751. "With the aid of the mind" means yoga. Dehakarma means one whose acts are undertaken only for the purpose of sustaining the body, i.e., one who does no act that is not strictly necessary for supporting life; hence, as the commentator explains, one who is free from all propensities leading to external objects. Manovaham Pranan nudan, i.e., bringing to sending the vital breaths to the duct called Manovaha or Sushumna. Though a physical act, its accomplishment becomes possible only by a long course of penances consisting in the withdrawal of the mind from external objects. "Reducing the (three) attributes to a state of uniformity," as explained by the commentator, means arriving at Nirvikalpa, i.e., at that state of knowledge which is independent of the senses.
752. The Knowledge here spoken of is that knowledge which is independent of the senses. What the speaker says is that such Knowledge is no myth but is sure to arise. When it arises, its possessor comes to know that the external world, etc., is only the mind transformed, like the sights seen and sounds heard and thoughts cherished in a dream. In the second line the results of that knowledge are declared. The mind of a Mahatma is mantra-siddha, i.e., has won success by the meditation of the initial mantra, or om; it is nitya, i.e., eternal, meaning probably that though the result of Maya or Avidya, it is no longer subject to rebirth; it is virajas, i.e., free from desire and passion, and lastly it is Jyotishmat or luminous, meaning Omniscient and Omnipotent. The commentator cites a passage from Vasishtha's treatise on yoga which declares the same results as consequent on the attainment of Knowledge. It is, of course, implied that in attaining to such a state, the mind as mind must be destroyed or merged into the Soul and the Soul, with knowledge only for its attribute, must exist. In the previous verse emancipation after death has been spoken of. In this jivan-mukti or emancipation in life is referred to.
753. "Freeing oneself from the attributes of Passion and Darkness", i.e., by practising the religion of abstention from acts.
754. Adatte from da meaning to cut or destroy. Manasam volam as explained by the commentator, is sankalpam, i.e., desires or purposes. The man of ripe understanding, by doing this, attains to that knowledge which is not subject to decay with age. Hence, such knowledge is superior to knowledge acquired in the ordinary way.
755. Compassion may sometimes lead to excess of attachment, as in the case of Bharata towards his little deer. The universe is the result of acts because acts determine the character of the life the soul assumes. In the case of Bharata, he was obliged to take birth as a deer in his next life in consequence of all his thoughts in the previous life having been centred on a deer.
756. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse. Tat should be supplied before asnute; there is redundant va in the first line. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.
757. The buddhi here referred to is intelligence cleansed by scriptures. Samahitam manak is, as explained by the commentator, mind freed from anger and malice, etc., i.e., properly trained.
758. One should not covet, etc., like kingdoms and thrones in the case of ordinary men. "Non-existent objects," such as sons and wives that are dead or that are unborn or unwed.
759. Samsara, as explained by the commentator, means both this and the other world. It is bound in speech in this sense, viz., that whatever is spoken is never destroyed and affects permanently both the speaker and the listener, so that not only in one life, but in the infinite course of lives, the speaker will be affected for good or for evil by the words that escape his lips. This fully accords with the discovery of modern science, so eloquently and poetically enunciated by Babbage, of the indestructibility of force or energy when once applied. How appalling is the sanction (which is not a myth) under which evil speaking is forbidden.
760. Such self-disclosure destroys the effects of those acts and prevents their recurrence.
761. Robbers laden with booty are always in danger of seizure. Even so unintelligent men bearing the burdens of life are always liable to destruction.
762. Nishpraiharena means Niruddhena as explained by the commentator.
763. I adopt the reading prakasela and the interpretation that Nilakantha puts upon it.
764. K.P. Singha translates these words very carelessly. The Burdwan translator, by following the commentator closely, has produced a correct version. Kulmasha means ripe grains or seeds of the Phaselous radiatus. Pinyaka is the cake of mustard seed or sesamum after the oil has been pressed out. Yavaka means unripe barley, or, as the commentator explains, raw barley powdered and boiled in hot water.
765. What is meant by the first line of the verse is this. The Soul had, before the creation, only Knowledge for its attribute. When Ignorance or Delusion, proceeding from Supreme Brahma, took possession of it, the Soul became an ordinary creature, i.e., consciousness, mind, etc., resulted. This Ignorance, therefore, established itself upon Knowledge and transformed the original character of the Soul. What is stated in the second line is that ordinary knowledge which follows the lead of the understanding is affected by ignorance, the result of which is that the Soul takes those things that really spring from itself to be things different from itself and possessing an independent existence.
766. The correct reading, I apprehend, is upagatasprihah and not apagatasprihah. Nilakantha is silent. All that he says is that the first verse has reference to 'yogins,' the second to yogins and 'non-yogins' alike. Both the vernacular translators adhere to apagatasprihah.
767. I expand verse 8 a little for giving its meaning more clearly than a literal version would yield. All the impressions, it is said here, in dreams, are due either to the impressions of this life or those received by, the mind in the countless lives through which it has passed. All those impressions, again, are well-known to the Soul though memory may not retain them. Their reappearance in dreams is due to the action of the Soul which calls them up from the obscurity in which they are concealed. Avisena's theory of nothing being ever lost that is once acquired by the mind and the recollection of a past impression being, due to a sudden irradiation of the divine light, was, it seems, borrowed from Hindu philosophy.
768. The sense is this: a particular attribute among the three, viz., Goodness or Passion or Darkness, is brought to the mind by the influence of past acts of either this or any previous life. That attribute immediately affects the mind in a definite way. The result of this is that the elements in their subtile forms actually produce the images that correspond with or appertain to the affecting attribute and the manner in which it affects the mind.
769. Nothing less than yoga can discard or destroy them, for they really spring from desires generated by past acts.
770. The Bombay reading Manohrishyan is better.
771. Both the external and the internal worlds are due to Consciousness, which, in its turn, arises from delusion affecting the Soul. That which is called the Mind is only a product of the Soul. The world both external and internal, is only the result of Mind as explained in previous sections. Hence the Mind exists in all things. What is meant by all things existing in the Soul is that the Soul is omniscient and he who succeeds in knowing the Soul wins omniscience.
772. The body is called the door of dreams because the body is the result of past acts, and dreams cannot take place till the Soul, through past acts, becomes encased in a body. What is meant by the body disappearing in the mind is that in dreamless slumber the mind no longer retains any apprehension of the body. The body being thus lost in the mind, the mind (with the body lost in it) enters the Soul, or becomes withdrawn into it. Nidarsanam is explained as Nischitadarsanam Sakshirupam. The sense of the verse is that in dreamless slumber the senses are withdrawn into the mind; the mind becomes withdrawn into the Soul. It is the Soul alone that then lives in its state of original purity, consciousness and all things which proceed from it disappearing at the time.
773. i.e., the mind becoming pure, he gains omniscience and omnipotence.
774. The Burdwan translator, using the very words of Nilakantha, jumbles them wrongly together and makes utter nonsense of both the original and the gloss.
775. Brahma cannot, as the commentator properly explains, be seized like a creature by the horns. All that one can do is to explain its nature by reason and analogy. It can be comprehended only in the way indicated, i.e., by Pratyahara.
776. The commentator thinks that the Rishi alluded to in this verse is Narayana, the companion and friend of Nara, both of whom had their retreat on the heights of Vadari where Vyasa afterwards settled himself. Tattwa here does not, the commentator thinks, mean a topic of discourse but that which exists in original purity and does not take its colour or form from the mind. Anaropitam rupam yasya tat.
777. The religion of Pravritti consists of acts. It cannot liberate one from rebirth. The whole chain of existences, being the result of acts, rests upon the religion of Pravritti. The religion of Nivritti, on the other hand, or abstention from acts, leads to Emancipation or Brahma.
778. Nidarsarkah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to drashtum ichcchan.
779. Avyakta or Unmanifest is Prakriti or primordial matter both gross and subtile. That which transcends both Prakriti and Purusha is, of course the Supreme Soul or Brahma. Visesham, is explained by the commentator as 'distinguished from everything else by its attributes.'
780. i.e., as the commentator explains, Purusha is non-creating and transcends the three attributes.
781. Asamhatau is explained by the commentator as atyantaviviktau. Purushau implies the two Purushas, i.e., the 'Chit-Soul' and the Supreme Soul.
782. The four topics are these: the points of resemblance between Prakriti and Purusha, the points of difference between them: the points of resemblance between Purusha and Iswara; and the points of difference between them. The four considerations that cover these topics are absence of beginning and end, existence as chit and in animation, distinction from all other things, and the notion of activity.
783. Yoginastam prapasyanti bhagavantam santanam--even this is what people always say to yoga and yogins.
784. The commentator in a long note explains that what is really implied by this verse is that one should betake oneself to some sacred spot such as Kasi for casting off one's life there. Death at Kasi is sure to lead to Emancipation, for the theory is that Siva himself becomes the instructor and leads one to that high end.
785. When divested of Rajas, i.e., freed from the senses and the propensities derived from their indulgence.
786. Adehat is explained by the commentator as Dehapatat. Dehantat applies to the destruction of all the three bodies. By the destruction (after death) of the gross body is meant escape from the obligation of rebirth. The karana body is a subtiler form of existence than the Linga-sarira: it is, of course, existence; Prakriti as mentioned in verse 21.
787. Paropratyasarge means on the rise of a knowledge of Brahma. Niyati is Necessity, in consequence of which jiva goes through an endless wheel of existences; Bhavantaprabhavaprajna is bhavanamanta-prabhavayorevaprajna yesham. The object of the verse is to show that such mistaken persons as take the body, the senses, etc., and all which are not-Self, to be Self, are always taken up with the idea that things die and are born, but that there is nothing like emancipation or a complete escape from rebirth.
788. 'By the aid of patience' is explained by the commentator as without leaving their seats and changing the yoga attitude, etc. 'Withdrawing themselves from the world of senses' means attaining to a state that is perfectly independent of the senses and, therefore, of all external objects. 'Adore the senses in consequence of their subtility,' as explained by the commentator, is thinking of Prana and the Indriyas as Self or Soul. I do not understand how this amounts to the statement that such yogins attain to Brahma.
789. 'Proceeding according to (the stages indicated in) the scriptures' alludes to the well-known verses in the Gita, beginning with Indriyebhyah parahyartha, etc. The several stages, as mentioned in those verses, are as follows: Superior to the senses are their objects. Superior to the objects is the mind. Superior to the mind is the understanding. Superior to the understanding is the Soul. Superior to the Soul is the Unmanifest. Superior to the Unmanifest is Purusha (Brahma). There is nothing above Purusha. Dehantam is explained as that which is superior to Avyakta or Unmanifest, hence Brahma or Purusha.
790. A flash of lightning repeatedly realised becomes a mass of blazing light. Perhaps this is intended by the speaker.
791. In the Bengal texts, verse 28 is a triplet. In the second line the correct reading is Dehantam.
792. Mara, Prakriti, and Purusha, or Effects, their material Cause, and the Supreme Soul.
793. Nanapashandavashinah is another reading which is noticed by the commentator. It is explained as 'censurers of diverse sects of Lokayatikas.'
794. Panchasrotas implies the mind which is said to have five currents.
795. These are the annamaya, the pranamaya, the manomaya, the vijnanamaya, and the anandamaya. For particulars, vide Wilson's Dict.
796. The verb used is nyavedayat, literally, 'represented,' i.e., 'started' for discourse, or enquired into. The Burdwan translator renders it 'exposed' or 'promulgated,' which, I think, is incorrect.
797. The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder by supposing that Asuri obtained this knowledge in consequence of the questions of his disciple. The fact is, samprishtah, as correctly explained the commentator, means samyak prishta prasno yasya. K.P. Singha avoids the error.
798. Kutumvini means a matron or the wife of a house-holder.
799. Either Markandeya or Sanatkumara, according to the commentator.
800. I slightly expand Sarvanirvedam according to the explanation given by Nilakantha. The Sankhya doctrine proceeds upon the hypothesis that all states of life imply sorrow. To find a remedy for this, i.e., to permanently escape all sorrow, is the end of that philosophy.
801. These are the characteristics of that Delusion under which man takes birth in this world and goes on living till he can permanently conquer all sorrow.
802. The construction of the first foot is Atmano mrityuh Anatma, meaning the Soul's death (or that which is called death) is the Soul's extinction. Verse 24 recites the opinion of the Sceptics, not that of the speaker. K.P. Singha mistranslates the verse. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.
803. This and all the following verses are statements of the sceptic's arguments.
804. Verse 29 is highly terse. The words are grammatically unconnected with one another. Only a few substantives have been used. These represent the heads of the different arguments urged by sceptics for showing the non-existence of anything besides the body which is seen and felt. I have, of course, followed the commentator in his elaboration of the sense of the verse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right.
805. Some idea may be formed by the English reader of the extreme terseness of these verses by attending to the elaborations contained within the parentheses above. The exigencies of English grammar as also of perspicuity have obliged me to use, even in the portions unenclosed, more words than what occur in the original Sanskrit. All these verses are cruces intended to stagger Ganesa.
806. Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. This fact is, without clearly understanding either the text or the gloss, they have used bits of the gloss without being able to convey any intelligible idea. The gloss sometimes requires gloss to make it intelligible. The commentator says that the theory of rebirth mentioned in verse 34 is that of the Sugatas or Buddhists. That theory is refuted in verse 35. The objection to the Buddhistic theory is that mere ignorance and karma cannot explain rebirth. There must be an indestructible Soul. This the Buddhists do not allow, for they believe that Nirvana or annihilation is possible. The argument, as sketched, proceeds in this way: the being that is the result of the rebirth is apparently a different being. What right have we to assert its identity with the being that existed before? Ignorance and karma cannot _create_ a Soul though they may affect the surroundings of the Soul in its new birth. The objections to the Buddhistic theory became clear in the verses that follow.
807. The sense is this: it is never seen in the world that the acts of one person affect for good or for evil another person. If Chaitra exposes himself to the night air, Maitra never catches cold for it. This direct evidence should settle the controversy about the unseen, viz., whether the acts of one in a previous life can affect another in a subsequent life if there be no identity between the two beings in two lives.
808. It is needless to say that I have considerably elaborated the second line of the verse, as a literal rendering would have been entirely unintelligible. For example's sake I give that rendering; "That which is separate Consciousness is also different. That from which it is, does not recommend self."
809. If (as has already been said) the second Consciousness be the resulting effect of the loss or destruction itself of the previous Consciousness, then destruction is not annihilation, and, necessarily, after Nirvana has been once attained, there may be a new Consciousness or new birth, and, thus, after having again attained to Nirvana the same result may follow. The Buddhistic Nirvana, therefore, cannot lead to that final Emancipation which is indicated into the Brahmanical scriptures.
810. The Buddhists then, according to this argument, are not at all benefited by asserting the existence of a permanent Soul unto which each repeated Consciousness may inhere. The Soul, according to the Brahmanical scriptures, has no attributes or possessions. It is eternal, immutable, and independent of all attributes. The affirmance of attributes with respect to the Soul directly leads to the inference of its destructibility, and hence the assertion of its permanency or indestructibility under such conditions is a contradiction in terms, according to what is urged in this verse.
811. The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to point out that the senses, when destroyed, merge into their productive causes or the substances of which they are attributes. Of course, those causes or substances are the elements or primordial matter. This leads to the inference that though attributes may meet with destruction, yet the substances (of which they are attributes) may remain intact. This may save the Buddhist doctrine, for the Soul, being permanent and owing consciousness, etc., for its attributes, may outlive, like primordial matter, the destruction of its attributes. But the speaker urges that this doctrine is not philosophical and the analogy will not hold. Substance is conjunction of attributes. The attributes being destroyed, the substance also is destroyed. In European philosophy too, matter, as an unknown essence to which extension, divisibility, etc., inhere, is no longer believed in or considered as scientific.
812. Here the speaker attacks the orthodox Brahmanical doctrine of the character of the Soul.
813. Possibly because they art based on Revelation.
814. The first five are the effects of intelligence; the vital breaths, of wind; and the juices and humours, of stomachic heat.
815. Intelligence is called avyaya because it leads to Emancipation which is such. It is also called mahat because of its power to lead to Brahma which is mahat. Tattwanischaya is called the seed of Emancipation because it leads to Emancipation.
816. That path consists of yoga.
817. By casting off the mind one casts off the five organs of action. By casting off the understanding, one casts off the organs of knowledge with the mind.
818. i.e., in each of these operations three causes must exist together.
819. The inference is that the functions being destroyed, the organs are destroyed, and the mind also is destroyed, or, the mind being destroyed, all are destroyed.
820. The commentator correctly explains that na in nanuparyeta is the nom. sing. of nri (man), meaning here, of course, the dreamer. Nilakantha's ingenuity is certainly highly commendable.
821. Uparamam is yugapadbhavasya uchcchedam or extinction of the state of association of the Soul with the understanding, the mind, and the senses. This dissociation of the Soul from the understanding, etc., is, of course, Emancipation. Emancipation, however, being eternal, the temporary dissociation of the soul from the understanding, etc., which is the consequence of dreamless sleep, is the result of Tamas or Darkness. That dissociation is certainly a kind of felicity, but then it differs from the felicity of Emancipation, which is everlasting, and which is not experienced in the gross body.
822. In this verse the speaker points out that the felicity of Emancipation may at first sight seem to be like the felicity of dreamless sleep, but that is only an error. In reality, the former is untouched or unstained by darkness. Na krichechramanupasyati is the reading I take, meaning "in which no one sees the slightest tincture of sorrow." The kind of sorrow referred to is the sorrow of duality or consciousness of knower and known. In Emancipation, of course, there cannot be any consciousness of duality. Both the vernacular versions are thoroughly unmeaning.
823. In this verse the speaker again points out the similarity between dreamless sleep and Emancipation. In both swakarmapratyayah Gunah is discarded. Gunah, as explained by Nilakantha, means here the whole range of subjective and objective existences from Consciousness to gross material objects, swakarmapratyayah means karmahetu kavirbhava, i.e., having acts for the cause of their manifestation; this refers to the theory of rebirth on account of past acts.
824. The sense of the verse is this: all creatures are perceived to exist. That existence is due to the well-known cause constituted by Avidya and desire and acts. They exist also in such a way as to display a union between the body and Soul. For all common purposes of life we treat creatures that we perceive to be really existing. The question then that arises is--which (the body or the Soul) is destructible?--We cannot answer this question in any way we like, like for swaswato va katham uchcchedavan, bhavet (i.e., how can the Soul, Which is said by the learned to be Eternal, be regarded as destructible?) Vartamaneshu should be treated as, Laukikavyavareshu. Uchcchedah is, of course, equivalent to Uchcchedavan.
825. i.e., the gross body disappears in the subtile; the subtile into the karana (potential) form of existence; and this last into the Supreme Soul.
826. Merit and sin, and with them their effects in the form of happiness and misery both here and hereafter, are said to be destroyed when men become unattached to everything and practise the religion of abstention or nivritti. The paraphrase of the second line is asaktah alepamakasam asthaya mahati alingameva pacyanti. Alepamakasam asthaya is explained by the commentator as Sagunam Brahma asthaya.
827. Urnanabha is generic term for all worms that weave threads from within their bellies. It does not always mean the spider. Here, it implies a silk-worm. The analogy then becomes complete.
828. Nipatatyasaktah is wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly but takes nipatali for utpatati.
829. Samudayah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to hetu.
830. Giving food and clothes to the poor and needy in times of scarcity is referred to.
831. The reading I adopt is Vrataluvdhah. If, however, the Bengal reading vrataluplah be adopted, the meaning would be "such men are deceived by their vows," the sense being that though acquiring heaven and the other objects of their desire, yet they fall down upon exhaustion of their merit and never attain to what is permanent, viz., emancipation, which is attainable by following the religion of nivritti only.
832. The object of Bhishma's two answers is to show that the giving of pain to others (sacrificing animals) is censurable, and the giving of pain to one's own self is equally censurable.
833. Existence comes into being and ceases. Non-existence also comes into being and ceases. This is the grammatical construction. The words, of course, imply only the appearance and disappearance of all kinds of phenomena.
834. This refers to the theory set forth in the previous sections about the Soul's real inactivity amidst its seeming activity in respect of all acts.
835. The Burdwan translator renders the second line as "six thousand Gandharvas used to dance before thee seven kinds of dance."
836. Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse. A samya is explained as a little wooden cane measuring about six and thirty fingers breadth in altitude. What Vali did was to go round the Earth (anuparyagah, i.e., parihrityagatavan) throwing or hurling a samya. When thrown from a particular point by a strong man, the samya clears a certain distance. This space is called a Devayajana. Vali went round the globe, performing sacrifices upon each such Devayajana.
837. Pravyaharaya is explained by the commentator as prakrishtokaye.
838. I follow Nilakantha's gloss in rendering this verse. Hatam is explained as nirjivam deham, i.e., the body divested of Soul. He who slays another is himself slain, means that a person who regards his own self as the slayer is steeped in ignorance, for the Soul is never an actor. By thinking that he is the actor a person invests his Soul with the attributes of the body and the senses. Such a man (as already said) is Hatah or slain (i.e., steeped in ignorance). Comparing this with verse 19 of Sec. 11 of the Gita, we find that the same thing is asserted therein a slightly different way. 'He who regards the Soul as the slayer and he who regards it as slain are both mistaken. The Soul does not slay nor is slain.'
839. Compare this with the saying usually credited to Napoleon that St. Helena was written in the book of Fate.
840. The original, if literally rendered, would be 'Time cooks everything.'
841. Bhujyante is explained by the commentator as equivalent to palyante or samhriyante.
842. Brahma is indestructible as jiva or Soul, and is destructible as displayed in the form of not-Self.
843. I expand verse 50 for giving its sense as a literal version would be unintelligible.
844. One that is borne with great difficulty.
845. Literally, the desire for action; hence abundance or plenty that is the result of action or labour.
846. All these names imply plenty and prosperity.
847. i.e., with hands not washed after rising from his meals or while going on with his meals.
848. The commentator explains that according to the Pauranic theory, the world stands all around the mountains of Meru. The region of Brahman stands on its top. The Sun travels round Meru and shines over all the directions or points of the compass. This happens in the age called the Vaivaswata Manwantara (the age or epoch of Manu the son of Vivaswat). But after the lapse of this age, when the Savarnika Manwantara comes, the sun will shine upon only the region on the top of Meru, and all around there will be darkness.
849. i.e., all things are destructible instead of being eternal.
850. The commentator explains that Hridyam means Hritstham swarupam. By Kalyanam, of course, Moksha or Emancipation is intended.
851. As explained in previous verses, one striving to attain Emancipation must set himself to yoga. As a consequence of yoga, one acquires (without wishing for them) many wonderful powers. The accomplishment of one's objects then follows as a matter of course.
852. The sense is this: a wise man never regards himself as the actor; and hence never feels sorrow. Whatever sorrow overtakes him he views unmoved and takes it as the result of what had been ordained. Not so the foolish man. He deems himself to be the actor and looks upon sorrow as the result of his own acts. Hence, he cannot view it unmoved. Sorrow, therefore, lies in one's regarding oneself as the actor; the true view being that one instead of being an actor is only an instrument in the hands of the great Ordainer.
853. The object of this verse is to show that right conclusions in respect of duties are very rare.
854. This is a hard hit, The listener, viz., Indra, had violated, under circumstances of the most wicked deception, the chastity of Gautama's spouse Ahalya. Gautama had to punish his wife by converting her into a stone. This punishment, however, reacted upon Gautama inasmuch as it put a stop to his leading any longer a life of domesticity. In spite of such a dire affliction Gautama did not suffer his cheerfulness to depart from his heart. The effect of the allusion is to tell Indra that the speaker is not like him but like Gautama, i.e., that Namuchi was not the slave of his passions but that he was the master of his senses and the heart.
855. The we here is the pronoun of dignity, applying to the speaker only and not to both the speaker and the listener.
856. The sentence is an interrogative one. The Burdwan translator mistakes the meaning. K.P. Singha is correct.
857. These things had not happened for many days in consequence of the wickedness of the Asuras. With the victory of Indra, sacrifices returned, and with them universal peace.
858. The words are Dhruvadwarabhavam. The commentator is silent. Probably a Himalayan Pass. The vernacular translators think it is the region of the Pole-star that is intended. Dhruva is a name of Brahman the Creator. It may mean, therefore, the river as it issues out of Brahman's loka or region. The Pauranic myth is that issuing from the foot of Vishnu, the stream enters the Kamandalu of Brahman and thence to the earth.
859. The reader of Lord Lytton's works may, in this connection, be reminded of the discourse between Mejnour and the neophyte introduced to him by Zanoni, in course of their evening rambles over the ridges of the Appenines.
860. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.
861. It is difficult to give to non-Hindu people the idea of what is uchchhishta. The hand becomes uchchhishta when set to food that is being eaten. Without washing that hand with pure water, it is never used by a Hindu for doing any work. The food that remains in a dish after some portion of it has been eaten is uchchhishta. The idea is particular to Hinduism and is not to be seen among other races or peoples in the world.
862. Yavasa is pasture grass.
863. 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.
864. No merit attaches to the act of feeding an illiterate person.
865. 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.
866. 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.
867. 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.
868. K.P. Singha mistranslates this verse.
869. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word anavajnata. K.P. Singha skips over it.
870. 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.
871. 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.
872. Agre is explained by the commentator as srishteh prak.
873. 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.
874. 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.
875. 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.
876. 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.
877. 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.
878. 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.
879. These seven great Beings or entities are Mahat, the same speedily transformed into Mind, and the five elemental entities of Space, etc.
880. Verses 4, 5, 6 and 7 occur in Manusmriti, corresponding with the latter's 75, 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter 1.