17 If I have understood this verse correctly, the theory of perception laid down is a sort of idealism which has not, perhaps, its counterpart in European metaphysics. The senses are first said to be only modifications of the understanding. The mind also is only a modification of the same. A particular sense, say the eye, becomes subservient to the understanding at a particular moment. As soon as this happens, the understanding, though in reality it is only the eye, becomes united with the eye, and entering the mind raises an image there, the consequence of which is that that image is said to be seen. External world there is, of course, as independent of mind and understanding. That which is called a tree is only an idea or image created in the mind by the understanding with the aid of the sense of vision.
18 The speaker here combats the theory that the qualities of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas inhere to the objects themselves of the senses. His own view is that they inhere to the Mind, the Understanding, and Consciousness. The qualities may be seen to exist with objects, but in reality they follow objects in consequence of their permanent connection with the mind, the understanding, and consciousness which have agency in the production of objects. The commentator cites the instance of a wife’s beautiful and symmetrical limbs. These excite pleasure in the husband, envy in a co-wife, and desire (mixed with pain at its not being gratified) in a weak-hearted gazer. All the while the limbs remain unchanged. Then again, the husband is not always pleased with them, nor is the co-wife always filled with envy at their sight, nor is the gazer always agitated. Like the spokes of a wheel which are attached to the circumference and which move with circumference, the qualities of Sattwa, etc., attached to the mind, understanding and consciousness, move along with them, i.e., follow those objects in the production of which the mind, etc., are causes.
19 This version of verse is offered tentatively. I give the substance without following the exact order of the original. Compare this verse with 42 of section 194 ante.
20 As soon as the darkness of the understanding is dispelled and true knowledge succeeds, the Soul becomes visible.
21 i.e., who adopts the Sannyasa or the last mode of life after having duly gone through the preceding modes.
22 Gunan in the first line means Vishayan, in the second line it means Sattivadin, Vikriyatah is vikram bhajamanan. How the understanding creates objects has been explained in previous sections.
23 Na nivartante is explained by the commentator as na ghatadivat nasyanti kintu rajjuragadiva badha eva, etc., and he concludes by saying that according to this theory niranvayanasa eva gunanam, or, in other words, that the Gunas are not so destroyed by knowledge that they do not return.
24 According to the speaker then, there is not much practical difference between the two opinions here adverted to, and one’s course of conduct will not be much affected by either of the theories that one may, after reflection, adopt.
25 Janmasamartham is explained as certain to be acquired by virtue of birth or of the practice of the duties laid down for one’s own order. Parayanam is moksha-prapakam.
26 The Bengal reading buddhah is preferable to the Bombay reading Suddhah which would be pleonastic in view of what follows in the second line.
27 Lokam is explained as lokyate iti lokah, i.e., objects of enjoyment such as wife, etc., aturam, is afflicted with faults or defects. Ubhayam kritakritam is as the commentator explains, sokasokarupam or aropitam and anaropitam.
28 Many of the verses of this and the previous section correspond with those of section 194 ante. Many verbal changes, however, are noticeable. In consequences of those changes, the meaning sometimes becomes lightly and sometimes materially different.
29 Gocharaebhyah, literally, pastures, is used here to signify all external and internal objects upon which the senses and the mind are employed. Their proper home or abode is said to be Brahma.
30 The absence of anything like precision in the language employed in such verses frequently causes confusion. The word atma as used in the first line is very indefinite. The commentator thinks it implies achetanabuddhi, i.e., the perishable understanding. I prefer, however, to take it as employed in the sense of Chit as modified by birth. It comes, I think, to the same thing in the end. The ‘inner Soul’ is, perhaps, the Soul or Chit as unmodified by birth and attributes.
31 Abhavapratipattyartham is explained by the commentator as ‘for the attainment of the unborn or the soul.’
32 The commentator explains the first line thus: yatha sarvani matani tatha etani vachansi me. He takes the words: yatha tatha kathitani maya as implying that ‘I have treated of the topic yathatathyena.’
33 The commentator explains that tasya tasya has reference to gandhadeh. Pracharah means vyavahara. Pasyatah is Vidushah.
34 i.e., one that only knows the Vedas and has observed the vow of Brahmacharya is not a superior Brahmana. To become so requires something more.
35 I follow the commentator closely in rendering this verse. Sarvavit is taken in the sense of Brahmavit. Akamah is one contented with knowledge of Self. Such a man, the Srutis declare, never dies or perishes. The two negatives in the last clause nullify each other. The Burdwan translator, with the gloss before him, for he cites copiously from it, misunderstands the negatives. K.P. Singha is correct.
36 Avidhanat is explained as dayanaishkainyayorananusaranat.
37 Kamakantah is explained as kamaih kantah, i.e., manoharah.
38 Heaven is Brahma invested with attributes. Tranquillity of soul is Brahma uninvested with attributes. Upanishat is explained as rahasyam. This renders ‘recondite object’. The sense of the verse is that each of the things mentioned is useless without that which comes next; and as tranquillity or Brahma uninvested with attributes is the ultimate end, the Vedas and truth, etc., are valuable only because they lead to tranquillity.
39 Both the Vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. In the first place, ichcchasi is equivalent to ichccheta. Santoshat is for the sake of santosha. Sattwam is buddhiprasadam. Manas is explained as sankalpa or samsaya. The grammatical order is sokamanasoh santapya kledanam. The commentator adds santapamiti namulantam, i.e., formed by the suffix namul.
40 Samagrah is literally ‘full or complete,’ implying that such a man becomes jnana-triptah. Only five attributes are mentioned in this verse but santosha mentioned in verse 13 should be taken to make up six.
41 Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse incorrectly. In the first place shadbhih has reference to the six things mentioned in verse 11 and 12 above. These six again should be satwagunopetaih, i.e., destitute of the attributes of Rajas and Tamas. Unless freed from those two, even the six, of themselves, will not lead to knowledge of the Soul. Tribhih has reference to Sravana, manana, and nididhyasana. Ihastham is ‘residing within the body.’ Pretya implies transcending consciousness of body or jivati eva dehe dehabhimanadutthaya. Tam gunam is muktalakshanam. The sense, in simple words, is this: transcending all consciousness of body they that succeed in knowing the Soul which resides within the body become emancipated. The first line of the verse simply points out how the Soul may be known.
42 Anweti is explained as vardhate.
43 The reading I adopt is saviseshani, and not aviseshani although the latter is not incorrect. In treatises on yoga, viseshah imply the gross elements and the eleven senses including the mind. Aviseshah imply the five subtile elements (tanmatrani) and buddhi. By Gunan is meant Mahat and Avyakta or Prakriti. If aviseshani be taken, the reference to the subtile elements would imply that the grosser once have already been transcended.
44 Atikrantaguna-kshayam, i.e., one who has transcended disregards the very puissance that the destruction of the gunas is said to bring about.
45 Karyyatam is Prakriti which alone is active, Purusha being inactive. Paramam karanam is, of course, Brahma uninvested with attributes.
46 Dwandwani is governed by anushthitah. Mahat here is elaborate. The speaker, having first discussed the subject elaborately, intends to speak of it in
brief in this Section.
47 Panchasu is explained by the commentator as Panchatmakeshu. Hence, he properly points out that bhava and abhava and kala are included by the speaker within bhutas or primary elements. Bhava implies the four entities called karma, samanya, visesha and samavaya. By abhava is meant a negative state with respect to attributes not possessed by a thing. We cannot think of a thing without thinking of it as uninvested with certain attributes whatever other attributes it may possess.
48 Enlarged, the constructions of the original becomes thus: ‘uttareshu (bhuteshu) (purvabhuta) gunah (santi).’
49 Uttarah imply the three entities known by the names of Avidya (Ignorance), Kama (desire), and Karma (acts). This part of the verse is skipped over by the vernacular translators.
50 i.e., the soul when invested with Avidya and desire becomes a living creature and engages in acts. It is through consequences then that are derived from acts that the infinite Soul (or Chit) becomes Jivatman.
51 This is a very difficult verse and no wonder that both the vernacular versions are defective. K.P. Singha gives the substance, skipping over many of the words. The Burdwan translator, though citing largely from the gloss, misunderstands both verse and gloss completely. The grammatical construction is this: Ebhih sarvaih kalatmakaih bhavaih anwitam sarvam yah akalushiam pasyati (sah) samoham karma nanuvartate. Sarvam here refers to pranijatam or the entire assemblage of living creatures. Kalatmakaih bhavaih is punyapapadi samskaratmabhih. Bhavaih is taken by the commentator as equivalent to bhavanabhih. I prefer to take it in the sense of entity. He who looks upon these as akalusham, i.e., as unstained Chit (that is, he who has a knowledge of the Soul), becomes freed from samoham karma, i.e., succeeds in becoming nishkamah in consequence of his acquaintance with atmatattwa.
52 ‘Conversant with the scriptures,’ i.e., Yogin; ‘acts laid down in the scriptures’ are the practices connected with Yoga. Saririnam, the commentator takes, implies the Soul as invested with a subtile body; of course, Saririn as distinguished from Sariram generally means the Soul or the owner of the Sariram without reference to the body. Hence, the word cannot be taken as referring to the Soul as uninvested with the lingasarira.
53 I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Sahitah is nividah; drisyamanah is explained as ‘though unseen by the eye is yet realised through instruction and by the aid of reason.’
54 Tapah is rasmi-mandalam. Prati-rupam is pratyupa-dhi. Sattwam is sattwapradhanalingam. The sense, in simple words, seems to be that the Yogin beholds within his own body and those of others the Souls or Chits residing there as invested in subtile forms.
55 Both atmachintitam and karmajam rajas are governed by Jahatam. The first means all that is: ‘kalpitah in self’ i.e., the creations of the understanding or the mind, implying, of course, the objects of the senses or the external world. The second means kamadi vyasanam, i.e., the calamities constituted by desire, etc. Pradhanadwaidhamuktah is one who is freed from identity with Pradhana or the Universal cause; hence, the puissance that Yoga brings about. Such Yogins have their subtile forms under complete control under all conditions and at all times. They can enter at will into other forms. Sattwatma is linga-dehah.
56 Satatam qualifies anwitah. Nityam qualifies charishnuh. Sadanityah is explained by the commentator as in reality terminable, though the words always etc., have been used. The plain meaning of the verse is that Yogins, in their linga body, rove everywhere, not excluding the most blissful regions in heaven itself.
57 The meaning is this: like Yogins, ordinary men even have the linga-sariram. In dreams, the gross body is inactive. Only the subtile body acts and feels. The Burdwan translator misunderstands this verse completely.
58 Atikramanti is understood at the end of the verse. Vajropamani is explained by the commentator as ‘so undying that they are not destroyed at even the universal destruction; hence, of course, the karana bodies.’ The karana bodies are the potentialities, existing in the tanmatra of the elemental substances, of forming diverse kinds of linga bodies in consequence of the acts of Jiva in previous periods of existence.
59 Etat is: maduktam vakyam; yogam implies yogapradhanam. Samadhau samam has reference to ‘yogam.’ What the speaker wishes to say in this verse is that dhyana is not laid down for Sannyasins alone but it is laid down for all others as well.
60 Pradhanam is Avidya or Ignorance. Viniyoga is Viparinama. The particle anu always interpreted as ‘following’ the scriptures or some special branch of knowledge that treats of the subject spoken of.
61 The correct reading is ayasaih meaning ‘made of iron,’ and not ‘ayasaih.’ K.P. Singha adheres to the incorrect reading. The chains of iron here are either the diverse longings cherished by worldly men, or, perhaps, the bodies with which men are invested.
62 The dual genitive duhkhayoh is used because worldly sukha also is regarded as duhkha. ‘Tyajamannah’ is equivalent to ‘tyaktum ichccha.’ It is an instance of hetau sanach.
63 Yena is explained as Stryadina hetuna. ‘Sah’ is Stryadih. Samrohati is Vardhayati. ‘Tam’ is Vardhakam.
64 ‘Uddhriyate’ is literally ‘tears up.’ The use of the word ‘asina’ suggests also ‘cutting.’ The root of the tree, of course, is Avidya or Ignorance.
65 K.P. Singha wrongly translates the first line. The Burdwan translator quotes the gloss without understanding it. The first half of the first line, literally rendered, is ‘the senses are the mind-citizens,’ meaning, as the commentator rightly explains, that they are citizens under the lead of the mind. ‘Tadartham’ means ‘for the sake of the senses,’ i.e., ‘for cherishing them.’ Prakritih is mahati kriya pravrittih, Tadartham is kriyaphalam, i.e., happiness or misery. The meaning, in brief, is this: the body is a city. The understanding is its mistress. The mind is her principal servitor. The senses are the citizens under the lead of the mind. In order to cherish the senses the mind engages in acts productive of visible and invisible fruits i.e., sacrifices and gifts, and the acquisition of houses and gardens, etc. Those acts are liable to two faults, viz., Rajas and Tamas. The senses (both in this life and the succeeding ones) depend upon the fruits (happiness or misery) of those acts.
66 The meaning is this: the senses, the mind, the understanding, etc., are all due to acts. These, therefore, are said to rest upon acts and draw their sustenance therefrom.
67 I expand the first line of 14 for giving the meaning clearly.
68 The sense is that the understanding, being stained or afflicted, the Soul also becomes stained or afflicted. Enam is atmanam. Vidhritam is ‘placed like an image upon a mirror.’
69 Because the son had not yet obtained the light of full knowledge.
70 It is curious to note how carelessly this verse is rendered in the Burdwan version. In the Bengal texts there is a misprint, viz., tatha for rasah. The Burdwan translator does not notice it, but gives just eight qualities instead of ten. Capacity to be congealed is to be inferred from cha. K.P. Singha is correct.
71 The Rishis, it is evident, regarded an entity not as an unknown substance in which certain known properties inhered, but as the sum total of those properties themselves. So far as the human mind is concerned, there is no warrant for the proposition that matter is an unknown substance in which extension, and divisibility etc., inhere; on the other hand, matter, as it appears to us, is only extension, divisibility, etc., existing in a combined state.
72 The elements are five in number. Their properties number fifty. The five especial properties of the understanding should be added to those five and fifty. The total, therefore, of the properties of the understanding comes up to sixty.
73 This is a difficult verse. Anagatam is agama-viruddham. The grammatical construction, as explained by the commentator, is this: tat (tasmin or purvaslokokokte vishaya yat) anagatam tava uktam tat chintakalilam. (Twam tu) samprati iha (loke) tat (maduktam) bhutarthatattwamsarvam avapya bhuta-prabhavat santabuddhi bhava. Bhutarthah is Brahma, and bhutaprabhavat is Brahmaiswaryat. (This i
s an instance of the ablative with ‘lyap’ understood). What Bhishma wishes Yudhishthira to do is not so much to attend to the various theories about the origin of the universe but to carefully attend to the method of attaining to Brahma. To be of tranquil heart, of course, implies the possession of a nirvrittika buddhi.
74 i.e., they could be slain by only their equals who were engaged with them, meaning that all those warriors were very superior men. They could not possibly be slain by others than those with whom they fought.
75 In the case of gods and Rishis, thinking and summoning are the same.
76 The commentator explains that the accusatives in the first line of verse 5 governed by hareyam in the previous verse.
77 A Padmaka consists of ten digits, i.e., a thousand millions or a billion according to the French method of calculation.
78 To lead a life in the woods with the deer and after the manner of the deer confers great merit. Vide the story of Yayati’s daughter Madhavi in the Udyoga Parvam ante.
79 The commentator explains that this means that Death would attain to the status of all-pervading Brahma. Even this is the boon that the Self-born grants her for protecting her against iniquity and allaying her fears.
80 i.e., being freed from wrath and aversion.
81 Vasishtha’s work commences with the query — What is dharmah? The first answer is ‘anything consistent with the Srutis and the Smritis.’ Then comes Sishtacharah or the conduct of those called Sishta or the good.
82 However casuists may argue and moralists pretend, a lie like that of Sir Henry Lee for saving his prince from the hands of Cromwell (vide Woodstock), or like that of the goldsmith’s son, even when he was dying, for saving the prince Chevalier from the hands of his would-be captors, is excusable in the estimation of many and even meritorious according to some. The world again is agreed that if an adulterer be called into the witness box, perjury would be a venal offence compared with the meanness of betraying the honour of a confiding woman. Hence, the exclusion of such a witness (according to almost every system of law) in trials for adultery. The Rishis wrote for men and not angels. The conduct referred to is that of the good and pious.
The Sanskrit Epics Page 780
