1448. i.e., there are no materials of which it is constituted. Hence Sattwa or Buddhi has no asrayah or upadana.
1449. 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.
1450. 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.
1451. 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.
1452. 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.
1453. 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.
1454. 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.
1455. 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.
1456. 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.
1457. 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.
1458. The first word is read either as bhavatmakam or bhavatmakam. The first means samsararupam; the second, drisyatmakam.
1459. I am obliged to behold them because I am a living being having a body, but then I behold them as an unconcerned witness.
1460. 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.
1461. 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.
1462. 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.
1463. 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.
1464. Te refers to asramas. Abhipretam is atma-tattwarupam. Yanti is equivalent to prapayanti.
1465. 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.
1466. 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.
1467. 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.
1468. i.e., where an intermingling takes place of the four orders of men, viz., where Varna-sankara occurs.
1469. Mere companionship with the righteous leads to righteous acts; while that with the sinful leads to acts of sinfulness.
1470. 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.
1471. Agamayamanam is Agamam pramanajam jnanam atmana ichcchatam.
1472. 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.
1473. 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.
1474. Both the vernacular translators quietly skip over the word pratyanantarah.
1475. i.e., where the people are virtuous and given to the performance of their duties.
1476. 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.
1477. Pratyupasthite is pritipatwena upasthite, i.e., hiyantanesati.
1478. 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.'
1479. 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.
1480. Sampadam is explained by the commentator as upadesa-yogyata-sriyam.
1481. 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.
1482. 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.
1483. Mokshartha is moksha-prayojanah.
1484. 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.
1485. 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.'
1486. Avritti is want of the means of sustaining life: thence, scarcity or famine.
1487. The sense is that as the maintenance of wives and children is painful, one should withdraw from the world and retire into solitude.
1488. 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.
1489. The planet Venus is supposed to be the sage Usanas or Sukra.
1490. 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.
1491. The construction of this verse is very difficult. The order of the words, is--Indrotha jagatah prabhuh. Dhanada, etc., tasya kosasaya prabhavishnuh.
1492. 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.
1493. 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.
1494. The last half of the last line may be taken as applying to Usanas.
1495. 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.
1496. The sa refers to Usanas and not to Mahadeva, as the commentator rightly points out.
1497. i.e., the religions of all the orders and all the modes of life.
1498. 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.
1499. 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.
1500. 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.
1501. Destiny here means the result of the acts of past lives.
1502. 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.
1503. 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.
1504. 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.
1505. 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.
1506. 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.
1507. The object of this verse, the commentator points out, is to show the desirability of practising that seva soon or without loss of time.
1508. 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.
1509. A particular kind of Chandala is called kusalin.
1510. Pratyapannasya is viparita-drishteh. Natma is dehadih. Tatah is papaddhetoh. Virochate, is viseshena atmatwena rochate.
1511. 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.
1512. 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.
1513. 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.
1514. 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.
1515. 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.
1516. 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.
1517. 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.
1518. 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.
1519. i.e., by Dhyana and Dharana.
1520. This has reference to Usanas' attaining to the status of a planet (Venus) in the firmament.
1521. Nadantah is one word. It means Hinsa-sunyah. Danti cchinatti iti danta. Its reverse is Nadantah.
1522. Nirdishta refers to Seva.
1523. i.e., they take the hues of the society they keep. Hence, it is very desirable for them to live with the good.
1524. This son of Dhatri is the god of the clouds.
1525. 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.
1526. 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.
1527. 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.
1528. 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.
1529. 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.
1530. Samsiddhadhigamam is explained by the commentator thus: Samsiddhah is nityasiddah, i.e., atman; tadadhigamam is atmajnanam.
1531. 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.
1532. 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.
1533. 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.
1534. i.e., their penances of past lives.
1535. 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?
1536. 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.
1537. I expand the second line a little for making it intelligible.
1538. By 'stainless penances' is meant nishkamam tapah or penances undertaken without desire of fruit.
1539. 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.
1540. 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.
1541. 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.'
1542. 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.
1543. 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.
1544. 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.
1545. I am not sure that I have understood these two verses correctly. Verse 33 is evidently a cruce.
1546. 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.
1547. The Burdwan translator wrongly renders the second line of this verse. All the texts read this line in the same way.
1548. 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.
1549. Vinasamabhikankhatam is explained in the alternative by the commentator in a very fanciful way. Kriyavatam is explained as 'observant of the duties of Tirthavasins.'
1550. The commentator is for explaining the second line exoterically.
1551. 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.
1552. 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.
1553. 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.
1554. Acts are all perishable in respect of their consequences.
1555. 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.
1556. Both yasya and sa refer to the foe called Ignorance. Rajaputra is a vocative. Paraiti is nasyati.
1557. Vanchate is preceded by kamena understood.
1558. It has been explained in previous sections that sreyas or nisreyas means good or excellent as applied to moral merit.
1559. By buddhiman is meant the man who is freed from attachment. Similarly, by durbuddhih is meant the man who is the slave of attachments.
1560. 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.
1561. The sense is that after the manner of the fabulous gem, Jiva attracts to itself, through Yoga, the status of Brahma.
1562. 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.
1563. The track is that of Knowledge. Vide verse 3 above.
1564. 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.
1565. 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?
1566. 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.
1567. The sense is that one who has cast off objects of enjoyment and become emancipated, does not obtain rebirth.
1568. 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.
1569. 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.
1570. In this verse the word Prakriti is used in an entirely different sense. It means here Ignorance.
1571. 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.
1572. Vide note to verse 21 above.
1573. 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.
1574. 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.
1575. 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.