216 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.
217 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.
218 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.
219 The particle anu means ‘following the instructions of preceptors.’ Samyame refers to Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. Some texts read Siddhante for samyame.
220 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.
221 The Vedas are Savda-Brahma or Brahma as represented by sound.
222 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.
223 Yoga is the only way to true knowledge, hence Jnana-nishthah is Yoga-nishthah.
224 These and men like these are pointed out as persons deserving of gifts.
225 i.e., in Brahma as possessed of attributes and as freed from attributes.
226 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.
227 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.
228 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.
229 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.
230 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.
231 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.
232 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.
233 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.
234 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.
235 The Burdwan translator gives a very erroneous version of this verse.
236 For by Knowledge Emancipation is obtained.
237 Vatarechaka is bhastra or a bellows. What is implied is, perhaps, that such a man breathes or lives in vain.
238 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.
239 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.
240 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.
241 I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the adjectives in the text.
242 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.
243 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.
244 Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.
245 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.
246 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.
247 The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of this verse. He forgets his grammar so completely as to take etaih as qualifying lokah.
248 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).
249 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.
250 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.
251 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.
252 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.
253 K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan translator is correct.
254 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.
255 Vaddhanjalim is an adverb, qualifying ayachata. The Burdwan translator wrongly takes it as an adjective of Satyam.
256 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.
257 Yajnia is explained as yajnaya hita.
258 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.
259 Yo dhamah is the reading I take, and not no dharmah.
260 The commentator explains the grammar as panchanam (madhya ekam) artham prapya, etc.
261 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.
262 The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculous version of this verse. He cites the commentator’s words without understanding them aright.
263 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.
264 By dharma here is meant nishkama dharma, for the fruits of sakama dharma are not eternal, heaven like all things else having an end.
265 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.
266 i.e., by abandoning all kinds of idleness, as explained by the commentator.
267 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.
268 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.
269 The truth is that the world is unreal and has no end.
270 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.
271 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.
272 ‘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.
273 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.
274 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.’
275 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 r
esult of the same five primal essences.
276 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.
277 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.
278 Jnanani is Jnana-karanani, i.e., perceptions for causes of perception.
279 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.
280 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 Sanskrit Epics Page 783