Book 12 edition notes 501–600

And not the Soul, as the commentator explains. With the death of the body joy and grief disappear.

The art by which the body could, as in Egypt, be preserved for thousands of years was not known to the Rishis.

The commentator explains the sense of this as follows: The cow belongs to him who drinks her milk. Those who derive no advantage from her have no need for showing her any affection. One should not covet what is above one's want. It has been said, that (to a thirsty or hungry or toil-worn man), a little quantity of vaccine milk is of more use than a hundred kine; a small measure of rice more useful than a hundred barns filled with grain; half a little bed is of more use than a large mansion.

I follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse. His interpretation is plausible. Mudatamah, according to him, are those who are in deep sleep. There are four stages of consciousness. These are (1) wakefulness, (2) dream, (3) dreamless or deep slumber, and (4) Turiya or absolute Samadhi (which the Yogin only can attain to).

The two extremes, of course, are dreamless slumber and Turiya or Samadhi. The two intermediate ones are wakefulness and sleep with dream.

Pride in consequences of having insulted or humiliated others; and success over others such as victories in battle and other concerns of the world.

The first half of the second line is read variously. The sense, however, in effect, remains unaltered. What is said here is that man who succeeds in attaining to a state of Brahma by true Samadhi or abstraction from the world, can never be touched by grief.

In all treatises on Yoga it is said that when the first stage is passed, the neophyte succeeds in looking at his own self. The meaning seems to be that he experiences a sort of double existence so that he succeeds in himself looking at his own self.

This is the same as 46. The Bombay edition does not repeat it.

The house referred to is the body. The single column on which it is supported is the backbone, and the nine doors are the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, etc. etc.

The sense is that women always regard their human lovers as dear without regarding the Supreme Being to be so, although He is always with them.

i.e., coursing on, without waiting for any one.

Literally, intelligent.

The true reading is Jnanena and not ajnanena. Then, in the last foot, the word is a-pihitah and not apihitah. The words with ava and api frequently drop the initial a. Hence a-pihitah means not covered.

The word used in the text is Devanam (of the gods). There can be no doubt however, that the word deva is here used for implying the senses.

i.e., wild beasts and lawless men.

Asatyajyam and Asatyadyam are both correct. The sense is the same. The first means 'having untruth for the libation (that it eats up).' The second means 'having untruth for the food (it devours)'.

Santi is tranquillity. The Santi-sacrifice is the endeavour to practise self-denial in everything; in other words, to restrain all sorts of propensities or inclinations. The Brahma-sacrifice is reflection on truths laid down in the Upanishads. The Word-sacrifice consists in the silent recitation (japa) of the Pranava or Om, the initial mantra. The Mind-sacrifice is contemplation of the Supreme Soul. The Work-sacrifice consists in baths, cleanliness, and waiting upon the preceptor.

Both readings are correct, viz., Kshetrayajna and Kshetrayajna. Kshetra is, of course, the body. If the latter reading be accepted, the meaning will be 'a sacrifice like that of a Kshatriya, i.e., battle.' Hence, all kinds of acts involving cruelty.

or, seek Brahma in thy understanding. The word Atman is often synonymous with Supreme Self.

The commentator explains that the object of Yudhishthira's question is this: in the preceding section or lesson it has been inculcated that one may seek the acquisition of the religion of moksha or emancipation even when he is young. Yudhishthira enquires whether wealth (so necessary for the performance of sacrifices) is needed for the acquisition of that religion. If wealth be necessary, the poor then would not be able to acquire that religion. Hence the enquiry about the way in which joy and sorrow come to the wealthy and to the poor.

The verses are said to be old. Nilakantha accordingly supposes that it was not Sampaka who recited them to Bhishma, but some one else. I follow the commentator; but the grammar of the concluding verse of this section must have to be twisted for supporting him.

Kakataliyam is, literally, 'after the manner of the crow and the palmyra fruit.' The story is that once when a crow perched upon a palmyra tree a fruit (which had been ripe) fell down. The fruit fell because of its ripeness. It would be a mistake to accept the sitting of the crow as the cause of the fall. The perching was only an accident. Yet men very frequently, in tracing causes, accept accidents for inducing causes. Such men are said to be deceived by 'the fallacy of the crow and the palmyra fruit.'

Exertion to be successful must depend on circumstances. The combination of circumstances is destiny.

It is difficult to resist the belief that many of the passages of the Santi are later additions. Suka was the son of Vyasa. To quote a saying of Suka (or, as he was called Sukadeva Goswamin), if Vyasa was the real writer of this passage, is rather suspicious.

i.e., arrive at such a point that nothing was left for him to desire.

i.e., with the view of doing thee good, I shall emancipate myself from all attachments and enjoy the blessedness of tranquillity.

Here the theory of desire seems to be reversed. Desire is mere wish after anything. When its gratification is sought, the form it assumes is that of determination or will. If, however, Kama be taken as the formulated desire after specific objects, then, perhaps, the Will may be regarded as its foundation, at least, in respect of the distress and difficulties that come in its train.

I think the Bombay reading of this verse is incorrect. Bhuttagramah (nom. sing.) should be Bhutagramam (accusative sing.). The Yah is Kamah. It is Desire that is exhorted to go away whithersoever it chooses. If the elements be thus exhorted, then it is death that the speaker desires. This would be inconsistent with the spirit of the passage.

The use of the plural Yushmashu might lead at first sight to take it as standing for the elements. It is plain, however, that it refers to all attributes that are founded on Rajas and Tamas.

Beholding all creatures in my own body and mind i.e., identifying myself with all creatures or never taking them as distinct and separated from me: in other words, professing and practising the principle of universal love.

The two lines are antithetical. What is said here is that though there is misery in property, there is no real happiness in affluence. Hence Nilakantha is right in supposing that the last word of the first line is not dhane but adhane the Sandhi being Arsha.

Nilakantha explains that by Saranga here is meant the bee. The anweshanam following it is 'going behind.' The whole compound means 'imitation of the bee in the forest.'

The allusion is to the story of Pingala, in Section 74 ante.

The story, evidently a very ancient one, is given in full in the Bhagavat. Once on a time, a maiden, residing in her father's house, wished to feed secretly a number of Brahmanas. While removing the grain from the barn, her anklets, made of shells, began to jingle. Fearing discovery through that noise, she broke all her anklets except one for each hand.

Animittatah is explained by Nilakantha as one that has no cause, i.e., Brahma. The commentator would take this speech as a theistic one. I refuse to reject the plain and obvious meaning of the word. All phases of speculative opinion are discussed in the Santi. It is very possible that a religious indifferentism is preached here.

The sense of the passage is that as everything depends upon its own nature, it cannot, by its action, either gladden or grieve me. If a son be born to me I am not delighted. If he dies, I am not grieved. His birth and death depend upon his own nature as a mortal. I have no power to alter that nature or affect it in any way.

The word Ajagara implies 'after the manner of a big snake that cannot move.' it is believed that such snakes, without moving, lie in the same place in expectation of prey, eating when anything comes near, famishing when there is nothing.

The meaning is that even copious drafts do not slake thirst permanently, for after being slaked, it is sure to return.

In the Bengal texts, 44 is made a triplet. The correct reading, however, is to take 44 as a couplet and 45 as a triplet. Nilakantha points out that Icchantaste, etc., is grammatically connected with 45.

The auspicious constellations are such as Pushya and others; the inauspicious are Mula Aslesha, Magha, etc; yajnaprasava may also mean the fruits of sacrifices.

Anwikshikim may also mean 'microscopic'.

The word dattam, generally rendered 'gifts' or 'charity,' means and includes protection of suppliants, abstention from injury as regards all creatures, and actual gifts made outside the sacrificial altar. Similarly, the maintenance of the sacred fire, penances, purity of conduct, the study of the Vedas, hospitality to guests, and offer of food to the Viswedevas, are all included in the word Ishta which is ordinarily rendered 'sacrifice.'

i.e., even if he seeks to avoid it.

i.e., becomes his inseparable associate.

What is meant is that if once the consequences of the acts of a past life are exhausted, the creature (with respect to whom such exhaustion takes place), is freed from all vicissitudes of life. Lest, however, such creatures become emancipated, the orthodox view is that a balance is always left of both merit and demerit, so that a new birth must take place and the consequences of what is thus left as a balance must begin to be enjoyed or suffered. This is not referred to here, but this is the view of all orthodox Hindus.

The first word of this verse is diversely read. The reading I adopt is samunnam meaning drenched in water. If it be samjuktam it would mean united, with filth, of course. Another reading is samswinnam, meaning 'drenched with sweat.' Nilakantha explains upavasah here as equivalent to the renunciation of all earthly possessions. Ordinarily it means 'fasts.'

This verse occurs in the Santi Parva. It is difficult to understand in what sense it is said that the track of the virtuous cannot be marked. Perhaps, it is intended that such men do not leave any history or record behind them, they having abstained from all kinds of action good or bad.

Manasa means 'appertaining to the mind,' or rather, the Will. Mahat literally means great.

Veda is here used in the sense of Knowledge and Power.

Sarvabhutatmakrit is explained by Nilakantha thus. He who is Sarvabhutatman is again bhutakrit. On the authority of the Srutis the commentator adds,--ye ete pancha akasadayodhatavo-dharana-karmanah sa eva Brahma.

The word Devah here is evidently used in the sense of luminous or shining ones and not in that of gods or deities.

The Rishis supposed that the pouring of water created the air instead only of displaying it.

All created things are called Bhutas, but the five principal elements, viz., fire, air, earth, water, and space, are especially called Bhutas or Mahabhutas.

This is certainly curious as showing that the ancient Hindus knew how to treat diseased plants and restore them to vigour.

K.P. Singha wrongly renders this verse. The Burdwan translator is right.

Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts read bhutani. The correct reading, however, appears to be bhutanam.

The word for duct is Srotas. It may also be rendered 'channel.' Very like the principal artery or aorta.

Notwithstanding much that is crude anatomy and crude physiology in these sections, it is evident, however, that certain glimpses of truth were perceived by the Rishis of ancient times. Verse 15 shows that the great discovery of Harvey in modern times was known in ancient India.

In works on yoga it is laid down that the main duct should be brought under the control of the will. The soul may then, by an act of volition, be withdrawn from the whole physical system into the convolutions of the brain in the head. The brain, in the language of yogins, is a lot us of a thousand leaves. If the soul be withdrawn into it, the living creature will then be liberated from the necessity of food and sleep, etc., and will live on from age to age, absorbed in contemplation of divinity and in perfect beatitude.

It is often said that in an advanced stage of yoga, one is enabled to behold one's Soul, or, a sort of double existence is realised in consequence of which the Soul becomes an object of internal survey to the Soul itself. Very probably, writers on yoga employ this language in a figurative sense.

The commentator explains that the words expressive of hue or colour really mean attributes. What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).

The distinction here laid down seems to be this: the eternal creation is due to the yoga or mental action of the Primeval Deity. That creation which we behold is the result of the penances of those sages who were first created. Perhaps, what is intended to be said is that the principle of life, of life proceeding from life, and primal matter with space, etc., are all due to the fiat of God; while all visible and tangible objects, resulting from the action of those principles and from primal matter and space, are attributable to the ancient sages.

The word Ghrina may also mean aversion. Of course, here it would mean, if used in that sense, aversion for all unrighteous acts.

The first half of the first line of 6 is differently read in the Bombay edition. Both readings are noticed by Nilakantha. I have adhered to the Bengal reading, though the Bombay reading is clearer in sense. Visati is a transitive verb having Pratishtha or some such noun for its object. The literal meaning is he who acquires fame, etc.

Here the speaker describes the character of Karma-sannyasa (renunciation of acts). Samarambha generally means all kinds of acts. Here, however, only sacrifices and other scriptural rites are intended. I follow Nilakantha in rendering the second line, although the plain meaning would seem to be "who poureth everything in gift."

The gross world is perceivable by the ordinary senses. Behind the gross world is a subtile one which the subtile senses i.e., the senses when sharpened by yoga, can perceive. With death, the gross body alone is dissolved, the subtile body or form, called the Linga-sarira, and made up of what is called the Tanmatras of the primal elements, remains. Even that retains all the characteristics of the world in an incipient form. The Linga-sarira also must be destroyed before absorption into Brahma can take place.

The felicity that is obtained in heaven is not everlasting, being limited in point of duration by the degree or measure of merit that is achieved here.

The Pauranic theory of both the solar and the lunar eclipse is that the Sun and the Moon are sought to be devoured by the Daitya, Rahu.

The sense seems to be that Vedas declare those fruits in order that men may strive for them when they lead to happiness.

Nearly the whole of this section is prose.

It is difficult to understand in what senses the word Dharma is used in the three successive questions here.

In the first line the correct reading is Brahmana and not Brahmarshi. The answer attributed to Bhrigu settles this.

A pupil should never solicit his preceptor for instruction. He should attend only when the preceptor calls him. To this day, the rule is rigidly observed in all schools throughout India. It should be added to the credit of those engaged in teaching that they very seldom neglect their pupils. The story is authentic of the grandfather of the great Baneswar Vidyalankar of Nuddea, himself as great a professor as Baneswar, of continuing to teach his pupils in the outer apartments even after receiving intelligence of his son's death within the inner apartments of the family dwelling. The fact is, he was utterly absorbed in his work, that when his good lady, moved by his apparent heartlessness, came out to tax him he answered her, in thorough absence of mind, saying, 'Well, do not be disturbed. If I do not weep for my son, I will do so for that grandchild in your arms.' The pupils at last recalled him to the realities of the hour.

i.e., by picking up fallen grains from the field after the crop has been cut away and removed by the owner.

Upaskara means renunciation.

It is generally said that by procreating offspring, one gratifies the Pitris or pays off the debt one owes to one's deceased ancestors. Here Bhrigu says that by that act one gratifies the Creator. The idea is the same that forms the root of the command laid on the Jews,--Go and multiply.

The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.

Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.

Niyama is explained by the commentator as a rite; upayoga as a vow about food; charyya as an act like visiting sacred waters; vihita is vidhana.

The Hindus had no poor laws. The injunctions of their scriptures have always sufficed to maintain the poor, particularly their religious mendicants. The mendicants themselves are restrained from disturbing the householders often. None again save the well-to-do were to be visited by the mendicants, so that men of scanty means might not be compelled to support the recluses.

The words used by Bharadwaja in the question are capable of being construed as an enquiry after the next world. Bhrigu also, in his answer, uses the word Paro lokah. The reference to Himavat, therefore, is explained by the commentator as metaphorical. The whole answer of Bhrigu, however, leaves little room for doubt that the sage speaks of a region on earth and not in the invisible world after death.

Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.

All knowledge there is certain.

i.e., to practise yoga. The Bengal reading is dharanam. The commentator goes for explaining all the verses as metaphorical. Considerable ingenuity is displayed by him, and he even cites the Srutis in support.

This at least is a verse that evidently refers to the other or the next world, and, therefore, lends colour to the supposition that throughout the whole passage, it is the next world and no fictitious region north of the Himalayas that is described. Some western scholars think that a verbal translation is all that is necessary. Such passages, however, are incapable of being so rendered. The translator must make his choice of, either taking the verses in a plain or a metaphorical sense. If he inclines towards the latter, he cannot possibly give a verbal version. The genius of the two tongues are quite different.

Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.

The Burdwan translator makes a mess of this verse 21 runs into 22 as explained by the commentator. K.P. Singha avoids the blunder, although in rendering the last line of 22 he becomes rather inaccurate.

The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.

This may be a general direction for washing one's hand after eating; or, it may refer to the final Gandusha, i.e., the act of taking a little water in the right hand, raising it to the lips, and throwing it down, repeating a short formula.

The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.

It is difficult to understand what this verse means. Nilakantha proposes two different kinds of interpretation. What then is Sankusuka or Sanku cuka? The above version is offered tentatively. The commentator imagines that the true sense of the verse is that it declares such men to be unable to attain to Mahadayu which is Brahma and not long life.

Prishtamangsa is explained by the commentator as 'the meat forming the remnant of a Sraddha offering.' I do not see the necessity of discarding the obvious meaning.

in the sense of being moved or used. The commentator adds that the sacred thread also should be wound round the thumb, as the Grihyasutras declare.

In every instance, the person who receives should say--'All-sufficient,' 'Gratify to the fill', and 'Has fallen copiously' or words to that effect. Krisara or Kricara is food made of rice and pease, or rice and sesame; probably what is now called Khichree.

The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.

It is not plain in what way the sinful acts come to the sinner. The Hindu idea, of course, is that the consequences of those deeds visit the doer without fail. This verse, however, seems to say that the recollection of those sins forces itself upon the sinner and makes him miserable in spite of himself.

The Hindu moralist, in this verse, declares the same high morality that Christ himself preached. Merit or sin, according to him, does not depend on the overt act alone. Both depend on the mind. Hence the injunction against even mentally harming others.

The sense seems to be that if one succeeds in ascertaining the ordinances about virtue or piety, but if the mind be sinful, no associate can be of any help. The mind alone is the cause of virtue and piety.

Adhyatma is anything that depends on the mind. Here it is, as explained by the commentator, used for yoga-dharma as depending upon or as an attribute of the mind. Generally speaking, all speculations on the character of the mind and its relations with external objects are included in the word Adhyatma.