadeva in his Rhetoric called Saraswati-kanthabharana.
Parartham means, as the commentator explains, of excellent sense. It does not mean Paraprayojanam as wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. The latter's version of the text is thoroughly unmeaning.
What Sulabha says here is this: the great primal elements are the same whether they make up this body or that other body; and then it is the same Chit that pervades every combination of the great elements. The object of this observation is to show that Janaka should not have asked these questions about Sulabha, he and she being essentially the same person. To regard the two as different would indicate obscuration of vision.
What is meant by this is that when creatures are said to possess more of sattwa and less of sattwa, sattwa seems to be a principle that is existent in the constitutions of creatures.
By the word Kala is meant the 16 principles beginning with Prana. What is intended to be said is that as long as the principle of Desire exists, rebirth becomes possible. The universe, therefore, rests on the principle of Desire or Vasana. The senses, etc. all arise from this principle of Vasana.
By Vidhi is meant that righteousness and its reverse which constitute the seed of Desire. By Sukra is meant that which helps that seed to grow or put forth its rudiments. By Vala is meant the exertion that one makes for gratifying one's desire.
The fact then of continual change of particles in the body was well-known to the Hindu sages. This discovery is not new of modern physiology. Elsewhere it has been shown that Harvey's great discovery about the circulation of the blood was not unknown to the Rishis.
The instance mentioned for illustrating the change of corporal particles is certainly a very happy one. The flame of a burning lamp, though perfectly steady (as in a breezeless spot), is really the result of the successive combustion of particles of oil and the successive extinguishment of such combustion Both this and the previous verse have been rendered inaccurately by K.P. Singha.
Hence the questions of Janaka, asking as to who the lady was or whose, were futile.
The seven ways are as follows: Righteousness and Wealth and Pleasure independently and distinct from one another count three, then the first and second, the first and third, and second and third, count three and lastly, all three existing together. In all acts, one or other of these seven may be found. The first and second exist in all acts whose result is the righteous acquisition of wealth; the first and third exist in the procreation of children in lawful wedlock; the second and third in ordinary acts of worldly men. Of acts in which all three combine, the rearing of children may be noticed, for it is at once a duty, a source of wealth, and a pleasure. K.P. Singha omits all reference to these seven ways, while the Burdwan translator, misunderstanding the gloss, makes utter nonsense of it.
The king may order some men to do some things. These men, after obeying those orders, return to him to report the fact of what they have accomplished. The king is obliged to grant them interviews for listening to them.
The commentator explains that the three others are Vriddhi, Kshaya, and Sthana, all of which arise from policy. Some of the seven limbs are inanimate, such as the treasury. But it is said that the treasury supports the ministers, and the ministers support the treasury.
Hence, when every kingdom has a king, and kings too are many, no one should indulge in pride at the thought of his being a king.
The object of this verse is to show that as Janaka rules his kingdom without being attached to it, he cannot lay claim to the merit that belongs to kings.
Upaya or means implies here the attitude of sitting (as in Yoga). Upanishad or method implies sravana and manana i.e., listening and thinking. Upasanga or practices imply the several limbs of Dhyana, etc. Nischaya or conclusion has reference to Brahma.
I expand this verse fully.
The na in the second line is connected with Vyayachcchate.
The object of this verse is to show that the words uttered by Sulabha were unanswerable. To attain to Emancipation one must practise a life of Renunciation instead of continuing in the domestic mode.
These foes are, of course, the passions.
Literally, the world is only a hold of action, implying that creatures, coming here, have to act: these actions lead to rewards and punishments, both here and hereafter. The way to Emancipation is, as has been often shown before, by exhausting the consequences of acts by enjoyment or sufferance and by abstaining from further acts by adopting the religion of Nivritti.
Kulapatam is explained by the commentator as Mahanadipuram. In Naram etc, venumivodahritam (as in the Bombay text) or venumivoddhhatam (as in the Bengal text) is rather unintelligible unless it be taken in the sense in which I have taken it. K. P. Singha mistranslates Kulapatam, and the Burdwan translator misunderstands both Kulaparam and venumivoddhatam.
i.e., to uphold it by doing the duties of a Brahmanas.
Prachalita-dharma etc, implies those that have fallen away from righteousness. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the verse. Karanabhih is kriabhih.
The Commentator explains that this verse is for assuring Yudhishthira that kings are competent to obtain felicity in the next world. Anupagatam is explained by the Commentator as not attainable in even thousands of births.
Rudhirapah is blood-sucking worms. Uparatam is dead.
The ten boundaries or commandments, as mentioned by the Commentator, are the five positive ones, viz., Purity, Contentment, Penances, Study of the Vedas, Meditation on God, and the five negative ones, viz., abstention from cruelty, from untruth, from theft, from non-observance of vows, and from acquisition of wealth.
Chirasya is grammatically connected with na vudhyase, meaning 'that thou art always blind etc.' The Burdwan translator misunderstands it completely and takes it as equivalent to achirena. K. P. Singha skips over it.
The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculous version of the verse.
Kevalam nidhim is literally, 'one's only treasure'. It may imply either Samadhi or Brahma. Acts, whether good or bad, all arise from error. Abstention from acts is the true way to Emancipation.
The passions are spoken of as wolves.
The sight of golden trees is a premonitory sign of Death.
Literally rendered, the verse would run thus: Before the cooking is complete of the Yavaka of a rich man, in fact, while it is still uncooked, thou mayst meet with death. Do thou, therefore, hasten. By Yavaka is meant a particular kind of food made of ghee and flour or barley.
In verse 53 it is said that the Soul is the witness in the other world of all acts and omission in this life. In verse 54, what is said is that the existence of the Soul when the body is not, is possible, for Yogins, in Yoga, live in their Soul, unconscious the while of their bodies. The entrance of the acting-Chaitanya into that Chaitanya which survives as the witness means the death of the body.
The Burdwan translator gives an erroneous version of this verse.
I think the sense is that only righteousness can bring a man to the path that leads to happiness and not mere instructions howsoever repeated.
The Commentator explains that Pramadagah is equivalent to Pramadagrihavasin and refers to Antakah. Chamum is Indriyasenam. Grahitam is body. Yathagrahitam is dehamanatikramya. In this verse pura may mean either in the near future or soon, or pura may mean before, i.e., before the Destroyer makes thy senses so, etc.
The road in which thyself shalt be in front and thyself in the rear is the road of Self-knowledge. The Burdwan translator does not understand how the first line comes to mean Knowledge of Self! Accordingly, though he uses the word amajnana (following the Commentator), yet he erroneously repeats some of the words used in the line.
The last word of the second line is muchyate and not yujyate. If yujyate be adhered to, meaning would be 'freed the consequences of ignorance and error, he would succeed in attaining to Brahma.'
This is a very abstruse verse. I have rendered it, following the lead of the Commentator, Srutam, he explains it 'the knowledge, born of vedic declarations like Tattwamasi etc.' Sarvamasnute is equivalent to samastam Brahmandam vyapnoti, meaning such knowledge leads to sarvatmyam, i.e., omniscience Tadetat etc., i.e., that omniscience is the darsanam, of parampurushartha or Moksha. Kritajna upadishtam artham is Samhitam.
The sense is that in course of our repeated rebirths we have got these relations repeatedly and will get them as repeatedly. But we are, in reality, quite unconnected with them. Their union with us like the union of pieces of wood floating in a river, now joined together temporarily, now separated.
Mokshadaisikam is explained by the commentator as Mokshandeshataram. K. P. Singha wrongly renders this word. This section is called pavakadhyayanam, meaning chitta-sodhakadhyayanam, that is, the lesson which, when read and mastered, is to lead to the cleansing of the heart.
Time, as a personified agent, is throwing all creatures at unequal distances. Some are thrown near and some to a great distance. These distances are regulated by the nature of the acts done by the creatures thrown. Some are cast among animals, some among men. Throwing or hurling them thus, Time drags them again, the binding-cords being always in his hands.
Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood the first line of this verse although there is no difficulty in it. Apastamva says drishto dharma-vyatikrama; Sahasancha purvesham. What Bhishma says here is that one should not speak of those instances of Vyatikramah and Sahasam.
Although the Vedas came to Suka of their own accord, yet he was in deference to the universal custom, obliged to formally acquire them from a preceptor.
Vyasa was the priest or Ritwija of the house of Mithila and as such the kings of Mithila were his Yajyas or Yajamanas. The duty of a Yajamana is to reverence every member of the priest's family. The sire, therefore, cautions the son that he should not, while living with the king of Mithila, assert his superiority over him in any respect.
It is certain that one must abandon all acts before one can attain to Emancipation. But then acts should not be cast off all at once. It is according to this order that they should be abandoned, i.e., in the order of the several modes.
The karanas are the inner faculties.
i.e., when Emancipation and omniscience have been attained in the very first mode of life, no further need exists for conforming to the three other modes of life.
i.e., behold the Supreme Soul by his own Soul.
Instead of papakam some texts read pavakam, meaning of the nature of fire.
After manasa, saha is understood. It does not mean that the senses are to be restrained by the mind, but the words imply that the mind and the senses are to be restrained. K. P. Singha renders the line correctly. The Burdwan translator, as usual, is careless.
K. P. Singha skips over this verse.
i.e., he turned his soul's gaze on his soul and withdrew himself from every worldly object.
He no longer walked like ordinary men. Without trailing along the solid support of the Earth, he proceeded through the sky.
Popularly, Bhimaraja, the Lanius Malabaricus.
It is believed that a person, by performing austere penances, scorches the three worlds. It is in consequence of this effect of penances that the superior deities were always compelled by the Asuras and Danavas to grant them whatever boons they solicited.
The sense is that if the Vedas are not constantly studied, they are likely to be forgotten.
Upaplava is Rahu or the ascending node. In many parts of Upper India, during the hot months in particular, large quantities of dust are raised by whirl winds in the afternoon or at evening called Andhi the clouds of dust cover the moon for hours together.
The lowest order of men, living by slaying animals.
The verse in the Bengal texts is a triplet. In the Bombay edition, the third line is excluded from verse 36. There is no inconvenience in this, only, it should be construed as referring to the wind called Samana or Pravaha.
Some texts read Jaytamvarah. If this be accepted, it should be an adjective of Parivaha, meaning the foremost of all in the strength or energy.
The sacred river Ganga has it is said, three courses or streams. One flows on the surface of the Earth, the second flows through the nether regions, and the third flows through heaven.
The first line runs into the second.
Penances should be protected from wrath. By penances one attains to great power. The ascetic's puissance frequently equals that of Brahman himself. If, however, the ascetic indulges in wrath and curses one from wrath, his puissance becomes diminished. For this reason, forgiveness is said to be the highest virtue a Brahmana can practise. A Brahmana's might lay in forgiveness. Knowledge also should be protected from honour and dishonour, i.e. one should never _receive_ honour for his knowledge, that is, do anything for the object of achieving honour. Similarly, one should never do anything which may have the effect of dishonouring one's knowledge. These are some of the highest duties preached in scriptures.
The saying Satyadapi hitam vadet is frequently misunderstood. The scriptures do not say that truth should be sacrificed in view of what is beneficial, for such view will militate with the saying that there is nothing higher than truth. The saying has reference to those exceptional instances where truth becomes a source of positive harm. The story of the Rishi who spoke the truth respecting the place where certain travellers lay concealed, when questioned by certain robbers who were for killing the travellers, is an instance to the point. The goldsmith's son who died with a falsehood on his lips for allowing his lawful prince to escape from the hands of his pursuers did a meritorious act of loyalty. Then, again, the germ of the utilitarian theory may be detected in the second line of this verse.
To conquer the unconquerable means to attain to Brahma.
In the Srutis, Paravara is an equivalent for the Supreme Soul. The correct reading is nasyati at the end of the first line, and not pasyati as in some of the Bengal texts. Adhering to pasyati (which gives no meaning), the Burdwan translator gives a ridiculous and unmeaning version of this verse. K. P. Singha, of course, adopts the correct reading.
This verse is not at all difficult. The sense is that the man who transcends all attachments never comes to grief if brought into union with other creatures. The Burdwan translator gives a thoroughly unmeaning version of this couplet.
The object of this verse is to show that men of knowledge do not perform sacrifices, in which, as a matter of course, a large number of creatures is slain. Men wedded to the religion of Pravriti perform sacrifices. Coming into the world in consequence of past acts, they seek happiness (by repairing to heaven) along the way of sacrifices and religious rites. A large number of creatures is slain, for besides the victims ostensibly offered, an infinite number of smaller and minuter creatures are killed in the sacrificial fires and in course of the other preparations that are made in sacrifices.
Sorrow increases by indulgence.
This is a very doubtful verse. The commentator is silent. I follow the meaning as it lies on the surface. The object of the verse seems to be this: there are men that are employed in reflecting upon the nature of things: these should know that such occupation is useless, for truly the nature of things is beyond the grasp of the mind. The greatest philosopher is ignorant of all the virtues of a blade of grass, the purpose for which it exists, the changes that it undergoes every instant of time and from day to day. Those men, however, who have such unprofitable occupation for walking along the highest path (the path, that is, which leads to Brahma) free themselves from grief.
I am not sure that I have understood this verse correctly.
What is intended to be said is that the gratification of the senses leaves nothing behind. The pleasure lasts as long as the contact continues of the objects with the senses. The Burdwan translator, not suspecting that the word used is adhana, gives a ridiculous version.
What is said here is this: a man has spouses and children, or wealth, etc.: there was no sorrow when these were not: with his union with these his sorrow commences. Hence, when these things disappear, an intelligent man should not indulge in any sorrow. Bonds or attachments are always productive of grief. When bonds are severed or destroyed, there ought to be no grief.
i.e., whose pleasures do not depend upon external objects such as spouses and children.
Vidhitsabhih is pipasabhih. It comes from dhe meaning drinking.
Vyasa lived in northern India and was evidently unacquainted with the tides that appear in the Bengal rivers.
The object of this verse is to show the utility and necessity of acts. Without acting no one, however clever, can earn any fruit. Both the vernacular translators give ridiculous versions of this plain aphorism.
Asi is used in the sense of akansha.
Naprapyanadhigachchati is na aprayam etc.
I do not quite understand in what the fault lies that is referred to here. Perhaps the sense is this. In Hindu philosophy, the vital seed is said to be generated by the sight of a desirable woman. When sexual congress takes place with one whose sight has not originated the vital seed but with another it fails to be productive. Whoever indulges in such intercourse is to blame.
Parasarirani has prapnuvanti understood after it. Chinnavijam means whose seed has broken, that is the creature whose gross body has met with destruction. The gross body is called the Vijam or seed of (heaven and hell). The sense of the verse is that every one, after death, attains to a new body. A creature can never exist without the bonds of body being attached to him. Of course, the case is otherwise with persons who succeed in achieving their Emancipation by the destruction of all acts. The Burdwan translator, following the commentator faithfully, renders this verse correctly. K. P. Singha skips over it entirely.
This is not a difficult verse. Then, again, the commentator explains it carefully. K. P. Singha gives a ridiculous version. The Burdwan translator is correct. Nirddagdham and vinasyantam imply the dying or dead. Jivar paradeham chalachalam ahitam bhavati means another body, as much subject to destruction, is kept ready.
I expand this verse a little for bringing out its meaning. What is said here is that some come out of the womb alive; some die there before being quickened with life, the reason being that their acts of past lives bring for them other bodies even at that stage.
This verse is certainly a 'crux.' The commentator, I think, displays considerable ingenuity in explaining it. The order of the words is Gatayushah tasya sahajatasya pancha saptamim navamim dasam prapnuvanti; tatah na bhavanti; sa na. The ten stages of a person's life are (1) residence within the womb, (2) birth, (3) infancy, up to 5 years, (4) childhood, up to 12 years, (5) Pauganda up to 16 years, (6) youth, up to 48 years, (7) old age, (8) decrepitude, (9) suspension of breath, (10) destruction of body.
Niyuktah means employed. I take it to imply employed in the task of conquering Nature. It may also mean, set to their usual tasks by the influence of past acts. Nature here means, of course the grand laws to which human existence is subject, viz., the law of birth, of death, of disease and decrepitude etc.
Uparyupari implies gradual superiority. If one becomes wealthy, one desires to be a councillor; if a councillor, one wishes to be prime minister; and so on. The sense of the verse is that man's desire to rise is insatiable.
The reading I prefer is asathah and not sathah. If the latter reading be kept, it would mean of both descriptions are seen to pay court to the wicked.
Avavandhah is low attachments, implying those that appertain to the body. In fact, the acquisition of the body itself is such an attachment. What is said here is that Jiva who has become enlightened becomes freed from the obligation of rebirth or contact with body once more.
The mass of effulgence constituting the Sun is nothing else than Brahma. Brahma is pure effulgence. Savitri-mandala-madhyavartir-Narayanah does not mean a deity with a physical form in the midst of the solar effulgence but incorporeal and universal Brahma. That effulgence is adored in the Gayatri.
The commentator takes Shomah to mean Shomagath Jivah. He does not explain the rest of the verse. The grammatical construction presents no difficulty. If Shomah be taken in the sense in which the Commentator explains it, the meaning would be this. He who enters the solar effulgence has not to undergo any change, unlike Shomah and the deities who have to undergo changes, for they fall down upon the exhaustion of their merit and re-ascend when they once more acquire merit. Both the vernacular translators have made a mess of the verse. The fact is, there are two paths, archiradi-margah and dhumadi-margah. They who go by the former, reach Brahma and have never to return. While they who go by the latter way, enjoy felicity for some time and then come back.
Here, the words Sun and Moon are indicative of the two different paths mentioned in the note immediately before.
What Suka says here is that he would attain to universal Brahma and thus identify himself with all things.
Jahasa hasam is an instance in Sanskrit of the cognate government of neuter verbs.
The Rishis knew that the height of the atmosphere is not interminable.
In this Section, Bhishma recites to Yudhishthira the fact of Suka's departure from this world, and Vyasa's grief at that occurrence. He speaks of the fact as one that had been related to him bygone times by both Narada and Vyasa himself. It is evident from this that the Suka who recited the Srimad Bhagavat to Parikshit, the grandson of Arjuna, could not possibly be the Suka who was Vyasa's son.
What Bhishma says here is that without faith this subject is incapable of being understood.
This is a triplet. The last word of the third line, viz., Swayambhuvah refers to Krishnah, but it has no special meaning. It is an adjective used more for the sake of measure than for anything else.
The golden cars referred to here are the fleshly bodies of the two deities. The body is called the car because like the car, it is propelled by some force other than the Soul which owns it for a time, the Soul being inactive. It is regarded as golden because every one becomes attached to it as something very valuable. The eight wheels are Avidya and the rest.
i.e., the hands, the feet, the stomach, and the organ of pleasure. The hands are said to be protected when they are restrained from the commission of all improper acts; the feet are said to be duly protected when they are restrained from touching all improper places. The stomach is said to be protected when one never takes any kind of improper food, and when one abstains from all evil acts for appeasing one's hunger. And lastly, one is said to restrain the organ of pleasure when one abstains from all acts of improper congress.
The word Mushka as ordinarily understood, implies the scrotum or testes. The commentator Nilakantha supposes that it may stand for the shoulder-knot. He believes that the phrase implies that the people of this island had each four arms.
The Sattwata ritual is explained by the Commentator to mean the Pancharatra ritual. Tachecheshena implies with what remained after Vishnu's worship was over.
i.e., dedicated his possessions to the service of Narayana, and held them as the great God's custodian. In other words, he never regarded his wealth as his own, but was always ready to devote it to all good and pious purposes.
i.e., the treatise those Rishis composed was the foremost of its kind in respect of choice and harmony of vocables, of import or sense and of reasons with which every assertion was fortified.
There are two religions, viz., that of Pravritti, implying act and observances, and that of Nivritti, implying a complete abstention from all acts and observances. The last is also called the religion of Emancipation.
Whether any work on morality and religion was over actually composed by the seven Rishis or not, no such work, it is certain, is in existence now. Besides this mention of the work in the Mahabharata, no reference to it has been made anywhere else. As to Sukra-niti it is extant, Vrihaspati's niti-sastram is defunct. It is probable, however, that before Saba-niti there was an anterior work, brief if not exhaustive on the same subjects.
Paryyaya literally means a list. The fact is, in all Sanskrit lexicons words expressive of the same meanings occur together. These lists are known by the name of Paryyaya. A more definite idea of the meaning of this word may be had by the English reader when he remembers that in a lexicon like Roget's Thesaurus, groups are given of words expressive of the same signification. Such groups are called Paryyayas.
The Hotri has to pour libations on the sacrificial fire, reciting mantras the while. Sadasyas are persons that watch the sacrifice, i.e., take care that the ordinances of the scriptures are duly complied with. They are, what is called, Vidhidarsinas.
Clarified butter offered in sacrifices, with cakes of powdered barley steeped in it.
Professor Weber supposes that in this narrative of the three Rishis Ekata, Dwita, and Trita, the poet is giving a description of either Italy or some island in the Mediterranean, and of a Christian worship that certain Hindu pilgrims might have witnessed. Indeed, a writer in the Calcutta Review has gone so far as to say that from what follows, the conjecture would not be a bold one that the whole passage refers to the impression made on certain Hindu pilgrims upon witnessing the celebration of the Eucharist according to the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church. The Honble K. P. Telang supposes that the whole passage is based on the poets imagination. Ekantabhavepagatah is taken by some to mean worshippers of the divine Unity. I do not think that such a rendering would be correct.
The Bombay reading is tadapratihato abhavat. This seems to be better than the Bengal reading tato-apratihata. If the Bengal reading be adhered to, apratihatah should be taken in the sense of nasti pratihatoyasmat. The meaning, of course, would remain the same.
Yapa means the silent recitation of certain sacred mantras or of the name of some deity. In the case of the inhabitants of White Island, the silent recitation was no recitation of mantras or words, but was a meditation on incorporeal Brahma. The next verse makes this clear.
This would seem to show that it was the Roman Republic which the pilgrims saw.
Professor Weber thinks that this has reference to the absence of idols or images. The pilgrims saw no deities there such as they had in their own temples.
Professor Weber wrongly renders the words Purvaja and sikshaksharaiamanwitah. The first word does not, as he renders it, imply, eldest son of God, but simply first-born. It is seen in almost every hymn in the Mahabharata to the Supreme Deity. It is synonymous with Adipurusha. Then siksha etc. does not, as he thinks, mean 'accompanied by teaching,' but it is the science of Orthoepy and is one of the Angas (limbs) of the Vedas. The Vedas were always chanted melodiously, the science of Orthoepy was cultivated by the Rishis with great care.
The Pancha-kala, or Pancha-ratra, or Sattwatas vidhi, means certain ordinances laid down by Narada and other Rishis in respect of the worship of Narayana.
The sense is this: as all of them were practising that frame of mind which resembles Brahma, they did not regard us, i.e., neither honoured nor dishonoured us.
Both the vernacular translators have erred in rendering this simple verse.
The construction seems to be this: Parangatimanuprapta iti Brahmanah samanantaram naishthikam sthanam, etc. It does not mean, as K. P. Singha puts it, that he proceeded to Brahman's region, nor, as the Burdwan translator puts it, that having gone to Brahman's region he attained to the highest end. The sense, on the other hand, is that as his was the very highest end, he, therefore, ascended to a spot that is higher than Brahman's region. The simple meaning is that king Uparichara attained to identification with Brahma.
i.e., when they have cursed thee, their curse should fructify. Thou shouldst not do anything that may have the effect of nullifying that curse.
To this day, in many religious rites, these streaks of ghee are poured with mantras recited the while. They are called Vasudhara and are poured along the surface of a wall. First, a waving line of red is drawn horizontally on the wall. Then seven spots are made under that line. Then with the sacrificial ladle, Ghee is poured from each of the spots in such a way that a thick streak is poured along the wall. The length of those streaks is generally 3 to 4 feet and their breadth about half an inch.
The mantras recited by Vasu were Vedic mantras.
The Burdwan translator, as also K. P. Singha, both err in translating the first line of this verse. It does not mean that Narada worshipped them with a bend of his head and that they in return worshipped him mentally.
In the sense of His being unmodified, even as space is an entity that cannot be modified in any way.
i.e., as the commentator expands, who is displayed without any modification, all else being modifications of Thyself.
i.e., from whom speech has flowed, or who is Vrihaspati the celestial priest, so famous for his learning and intelligence.
i.e., the original home of the universe. The idea is that when the universal dissolution comes, all things take refuge in thee. I follow the commentator in all the interpretations he gives.
i.e., who has performed the avabhrita or final bath upon the completion of all vows and observances and sacrifices.
i.e., thou hast performed sacrifices.
The Vedas have six limbs or divisions.
Pragjyotish is the name of a particular Saman. The Rich beginning with Murdhanam etc. when sung, comes to be called by the name of jeshtha Saman. What is said here, therefore, is that thou art both the foremost of Samanas and he that sings that Saman.
In the Bombay text, the reading for Vainagarbha is Vaikhanasa which means a class or sect of ascetics.
The commentator explains that by Mahayajna--great sacrifice--is meant Yoga. The Jiva-Soul is like the libation poured in the sacrifice, for by Yoga the Jiva-Soul is annihilated and merged into the Supreme Soul.
In treatises on the Smriti, the indications of these three kinds or degrees of modifications are given.
By this word is meant a particular conjunction of heavenly bodies. This conjunction is represented as having a peculiar form.
The word Upanaha used here in the dual number, has puzzled many persons. It is difficult to conceive why the great God should appear with a pair of shoes in one of his hands. Probably, the Upanaha, in ancient times, was a wooden sandal, and what the poet means to say is that Narayana, appeared with all the requisites of a Brahmacharin on his person.
i.e., merges into.
This cosmogony is agreeable to the Vaishnava scriptures. Above all, without beginning is Vasudeva. From Vasudeva is Sankarshana. From Sankarashana is Pradyumna. From Pradyumna is Aniruddha. Some persons find in this quadruple creation the distinct trace of the Christian Trinity. It is very difficult, however, to say which doctrine, the Hindu or the Christian, is the original and which is derived from which.
The reader is requested to mark the address 'king of kings'. This is evidently a slip of the pen. The whole speech is that of Narayana and Narada is the listener.
The commentator is silent. The sense seems to be that as Brahman is to be the son of Narayana in the beginning of a Kalpa when there is no other existent object mobile or immobile, the same Brahman is to be vested with dominion over all things which he would himself create through Ahankara. Of course, as long as Brahman is without Ahankara so long there can be no Creation, i.e., no subjects mobile and immobile, to be known by different names.
Nityada is always. Some persons believe that Narayana has to manifest himself always for achieving the business of the deities. This Earth is not the only world where such manifestations needed. As to the object of the manifestations considerable difference of opinion prevails. In the Gita, the great deity himself explains that that object is to rescue the good and destroy the wicked. Others hold that this is only a secondary object, the primary one being to gladden the hearts of the devout by affording them opportunities of worshipping him and applauding his acts, and to indulge in new joys by serving his own worshippers.
This is a reference to the well-known description of Narayana as Savitrimandalamadhyavartih etc. It is not the visible Sun whose disc is meant, but that pure fountain of effulgence which is inconceivable for its dazzling brightness that is implied.
The tense used in the original is future. What is meant, however, is that the great deity does these acts at the beginning of every Kalpa when he recreates the Earth. All cycles or Kalpas are similar in respect of the incidents that occur in them.
Maheswara is Mahadeva or Siva, Mahasena is Kartikeya, the generalissimo of the celestial forces.
Vana, the son of Vali, was a devout worshipper of Mahadeva. Mina's daughter Usha fell in love with Krishna's grandson Aniruddha. Aniruddha was imprisoned by Vana. It was to rescue Aniruddha that Krishna fought with Vana, after having vanquished both Mahadeva and Kartikeya. The thousand and one arms of Vana, less two, were lopped off by Krishna. The episode of the love of Aniruddha and Usha is a very beautiful one.
Saubha was the name of a flying city of the Danavas. Krishna felled this city into the ocean, having killed all its Danava inhabitants. As to Kala-yavana, his death was brought about by Krishna under the following circumstances. Pursued by the Danava, Krishna took refuge in a mountain-cave in which a king of the Satya Yuga was lying asleep. Entering the cave, Krishna stood at the head of the sleeping king. The Danava, entering the cave after Krishna, found the sleeping king and awaked him. As soon as the king looked at the Danava, the latter was consumed into ashes, for the gods had given a boon to the king that he who would awake him would be consumed by a glance of his.
The idea of Eternity without any conceivable beginning and conceivable end was so thoroughly realised by the Hindu sages that the chiefdom of Heaven itself was to them the concern of a moment. Nothing less than unchangeable felicity for all times was the object they pursued. All other things and states being mutable, and only Brahman being immutable, what they sought was an identification with Brahma. Such identification with the Supreme Soul was the Emancipation they sought. No other religion has ever been able to preach such a high ideal. The Hindu's concern is with Eternity. He regards his existence here as having the duration of but the millionth part of a moment. How to prevent re-birth and attain to an identification with the Supreme Soul is the object of his pursuit.
K. P. Singha has completely misunderstood the sense of verse 113, Bhishma does not certainly mean that Brahman was unacquainted with the narrative. What Bhishma says is that it was not to Brahman, but to the Siddhas assembled in Brahman's abode, that Narada recited his narrative.
K. P. Singha misunderstands verses 115 and 116 completely. The fact is, Surya recited the narrative unto those that precede and those that follow him in his journey through the firmament. K. P. Singha confounded the two classes of persons together. The Burdwan translator, as usual, makes nonsense of verse 116. The correct reading (as given in the Bombay text) is lokan, the grammatical construction being lokan tapatah suryasya etc. The Burdwan translator makes Surya repeat the narrative to the worlds created and placed before Surya.
The drift of Saunaka's queries seems to be this the religion of Pravritti is opposed to that of Nivritti. How is it that both have been created by the same Narayana. How is it that he has made some with dispositions to follow the one, and others with dispositions to follow the others.
Atmanah parinirmitam pralayam means that destruction or cessation of existences which is brought about by self-realization. What the king says here is,--If the religion of Nivritti be so superior in consequence of its superior end, why is it that the deities who are all superior to us did not pursue it? Were they ignorant of the method by which Emancipation is attainable? Were they ignorant of the means by which to win cessation of existence? K. P. Singha renders the verse correctly. The Burdwan translator misunderstands it although he repeats the exact words of the second foot of the second line.
That is, the attributes of vision to Light, taste to Water, sound to Space, touch to Wind, and smell to Earth.
Avritti lakshanam means that the reward to be bestowed shall not be Emancipation whence there is no return, but such reward (as the felicity of heaven) whence there will be a return for each of the receivers.
Taking their rise from the fruits of Pravritti implies having their origin in their desire for such fruits as appertain to the religion of Pravritti or acts.
What is stated here is that creature following the path of Pravritti cannot hope to reach the spot whence there is no return. It is by the path of Nivritti that spot is capable of being reached. The path of Pravritti is always fraught with return. One may become, by walking along that path the very chief of the celestials, but that status is not eternal. Since the beginning (if a beginning can be conceived), millions and millions of Indras have arisen and fallen down.
Literally, with their four quarters entire.
This salutation of Krishna unto the Supreme Soul is very characteristic. He salutes himself by saluting the Supreme Soul.
Sattwa is the attribute of righteousness. It is said to consist of eight and ten qualities. The commentator mentions them all.
i.e., Emancipation or complete identification with the Supreme Soul.
The object of this verse, the commentator says, is to explain the meaning of the word Hrishikesa. Agni is the digestive fire, and Shoma is food. Uniting together, Agni and Shoma, therefore uphold the universe. In the form of digestive fire and food, Agni and Shoma are two gladdeners of the universe. They are called on this account Hrishi (in the dual number). And since they are, as it were, the kesa or hair of Narayana, therefore is he called Hrishikesa. All these etymologies are very fanciful. Elsewhere the word Hrishikesa is explained as the Isa or lord of Hrishika or the senses.
Sat is existent or aught. Asat is naught or non-existent. Very generally, these two words are used to imply Effects and Causes, the former being gross or manifest, and the latter, subtile or unmanifest. Tamas here does not mean one of the three primal attributes but primeval darkness. Compare Manu, asitidam tamobhutam etc.
I do not know whether I have understood correctly the last part of this sentence. I think what is stated is that by honouring Hari and Mantra, one honours the deities and men and the Rishis. By men, I think, dead men or the Pitris are referred to.
The reading vagamritam is an error. The correct reading is gavamritam.
In former times kings and chiefs always used to assign rent-free lands to learned Brahmanas for their support. Those countries where Brahmanas had not such lands assigned to them, were, as it were, under a ban. What is said in this verse is that in such countries the blessings of peace are wanting. The inhabitants are borne on vehicles drawn by oxen on steeds.
In consequence of this third eye on Rudra's forehead, he came to be called by the name of Virupaksha or the ugly or fierce-eyed.
A Manwantarah consists of about 72 Chaturyugas, i.e., 288 yugas according to the measurement of the celestials. The present yuga is called the Vaivaswat Manwantarah, i.e., the period connected with Manu the son of Vivaswat. At each Manwantorah a new Manu appears. The self-born Manu was a different person.
By practising Yoga one acquires certain superhuman powers. These are called Yogaiswaryya. They include Anima, by which one can become very minute; Laghima, by which one can become very gross, etc.
The river Ganga has three currents. One flows through heaven, one is visible on the Earth, and a third flows through the nether regions. Persons of the regenerate classes, when saying their morning, midday, or evening prayers, have to touch water often. What is meant, therefore, by 'Bharadwaja touching the water' is that Bharadwaja was saying his prayers. Vishnu assumed his three-footed form for beguiling Vali of the sovereignty of the universe. With one foot he covered the Earth, with another he covered the firmament. There was no space left for placing his third foot upon.
The Sreevatsa is a beautiful whirl on Vishnu's bosom.
The Hindu scriptures mention that there is an Equine-head of vast proportions which roves through the seas. Blazing fires constantly issue from its mouth and these drink up the sea-water. It always makes a roaring noise. It is called Vadava-mukha. The fire issuing from it is called Vadavanala. The waters of the Ocean are like clarified butter. The Equine-head drinks them up as the sacrificial fire drinks the libations of clarified butter poured upon it. The origin of the Vadava fire is sometimes ascribed to the wrath of Urva, a Rishi of the race of Jamadagni. Hence it is sometimes called Aurvya-fire.
The etymology of the word Hrishikesa is thus explained. Agni and Shoma are called by the name of 'Hrishi' in the dual number. He is called Hrishikesa who has those two for his kesa or hair. Elsewhere, the word is explained as the Isa or lord of Hrishika.
I am the Soul of all creatures, and, therefore, unborn, the Soul being Eternal, Unbeginning and Unending. Hence am I called the Unborn.
The race in which Krishna took birth was known by the name of Sattwata. All these etymologies are, of course, exceedingly fanciful. Not that the etymologies do not correspond with the rules of Sanskrit Grammar, but that they are not accepted by lexicographers. The fact is that each root in Sanskrit has a variety of meanings.
This verse refers to Panchikarana. The fact is, Earth, Water, Light, Wind and Space are the five primal elements. Each of these is divided into five portions and the portions so arrived at are then united or mingled together forming the different substances of the universe, the proportions in which they are mingled being unequal.
Achyuta has been variously rendered into English. Its true sense is here explained. Unswerving is the meaning. He who never swerves (from his highest nature or Brahma) is Achyuta. Hence, ordinarily, immutable or undeteriorating is the rendering that I have adopted.
Clarified butter is the great sustainer of the universe, for the libations poured on the sacrificial fire uphold the deities, and the deities, thus upheld, pour rain which causes crops and other food to grow, upon which, of course, the universe of living creatures live.
The constituent elements, called Dhatu, of the body, are, of course Bile, Phlegm and Wind. They are due to actions because birth itself is due to actions. There can be no birth without a body, and no body without these three. Hence, these three have their origin in previous actions un-exhausted by enjoyment or endurance.
Narayana is said to always dwell in the midst of Savitri-mandala. The solar disc represents eternal effulgence, or Milton's 'flaming amount' at which even the highest angels cannot gaze.
Durlabha may also mean not easily attainable: i.e., they that are my devoted worshippers are as unattainable as I myself. People cannot readily obtain their grace as they cannot mine.
The Yajur-Veda consists, according to this calculation, of one hundred and one branches.
The Krityas are acts of incantation, performed with the aid of Atharvan Mantras. They are of great efficacy. Brahmanas conversant with the Atharvans are competent, with the aid of Krityas to alter the laws of Nature and confound the very universe.
The path pointed out by Varna is the path of Dhyana or contemplation. Vama is Mahadeva or Rudra. Panchala is Galava of the Vabhravya race. The Burdwan translator makes a mess of these verses. He represents Galava as belonging to the Kundarika race. The fact is, as the Commentator explains, that Kundarika is a name derived from that of the Gotra or race to which the person belonged, Panchala is the same person as Galava of the Vabhravya race.
Elsewhere it is said that Narayana took birth in Dharma's house in four forms named Nara, Narayana, Krishna, and Hari. Dharmayanam samarudau means riding on the Dharma-car, i.e., endued with bodies with which to perform all the scriptural duties.
Munja literally means green, or a grass of particular kind.
Nara and Narayana were the same person. Hence, Nara's weapon having been broken into pieces, Narayana came to be called by this name. Elsewhere it is explained that Mahadeva is called Khandaparasu in consequence of his having parted with his parasu (battle-axe) unto Rama of Bhrigu's race.
He has been pleased to assume the forms of Rishis Nara and Narayana.
i.e., he that was speaking to Arjuna.
Kala is literally Time or Eternity. It frequently means, however, death or destruction, or he that brings about death or destruction.
The sense is that Arjuna was only the ostensible instrument.
The questions of Janamejaya, it would seem, were addressed to Vyasa. All the editions, however, make Vaisampayana answer those questions.
It is difficult to say what this word means. I think with the commentator that it means shoulder joints.
The Bengal reading is ashta-bhujau. The Bombay reading ashta-dangshtrau does not seem to be correct. By accepting the Bengal reading, the word mushka becomes clear.
Avyagran means with tranquil souls. It is said that with most young men what occurs is that their hearts at first leave them when they see a respected guest arrived who is to be received with due honours. A little while after, they get back their hearts. In the Nara and Narayana, however, nothing of this kind happened when they saw Narada first, although Narada was one to whom their reverence was due.
Nara and Narayana are the displayed forms of the undisplayed Hari.
cf. Milton's description of the mount of God. The highest angels are not competent to bear its effulgence, being obliged to cover their eyes with their wings in looking at it.
Prithivi or Earth is said to be sarvamsaha. As forgiving as the Earth is a common form of expression in almost every Indian dialect.
By Sat is meant all existent things. The correlative word is Asat or non-existent. Hence, aught and naught are the nearest approaches to these words. There are many secondary significations, however of these two words, Sat, for example, indicates effects or all gross objects; and asat indicates causes, etc.
The story is that once on a time the deities, on the eve of going out on a campaign against the Asuras, communicated the Vedas unto their children, Agnishatta and others. In consequence, however, of the length of time for which they were occupied on the field, they forgot their Vedas. Returning to heaven, they had actually to re-acquire them from their own children and disciples. The Scriptures declare that the preceptor is ever the sire, and the disciple is the son. Difference of age would not disturb the relationship. A youth of sixteen might thus be the father of an octogenarian. With Brahmanas, reverence is due to knowledge, not age.
The Hari-Gita is the Bhagavad-Gita. It is sometimes called also Narayana-Gita.
It is not clear who is the Guru referred to in this verse. The commentator thinks that it is Vrihaspati, the preceptor of the celestials. The celestial preceptor never came to the Pandavas. It is probable that either Vyasa or Vaisampayana is meant.
In these verses, it is to Vasudeva that the speaker is referring. The witness of the worlds means that he has witnessed innumerable Creation and Destructions and will witness them through eternity.
This speech is really that of Saunaka. Some incorrect texts represent it as the speech of Janamejaya. The following speech is that of Sauti, though the texts alluded to above make it that of Vaisampayana. It is true in the speech the vocative 'Brahman' occurs, but we may easily take it as a slip of this pen. K. P. Singha makes the correction. The Burdwan translator, without perceiving the absurdity, adheres to the incorrect texts.
It is difficult to settle the reading of this verse. The Bengal texts have alayah, the Bombay edition has alayam. At any rate, verse 58 seems to contradict the previous verse. If after resorting the Vedas to Brahmana, Narayana to his own nature, where would his form be that had the horse-head?
Both the Vernacular translators give ridiculous versions of this verse. K. P. Singha takes Panchala to be a king and understands the verse to mean that king Panchala got back his kingdom through the grace of Narayana. The Burdwan translator errors as usual, by taking krama to imply gati or end. The fact is this verse repeats what has been already said in verses 100 to 102 of section 343 ante. Krama means the science by whose aid the words used in the Vedas are separated from each other.
'Those who have burnt of their fuel' means men that have freed themselves from desire. Param paryyagati means knowledge as handed down from preceptor to preceptor.
Vasudeva is called the Fourth because below Him is Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.
What is stated in these two verses is the difference between the ends of those that rely on Knowledge, and those that are devoted to Narayana with their whole souls. The former attain to Vasudeva, it is true, but then they have to pass gradually through the three others one after another, viz., Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Sankarshana. The latter, however, at once attain to Vasudeva. It is curious to note how the Burdwan translator, with the commentary before him and from which he quotes, misunderstands the second verse completely. K. P. Singha's version also is not clear though not incorrect.
The word Ekantin is explained by the commentator to mean a nishkama worshipper, i.e., one who adores the Supreme Deity without the expectation of any fruit whatever. There can be no error, however in rendering it as one devoted with his whole soul. Such devotion verily implies nishkama worship.
i.e., all creatures were righteous and compassionate. Of evil, there was nothing in that age.
One of the foremost of Samans is called by the name of Jeshthya. One conversant with the Jeshthya Saman would have this name.
Ikshaku was the progenitor of the solar race of kings.
This desire, of course, relates to the acquisition of Emancipation. Yoga-kshema literally means the acquisition of what is desired and the protection of what has been acquired.
Buddha or Pratibuddha literally implies _awakened_. The sense, of course, is that such a person has succeeded in casting off all impurities and desires. He has, as it were been awakened from the slumber of ignorance or darkness.
Those that follow the religion of Pravritti acquire heaven, etc., through their merits. Merits however, are exhaustible. They have, therefore, to fall down from heaven. The Creator Brahma casts his eye on [(illegible--JBH)] that follow Pravritti. The religion of Nivritti, however, leads to Emancipation. It is Narayana that looks upon men that betake to Nivritti.
What is stated here is this the deities and Rishis are certainly endued with Sattwa. But then that Sattwa is of a great form. Hence, they cannot attain to Emancipation. It is only that Sattwa which is of subtile form that leads to Emancipation. The deities, without being able to attain to Emancipation, remain in a state that is mutable or fraught with change.
That is, the practices which constitute the religion of the Ekantins are not really different for those laid down in the scriptures adverted to above.
Who are the Whites referred to in this place? The commentator explains that the word has reference to persons leading the domestic mode of life. Yatis wear robes that are coloured yellow or yellowish red. Households, however, use cloth that is white. The word may also mean the inhabitants of White Island.
The name Apantara-tamas implies one whose darkness or ignorance has been dispelled.
Vedakhyane Srutih karyya, literally, I think, means thou shouldst turn thy ears to the description of the Vedas, implying that thou shouldst set thyself to a distribution or arrangement of the Vedic hymns and Mantras.
It is difficult to understand what is the precise meaning of the expression twamrite. Literally it means without thee. Whether however, the speaker means that all the princes will meet with destruction except thee or that they will be destroyed without thy being present among them, or that such destruction will overtake them without thyself being the cause of it, it is difficult to determine.
Anyo hanyam chintayati seems to mean that the thoughts of others do not correspond with their act.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that the word nandana means both sons and delighter. The etymological meaning is, of course, delighter. The son or grand-son is so called because of his being a source of delight to the sire or the grandsire with the other members of the family. In verse 58, nandana seems to be used in the sense of delighter.
The commentator explains these verses in this way. So far as ordinary purposes are concerned, both the Sankhyas and Yogins speak of many Purushas. In reality, however, for purposes of the highest truth, there is but one Purusha. I do not see this limitation in the verse itself. The fact is what the commentator says is to be seen in the next Verse.
The abode of thy feet means thy abode. To this day, in mentioning persons that are entitled to reverence, the Hindu speaks of them as the "feet of so and so".
The commentator explains the meanings of the words used in this verse in this way--He is called Purusha, because of the attribute of fulness eternal, because he has neither beginning nor end; immutable, because there is no change in him; undeteriorating, because he has no body that may be subject to decay; immeasurable, because the mind cannot conceive of him in his fulness.
Acts are called seeds. Seeds produce tree. Acts lead to the attainment of bodies. For the production of bodies, therefore, acts operate like seeds.
The sense seems to be this: in the Yoga system He is called the Supreme Soul, for Yogins affirm the existence of two souls, the Jivatman and the Supreme Soul, and assert the superiority of the latter over the former. The Sankhyas regard the Jiva-soul and the Supreme Soul to be one and the same. A third class of men think everything as Soul, there being no difference between the one Soul and the universe displayed in infinitude.
The acting Soul is ensconced in the Linga-sarira with which it becomes now a human being, now a deity, now an animal, etc. given and ten possessions are five pranas, mind, intelligence and ten organs of senses.
Dhaturadyam Vidhanam is supposed by the commentator to imply what is known as Mahat i.e., the existence of Jiva before the consciousness of Ego arises.
Pragvansa is a certain part of the altar. Both the vernacular translators omit the word in their renderings.
This portion does not occur in all the texts. I have thought fit to add it for explaining the connection. Most texts begin abruptly by saying--Yudhishthira said, etc. etc.
The object of the question is to ascertain which is the foremost of all the modes of life. Although Renunciation has been described to be the best of all modes, still the duties of that mode are exceedingly difficult of practice. Hence, Yudhishthira wishes to know if the duties of any other mode can be regarded as superior.
Family customs are always observed with great care. Even when inconsistent with the ordinances of the scriptures, such customs do not lose their binding force. Reprehensible as the sale of a daughter or sister is, the great king Salya, when he bestowed his sister Madri on Pandu, insisted upon taking a sum of money, alleging family custom not only as an excuse but as something that was obligatory. To this day, animals are slain in the sacrifices of many families which follow the Vaishnava faith, the justification being family custom.
The Vedas are, strictly speaking, not scriptures, for they are _heard_ the scriptures being those ordinances that are written down. Of course, the Vedas have been reduced into writing, but for all that, they continue to be called the Srutis, as the Common Law of England, though reduced into writing, is still called the unwritten law etc. etc.
Some texts erroneously read sthitah for sthitim. Eka eva atmani sthitim kartum literally rendered, is to achieve existence in the one soul. This means to realise the union of the Jiva-soul with the 'Supreme Soul.' 'Relying upon the Soul I shall try to exist in the one Soul,' in brief, means, I shall try to unite the Jiva with Supreme Soul. The difference between Kankhami and Ichcchemi is well illustrated by the commentator by referring to the case of the man of weak stomach who craves for food of every kind but who does not wish to actually eat from fear of increasing his illness.
Sattwikani implies the deities and others that are endued with the attribute of Sattwa. Samyujyamanani refers to their births and deaths as deities and men in consequence of the fruits reaped of acts done. Niryyatyamanani is distressed or afflicted in consequence of such birth and deaths. The rows of Yama's standards and flags refer to the diverse diseases that afflict all creatures.
The commentator explains that nityah-salilah means pure as water. I think this is not the sense of the word here.
It is desirable to note that the word atithi which is rendered guest here and elsewhere, means a person who enters without invitation the abode of a householder. Such an individual is adorable. All the deities reside in his person. He is supposed to favour the householder by giving him an opportunity of performing the rites of hospitality. Whatever the respect, however, that is paid to a guest, he cannot expect to be served with food till the householder, has done his best for serving him as sumptuously as his circumstances would permit. Hence, by the time the food is placed before him, the guest becomes very hungry.
Some of the Bengal texts have dwigunam for dwiruna. Less than ten by two is the meaning.
This verse seems to be unintelligible. I think the sense is this. Frugality of fare and observance of vows constitute merit for person of all classes. These imply the restraint of the senses, for if the senses be not restrained, no one can observe vows or practise frugality. There is a connection, thus between the duties of religion and the senses.
Darsana-sravas means one who hears with the eye. The Nagas or snakes are believed to have no ears, but to use their eyes both for seeing and hearing. Who the Nagas of the Mahabharata or the Puranas were, it is difficult to determine. They seem to have been a superior order of beings, having their abode in the nether regions.
The meaning of annyayinah is that we should be followed by others, i.e., we deserve to walk at the head of others.
The Indian bird Chataka has a natural hole on the upper part of its long neck in consequence of which it is seen to always sit with beaks upturned, so that the upper part of the neck keeps the hole covered. The Chataka is incapable of slaking its thirst in a lake or river, for it cannot bend its neck down. Rain water is what it must drink. Its cry is shrill and sharp but not without sweetness. 'Phate-e-ek-jal' is supposed to be the cry uttered by it. When the Chataka cries, the hearers expect rain. Eager expectation with respect to anything is always compared to the Chataka's expectation of rain water.
The Burdwan translator erroneously renders this verse. The commentator explains that hitwa is equivalent to vina and sums up the meaning of the first line in these words, viz., twaddarsanam vina asya kopi vighnomabhut. In the second line, naprayupasate is equal to paritajya na aste.
It is a pity that even such verses have not been rendered correctly by the Burdwan translator. K. P. Singha gives the sense correctly, but the translation is not accurate.
A form of expression meaning that 'we are your slaves'.
Atmanam is Brahma; atmasthah is 'relying in the Soul', i.e., withdrawn from all worldly objects; atmanogatim implies the end of the Jiva-soul, i.e., the Supreme Soul; the last is an adjective of atmanam.
It has been explained in the previous sections that the Unccha vow consists in subsisting on grains picked up from the fields after the corn has been reaped and taken away by the owners. It is a most difficult vow to observe. The merit attaching to it is, therefore, very great.
The formal initiation or diksha is a ceremony of great importance. No sacrifice or vow, no religious rite, can be performed without the diksha. The rite of diksha is performed with the assistance of a preceptor or priest. In leaving the domestic mode for the life of a forest recluse, the diksha is necessary. In following the Unccha vow, this rite is needed. Any religious act performed by one without having undergone the formal diksha, becomes sterile of results.
Bhishma abducted, with the might of his single arms, the three daughters of the king of Kasi, viz., Amva, Amvika, and Amvalika. He wished to marry the princesses to his brother Vichitravirya. The eldest princess, having previously to her abduction selected king Salwa for her lord was let off. When, however, she presented herself before her lover, the latter refused to wed her. She, therefore, applied to Rama for wreaking vengeance on Bhishma whom she regarded as the author of her wrongs. Rama took up her cause and fought with Bhishma, but was obliged to acknowledge defeat at the hands of his antagonist who was his disciple in arms. For fuller particulars, vide Amvopakhyana Parvan in Udyoga Parvan.

Add new comment

You are here

Search this site