Book 6 edition notes 201–300

Without leaving anything, i.e., entirely.

The Divine-Word i.e., the Vedas. So great is the efficacy of devotion that one merely enquiring of it transcends him who conforms to the rites of the Vedas.

Only some one, i.e., very few. Few perfection, i.e., for knowledge of self. Thus all the commentators.

The last word of the first line of this sloka is param (higher) and not aparam with the initial a silent owing to the rules of Sandhi. Many of the Bengal texts have aparam, not excepting the latest one printed at Calcutta.

Kama which I have rendered desire is explained by Sreedhara as the wish for an unattained object; and raga as the longing or thirst for more. The second Kama is explained as desires of the class of love or lust.

Daivi is explained by Sankara as divine; by Sreedhara as marvellous.

The divine desires are about sons, fame, victory over enemies, etc., regulations, such as fasts etc.; their own nature, i.e., disposition as dependent on the acts of their past lives. Thus all the commentators.

The worshipper obtains his desires, thinking he gets them from the godhead he worships. It is however, that gives him those.

The divinities being perishable, myself imperishable. What these obtain is perishable. What my worshippers obtain is imperishable.

The ignorant, without knowledge of my transcendent essence take me to be no higher than that what is indicated in my human and other incarnate manifestations. Thus Sreedhara.

Adhyatman is explained as all that by which Brahman is to be attained. All actions mean the whole course of duties and practices leading to the knowledge of Brahman.

The three words occurring in this sloka and explained in the next section, forming as they do the subject of a question by Arjuna.

Bhava is production, and Udbhava is growth or development. Thus Sreedhara.

All the doors, i.e., the senses. Confining the mind within the heart, i.e., withdrawing the mind from all external objects. Murdhni is explained by Sreedhara to mean here "between the eyebrows."

All these regions being destructible and liable to re-birth, those that live there are equally liable to death and re-birth.

The meaning, as explained by Sreedhara, is that such persons are said to know all, and not those whose knowledge is bounded by the course of the sun and the moon.

In this round of births and deaths, the creatures themselves are not free agents, being all the while subject to the influence of Karma, as explained by the commentators.

The commentators explain the word fire, the light, day, &c., as several godheads presiding over particular times.

The atmosphere occupies space without affecting it or its nature. So all things are in the Supreme Being without affecting him.

My nature, i.e., the unmanifest principle or primal essence.

Prakriti which I render "nature" is explained by the commentators as Karma, the influence of Karma or action being universal in setting the form of a particular entity at the time of its creation.

This reason, i.e., my supervision.

Sreedhara says that these are different modes of worship; "with reverence and ever devoted" grammatically refers to each of the three classes of worshippers indicated.

Performing the sacrifice of knowledge, i.e., believing Vasudeva to be everything. In many forms, i.e., as Brahman, Rudra, etc.

Mantra is the sacred verse or verses used for invoking godheads, and for other purposes.

Hence they have to come back, explains Sreedhara.

Prayatatmanas is explained as Suddhachittasya.

Iman lokan (this mortal world), Sreedhara says, may mean "this form of royal saint that thou hast." This is far-fetched.

Telang renders Paramam 'excellent'; Mr. John Davies, 'all important'. The meaning is referring to the 'Supreme Soul'.

Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain Sarvassas as "in every way". i.e., as creator, as guide, &c.

Prajas offspring, including, as Sankara says, both mobile, and immobile, therefore, not mankind alone.

Bhava-samanwitas is explained by Sreedhara as "full of love", which K. T. Telang accepts. Sankara explains it as "endued with penetration into the knowledge of the Supreme object."

Tityam, ever, is connected with what follows and not what precedes. Thus Sreedhara. Mr. Davies connects it with Kathayantas.

K. T. Telang renders buddhi-yogam as knowledge; Mr. Davies, as mental devotion and Sankara, "devotion by special insight."

To know thee fully is impossible. In what particular forms or manifestations, therefore, shall I think of thee? The word Bhava in the second line is rendered "entities" by K. T. Telang, and "form of being" by Mr. Davies.

Vistarasya evidently refers (as explained by all the commentators) to Vibhutinam. It is a question of grammar and not of doctrine that there can be any difference of opinion. Mr. Davies, however, renders it "of (my) greatness." This is inaccurate.

The Adityas are the solar deities, twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve months of the year. The Maruts are the wind-gods, whose chief is Marichi.

The Rudras are a class of destructive gods, eleven in number. The Vasus are an inferior class of deities, eight in number. The lord of treasures is Kuvera.

The Japa-sacrifice is the sacrifice by meditation which is superior to all sacrifices.

Kamadhuk, the wish-giving cow called Surabhi. The cause of re-production, i.e., I am not the mere carnal passion, but that passion which procreates or is crowned with fruit.

In 28, Vasuki is called the chief of the Sarpas (serpents); in 29 Ananta is spoken of as the chief of the Nagas. The latter are Sarpas as well. Sreedhara says that the distinction lies in the fact of the Nagas being without poison. This is hardly correct.

Pavatam may also mean "of those that have motion." Rama is Dasaratha's son, the hero of Valmiki's poem. Ganga is called Jahnavi because she was, after having been drunk up, let out by the ascetic Jahnu through his knee.

Mr. Davies renders Vedas 'Pravadatam' as "the speech of those that speak." K. T. Telang renders it "the argument of controversialists."

A, or rather the sound of A as in full, is the initial letter of the Sanskrit alphabet. Of compounds, the Dwanda, or the copulative compound, is enumerated first. In other respects again, the Dwanda is the best kind of compound for the words forming it are co-ordinate, without one being dependent on the other or others.

The Vrihat-saman is said to be the best, because it leads to emancipation at once. Thus Sankara. The Margasirsha is the month from the middle of February to the middle of March. Productive of flowers, i.e., the Spring.

Mr. Davies renders the last line of this verse as "I have established in continuance all this universe by one part myself." This is both obscure and inaccurate.

Adhyatman, i.e., the relation between the Supreme and the individual soul. This my delusion, i.e., about my being the slayer.

Avyayam is that which has no decay. Ordinarily, it may be rendered "eternal." Telang renders it "inexhaustible". Elsewhere I have rendered it as "understanding."

Ekastham, lit. "all in one". i.e., collected together.

Devam is explained by Sreedhara as Dyotanatmakam i.e., endued with splendour. Mr. Davies renders it resplendent; but Telang renders it "deity."

Pra-vibhaktam-anekadha (divided diversely) is an adjective of Jagat. See Sreedhara. Both Mr. Davies and Telang seem to take it as a predicate in contra-distinction to Ekastham. This is scarcely correct.

Verse 21 is read differently. For Twam Surasangha, some texts read twa-Asurasanghas. Then again for Stuvanti in the second line some read Vikshate.

Pravritti is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as Chesta, i.e., movements or acts. Mr. Davies is, I think, not correct in taking it to mean "evolved or developed form."

Kala here is death. Mr. Davies renders it Time, following some other translators. Pravriddha is not (as Mr. Davies renders it) "old" or "very old," but swelling or fully developed. Then again, Mr. Davies commits a ludicrous blunder in rendering Rite twam as "Except thee." This is one of those idioms at which a foreigner is sure to stumble who has only the lexicons for his guide. What Krishna says is not that all would perish save Arjuna, but that without Arjuna (i.e., even if he did not fight) all would perish.

Nidhanam is either refuge or support or abode or receptacle. Mr. Davies incorrectly renders it "treasure-house."

Sankara accepts the reading Gururgariyan, Sreedhara takes it as Gururgariyan. In either case the difference in meaning is not material.

Sankara connects Adhyayana with Veda and Yajna. This seems to be right explanation.

Ata urddham is 'after this,' or 'hereafter on high' as Mr. Davies renders it.

Although the limitation "for fruit" does not occur in the text, yet, it is evident, it should be understood. Krishna does not recommend the total abandonment of actions, but abandonment for their fruit. Mr. Davies renders arambha as "enterprise."

The learned, i.e., they that are themselves acquainted with is Kshetra and what not. As explained by Krishna himself below, Kshetra is Matter, and Kshetrajna is Soul.

Dukha-dosha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as a Dwanda compound.

Vivikta is explained by the commentators as Suddha or Chittaprasadakara. There can be no doubt, however, that it is in opposition to Janasamsadi following. Hence I render it "lonely".

The object of the knowledge of truth is the dispelling of ignorance and the acquisition of happiness.

Nor having eyes, etc., yet seeing, etc.; without attributes, yet having or enjoying all that the attributes give.

All modifications, i.e., of material forms; all qualities, i.e., pleasure, pain, etc. The word rendered "nature" is Prakriti (primal matter), and that rendered "spirit" is Purusha (the active principle). Vikarna and Gunan include all material forms and attributes of the soul.

Karya-karana-karttritwa is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara to mean "the capacity of working (residing) in the body and the senses." K. T. Telang adopts this. Mr. Davies in his text has "in the activity of the organs of action." In course of his philological notes, however, he gives the correct rendering. 'Is said to be' is explained by Sreedhara as referring to Kapila and others.

It is the embodied spirit only that can enjoy the qualities of Nature. Then again, the kind of connection it has with those qualities settles its birth in good or evil wombs.

Mr. Davies misunderstands the grammatical connection of the words in the second line of this verse. K. T. Telang, following Sreedhara, says, the word should be rendered "approver."

What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines.

Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge.

Sarvatra in the second line is explained by Sreedhara as "in every body, superior and inferior." Grammatically it may mean also, "in every part of the body." Such a theory, however, of the seat of the soul would be contrary to all Hindu ideas.

Bhuta-Prakriti-moksha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as moksha or deliverance from the prakriti (nature) of bhutas' or entities. It is true knowledge that effects such deliverance. Mr. Davies renders it "deliverance of beings from Nature." This is evidently incorrect. "Beings" is not synonymous with self or soul.

Itas is explained by Sreedhara as "from the fetters of this body."

Sreedhara makes mahat an adjective of yoni; Sankara makes it an adjective of Brahma. K. T. Telang follows Sankara.

Happiness and knowledge are attributes of the mind, not of the soul. Hence, when attached to the soul, they are as fetters from which the soul should be freed.

Deha samudbhava is explained by the commentators as having their "samudbhava or parinama in deha." It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound.

Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects.

Pratishtha is explained by Sankara as "something on which another (here Brahma) stays or rests." Sreedhara explains it as Pratima. Telang following Sreedhara, renders it "embodiment;" Mr. Davies, as "seat." Amritasya and Avyayasya are taken separately by the commentators.

The 'Aswattha' is the sacred Indian fig tree, here emblematical of the course of worldly life. Its roots are above; those roots are the Supreme Being. Its branches are below, these being the inferior deities. Its leaves are the sacred hymns of the Vedas, i.e., as leaves keep the tree alive and even conduce to its fruits, so the Vedas support this tree and lead to salvation.

Upwards and downwards i.e., from the highest to the lowest of created things. Enlarged by the qualities, i.e., the qualities appearing as the body, the senses, etc. The sprouts are the objects of sense, being attached to the senses themselves as sprouts to branches. The roots extending downwards are the desires for diverse enjoyments. Thus Telang, following the commentators.

Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain.

"Atmani" in the first line is "in the body" as explained by Sreedhara and others: "in the understanding" as explained by Sankara. It seems, however, to be used in the general senses of "themselves", without particular reference to either body or understanding. An Akritatman is one whose soul is not made or formed; generally, "a person of unsubdued passions."

There can be no question that Soma here means the moon and not the Soma juice quaffed in sacrifices, or sap. It is the moon that supports, nourishes all herbs and numerous passages may be quoted from Hindu sacred literature to show this. Mr. Davies, therefore, clearly errs in rendering Soma as "the savoury juice."

The four kinds of food are: that which is masticated, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.

Apohanam is loss or removal. It is a well-known word and its application here is very natural. I am memory and knowledge (to those that use them for virtuous acts). I am the loss of these faculties (to those that engage in unrighteous acts). Mr. Davies erroneously renders it as "The power of reason."

Kutashtha is rendered by K. T. Telang as "the unconcerned one", by Mr. Davies as "the lord on high." I incline to the scholiasts who explain it as "the uniform or the unchangeable one."

Sarvabhavena is explained by Sankara by Sarvatma-chintaya (thinking Me to be the soul of everything). Sreedhara explains it as Sarvaprakarena. Why may it not mean "with the whole soul" or "with excess of love."

I adopt Sankara's explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka. Sreedhara explains it differently.

Prabritti I render "inclination" and Nivritti as "disinclination." The inclination is, as all the commentators explain, towards righteous actions, and the disinclination, consequently, is about all unrighteous actions. K. T. Telang renders these words as "action" and "inaction". Mr. Davies, following the French version of Burnouf, takes them to mean "the creation and its end."

Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.

'That' evidently refers to sacrifice, penance, and gift, in the clause before. The commentators, however, suggest that it may, besides, refer to Brahma. I am myself not sure that it does not refer to Brahma.

What the author wishes to lay down in these verses is that the words OM, TAT, and SAT, have each their respective uses. When used as directed here, such use cures the defects of the respective actions to which they are applied, it being understood that all three denote Brahma.

Sanyasa I render Renunciation. K. T. Telang does the same. Mr. Davies renders it "abstention." So 'Tyaga' I render "abandonment." Mr. Davies renders it "renunciation." What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow.

Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood.

I have used "when" for "whatever" to make the sentence grammatical.

Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate. Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as "prosperous" and "unprosperous;" for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered "talented" which has not the sanction of good usage.

That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.

Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion.

The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds--Prana, etc. The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses. The deities have no place in Kapila's system. Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila's and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated. Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to "among" or "with these." I think, however, it means, "are here", i.e., are enumerated here, or, in this connection.

Hath no feeling of egoism, i.e., doth not regard himself as the doer, sullied, i.e., by the taint of desire of fruit.