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.
&n
bsp; 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.
881 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.
882 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 exi
stence. 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.
883 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.
884 i.e., this variety of Being and this variety of relations.
885 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.
886 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.
The Sanskrit Epics Page 724