Book 12 edition notes 701–800

That which is called the external world has no objective existence. It is purely subjective. Hence, it is the mind that sees and hears and touches the mind itself.

This verse is a cruce. There can be no doubt that Nilakantha's explanation is correct. Only, as regards budhyavara I am disposed to differ from him very slightly. The grammar of the first line is this: 'Gunadane manah sada budhiyaraya; viprayoge cha tesham budhyavaraya.' Now 'Gunadana' means the 'adana' (destruction) of 'guna'. (This root da means to cut). What is meant by the destruction of 'guna' or attribute or earthly objects is merging them in the buddhi by yoga; in other words, a withdrawal of the senses into the mind, and the senses and the mind into the understanding. "Viprayoga cha tesham" means 'in their separation,' i.e., when these objects are believed to be real and as existing independently of the mind. The result of this would be the acquisition of 'budhyavara,' implying the acquisition of those very objects. In the case of yogins, whose minds may be in such a frame, the powers called 'asiswaryya' are acquired. There is no especial necessity, however, for taking the case of yogins.

What is said here is that Happiness and Sorrow have an end, though it may not be seen, and the Soul will surely come to its final resting place. This accords with the doctrine of infinite spiritual improvement.

Rishavam sarvattwam literally means 'the bull of Sattwatas'. Ordinarily, it is an appellation of Krishna, the prince of the Sattwatas or Yadavas. Here, however, the word is used to signify persons prizing the attribute of Goodness; hence righteous persons.

Prajapati literally means 'lord of creatures.' It is a name applied to those sons of Brahman who begat children.

Samavartin is another name for Yama the punisher of the wicked.

Nirapekshan is explained by Nilakantha as nirayameva ikshante tan, i.e., those who have their gaze directed towards hell alone. The Burdwan translator takes it as indicative of houseless or nomadic habits, upon what authority, it is not plain.

K.P. Singha takes Naravara as the name of a tribe. Of course, it is a careless blunder.

I think K.P. Singha misunderstands this verse. All the texts agree in reading it in the same way. To take it, therefore, as implying that the sinful races, by warring with one another, suffered destruction is doing violence to the word Rajanath. There can be no doubt that Sandhyakala means the period of junction between the two ages (Treta and Dwapara). It is called terrible. It was at this time that, that dreadful famine occurred which compelled the royal sage Viswamitra to subsist on a canine haunch. Vide Ante.

The correct reading is Mahatmana (instrumental) implying Krishna. The Bengal reading Mahatmavan is vicious. K.P. Singha has rendered the verse correctly. The Burdwan translator, with Nilakantha's note before him (for he uses the very words of the commentator), adheres to the vicious reading and mistranslates the verse.

This verse evidently shows that there was dispute about Krishna's supremacy, as Professor Weber guesses. The Krishna-cult was at first confined among a small minority, Sisupala's and Jarasandha's unwillingness to admit the divinity of Krishna distinctly points to this.

This is certainly a very fanciful etymology of the word Sanatana which ordinarily implies eternal.

Atma Atmanah is explained by Nilakantha as jivasya paramarthikam swarupam.

Swamatmanam is Pratyathatmyam.

The sense is that when all men are equal in respect of their material cause, why are such differences in the srutis and the smritis about the duties of men?

The meaning seems to be this: in the beginning of every celestial yuga, i.e., when the Supreme Being awaking from sleep desires to create creatures anew, and creatures or beings start again into life. With such starting of every being, the rules that regulate their relations and acts also spring up, for without a knowledge of those rules, the new creation will soon be a chaos and come to an end. Thus when man and woman start into life, they do not eat each other but combine to perpetuate the species. With the increase of the human species, again, a knowledge springs up in every breast of the duties of righteousness and of the diverse other practices, all of which help to regulate the new creation till the Creator himself, at the end of the yuga, once more withdraws everything into himself.

i.e., the body.

What is meant seems to be this: there can be no river without water. A river cannot exist without water. When a river is mentioned, water is implied. The connection between a river and water is not an accident but a necessary one. The same may be said of the sun and its rays. After the same manner, the connection between the Soul and the body is a necessary one and not an accident. The Soul cannot exist without a body. Of course, the ordinary case only is referred to here, for, by yoga, one can dissociate the Soul from the body and incorporate it with Brahma.

The mind has no existence except as it exists in the Soul. The commentator uses the illustration of the second moon seen by the eye in water, etc., for explaining the nature of the Mind. It has no real existence as dissociated from the Soul.

Swabhavahetuja bhavah is explained by the commentator as the virtuous and vicious propensities. (Swabhava purvasamskara; sa eva heturyesham karmanam layah bhavah). 'All else,' of course, means Avidya or Maya, which flows directly from Brahma without being dependent on past acts. The meaning, then, is this: as soon as the Soul takes a new form or body, all the propensities and inclinations, as dependent on its past acts, take possession of it, Avidya or Maya also takes possession of it.

Both the vernacular translators have wrongly rendered this verse, notwithstanding the help they have derived from Nilakantha's gloss. The fact is, the gloss itself sometimes requires a gloss. Verses 3 and 4 and connected with each other. In verse 3, the speaker mentions two analogies viz., first, that of iron, which is inanimate, following the loadstone, and, second, of Swabhavahetuja bhavah (meaning, as already explained, all such consequences as are born of the acts of previous lives), as also anyadapi, i.e., all else of a similar nature, meaning, of course, the consequences of 'Avidya' or 'Maya' which flow directly from Brahma instead of former acts. In verse 4, reference is again made to avyaktajabhavah, meaning propensities and possessions born of 'Avidya' or 'Maya'. This is only a repetition, in another form, of what has already been stated in the second line of verse 3. The commentator explains this very clearly in the opening words of his gloss. After this comes the reference to the higher propensities and aspirations that are in the Soul. The grammar of the line is this: Tadvat Kartuh karanalakshanah (bhavah) karanat abhisanghathah. The plain meaning, of course, is that like all the darker and indifferent propensities and possessions that come to the Soul in its new life, born of the acts of past lives, all the higher aspirations also of the Soul come to it from Brahma direct. The word karana is used in both instances for Brahma as the Supreme Cause of everything.

The sense is this: In the beginning there was nothing save the Chit-Soul. Existent objects exist only because of Ignorance having defiled the Soul. Their connection again with the Soul is not absolute and necessary. That connection may be destroyed without the Soul losing anything. What is intended to be conveyed by this verse is that at first, i.e., before the creation, there was nothing, except jiva or the Soul with Knowledge alone for its indicating attribute. The things mentioned, viz., earth, etc., were not. Nor do they inhere to jiva with even Ignorance or Delusion for its indicating attribute, i.e., to the born Soul. The born Soul may seem to manifest all those attributes, but it is really independent of or separate from them. Their connection with the Soul, as already said, is neither absolute nor eternal. In the next verse, the speaker explains the nature of those manifestations.

The connection between earth, etc., with the Soul has before been said to be neither absolute nor eternal. Whence then that connection? In 6, it is said that all the apprehensions of the Soul with regard to earth, etc., are due to Ignorance or Delusion flowing directly from Brahma and assailing it thereafter. The apprehension of the Soul that it is a man or an animal, that it has a body, that it is acting, etc., are to borrow the commentator's illustration, just like that of one's being a king in a dream who is not, however, really a king, or of one's being a child who is not, however, really a child. Being eternal or without beginning its first existence under the influence of Delusion is untraceable. As long, again, as it has Knowledge alone for its attribute, it remains indestructible, i.e., free from the mutations of existence. It occurs in every creature, i.e., in man and beast.

The sense seems to be this: In consequence of desires the Soul manifests itself in some form of existence. In that state it acts. Those acts again lead to desires anew, which, in their turn, bring on new forms or states of existence. The circle of existence or life thus goes on, without beginning and without end.

The Cause is ignorance. The Effect is the body and the senses of a particular form of existence. When the creature, in consequence of this union, engages in acts, these latter become causes for new states of existence.

The object of this verse is to reiterate the doctrine that the possession of the body and the senses, etc., does not alter the state of the Soul. The Soul is really unattached to these though it may apparently exist in a state of union with them, like the wind, which existing in a state of apparent union with the dust it bears away is even at such times pure by itself and as a substance, exists separately.

The Vedas contain declarations of both kinds, viz., they urge to action as also to abstention from action. The former is necessary as a stepping stone to the latter. Such men are rare as understand the declarations of the Vedas in this way and as conform by their conduct to those declarations thus. What is seen, on the other hand, is that some betake themselves to acts and some to abstention from acts. The second line of the verse has been expanded a little in the translation, following Nilakantha's gloss.

Deha-yapanam means destruction of the connection the body has with the soul. In the second line, the performance of acts is prescribed only as a preparation, for they contribute to purity of the Soul. Acts should not, the speaker says, be performed from desire of fruit, viz., heaven, by one desirous of Emancipation. K.P. Singha omits the first line of the verse, but gives the sense of the second line correctly. The Burdwan translator mis-understands the gloss he quotes and makes nonsense of the verse.

Vipakram is explained by Nilakantha as pakahinam; and apakvakashayakhyam as apakva-kashaye pumsi akhya upadesah yasya lam etc.

Anuplavan is anusaran; akramya means upamridya.

Vijnana here means the loss or absence of knowledge.

Yathartham, i.e., for the true objects of life, viz., for acting righteously and accomplishing emancipation.

At first there was only jiva or the Soul having knowledge alone for its attribute. When it became clothed with Ignorance, the universe sprang up around it. Consciousness is due to that union of the Soul with Ignorance. Hence, all things rest on Consciousness, and Consciousness is the root of all sorrow.

The sense of this verse seems to be this: if all things rest on Consciousness which is an attribute of Ignorance or Delusion, why then this uniformity instead of the irregularity that characterises all perceptions in dreams? The answer is that the uniformity is the result of past acts, of acts which are due to Consciousness. These produce uniformity of perceptions even as time, subject to its own laws, produces the phenomena of the seasons with uniformity.

I have expanded the last line for bringing out the meaning of the word nasyati clearly. Of course, I follow Nilakantha's explanation of the simile.

In the Srutis it is said that Brahma has two attributes, Vidya (Knowledge), and Avidya (Ignorance) with Maya (delusion). It is in consequence of this Maya that chit-souls or jivas become attached to worldly things. It is in consequence of this Maya that persons, even when they understand that all is nought, cannot totally dissociate themselves from them.

Mana is explained by the commentator as worship of one's own self; Darpa is freedom from all restraints; and Ahankara is a complete disregard of others and centering all thoughts on ones own self. Here Ahankara is not Consciousness.

Kritalakshanah is explained by the Commentator as Kritaswikarah.

The force of the simile lies in this: Prakriti binds Kshetrajna or the Soul and obliges it to take birth, etc. Women are Prakriti, men are Souls. As the Soul should seek to avoid the contact of Prakriti and strive for emancipation, even so should men seek to avoid women. It should be added that women, in almost all the dialects of India derived from Sanskrit, are commonly called Prakriti or symbols of Prakriti, thus illustrating the extraordinary popularity of the philosophical doctrine about Prakriti and Purusha.

Kritya is mantra-power or the efficacy of Atharvan rites. What is said here is that women are as frightful as Atharvan rites which can bring destruction upon even unseen foes. Rajasi antarhitah means that they are sunk so completely in that attribute as to become invisible, i.e., completely enveloped by that attribute.

The sense is this: parasitical vermin spring from sweat and other filth emitted by the body. Children spring from the vital seed. In the former case, it is Swabhava (nature) that supplies the active energy. In the latter, the undying influence of previous acts and propensities supply the active force. One's offspring, therefore, are like parasitical vermin on one's body. Wisdom should teach disregard or indifference for either.

This is a repetition of what has been asserted in various forms before. Rajas (passion) is the cause of Pravritti or propensity for acts. Sattwa (goodness) is enlightenment or the higher aspirations that lead to Brahma. Both rest on Tamas (Darkness), the first immediately, the last mediately. Chit or Jiva is pure Knowledge. When overtaken by Tamas or Avyakta, it becomes clothed with that existence which is called life or which we realise in the world, the conditions of that life being Consciousness and Intelligence.

The Chit or Soul is all-Knowledge. When overspread with Ignorance or Darkness, it becomes manifested by Intelligence and Consciousness, i.e., assumes a form or body. Knowledge overspread by Darkness, therefore, or Knowledge with the attributes of Intelligence and Consciousness, is the cause of Chit or soul or Jiva assuming a body. Such knowledge, therefore, is called the seed of the body. Then, again, the tadvijam (the second expression), i.e., the foundation on which knowledge overspread by ignorance (or knowledge with the attributes of intelligence and consciousness) rests, is, of course, pure Knowledge or chit or jiva or Soul as it existed before life. It is only another form of repeating a statement made several times before. Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood the last half of the second line.

The meaning, of course, is that while in the mother's womb, the Soul remembers the acts of past lives, and those acts influence and determine the growth of its senses as also the character it will display in its new life.

I do not follow Nilakantha in his grammatical exposition of the second line. That exposition seems to be very far-fetched. Besides tebhyah tyagat for tesham tyagat is no violence to grammar, the use of the ablative in this sense not being infrequent in these writings.

Women have before (vide verse 9 of this section) been said to be the embodiment of the senses and as antarhitah in Rajas or Passion. The senses, therefore, are, it is concluded here, originated in Rajas. By the destruction, again, of Rajas, they may be destroyed. What is wanted, therefore, is the conquest of Rajas or Passion. This may be effected with the aid of the eye whose vision has been sharpened by scriptural knowledge.

After indriyartham, as explained by the commentator, prapyapi is understood. There are two classes of indriyas, viz., those of knowledge and those for the performance of acts. Escapes the obligation of rebirth, i.e., attains to Emancipation.

Arthasamanyam is explained by Nilakantha as Phalasamyam Mokshakhyam niratisayam. The Burdwan translator, while using the very words of the commentator, mistranslates this verse: The speaker desires to show the difference between the religion of Pravritti or acts and that of Nivritti or abstention from acts. Those that follow the former cannot attain to Emancipation. What they gain are certain good qualities mentioned in the next verse, which, however, are equally gained by the followers of the religion of Nivritti.

The vow of Krichcchra consists of certain fasts. Pass three days in water, i.e., stand in tank or stream with water up to the chin.

The three Riks begin with Ritancha, Satyancha etc. Every Brahmana who knows his morning and evening prayers knows these three Riks well.

"With the aid of the mind" means yoga. Dehakarma means one whose acts are undertaken only for the purpose of sustaining the body, i.e., one who does no act that is not strictly necessary for supporting life; hence, as the commentator explains, one who is free from all propensities leading to external objects. Manovaham Pranan nudan, i.e., bringing to sending the vital breaths to the duct called Manovaha or Sushumna. Though a physical act, its accomplishment becomes possible only by a long course of penances consisting in the withdrawal of the mind from external objects. "Reducing the (three) attributes to a state of uniformity," as explained by the commentator, means arriving at Nirvikalpa, i.e., at that state of knowledge which is independent of the senses.

The Knowledge here spoken of is that knowledge which is independent of the senses. What the speaker says is that such Knowledge is no myth but is sure to arise. When it arises, its possessor comes to know that the external world, etc., is only the mind transformed, like the sights seen and sounds heard and thoughts cherished in a dream. In the second line the results of that knowledge are declared. The mind of a Mahatma is mantra-siddha, i.e., has won success by the meditation of the initial mantra, or om; it is nitya, i.e., eternal, meaning probably that though the result of Maya or Avidya, it is no longer subject to rebirth; it is virajas, i.e., free from desire and passion, and lastly it is Jyotishmat or luminous, meaning Omniscient and Omnipotent. The commentator cites a passage from Vasishtha's treatise on yoga which declares the same results as consequent on the attainment of Knowledge. It is, of course, implied that in attaining to such a state, the mind as mind must be destroyed or merged into the Soul and the Soul, with knowledge only for its attribute, must exist. In the previous verse emancipation after death has been spoken of. In this jivan-mukti or emancipation in life is referred to.

"Freeing oneself from the attributes of Passion and Darkness", i.e., by practising the religion of abstention from acts.

Adatte from da meaning to cut or destroy. Manasam volam as explained by the commentator, is sankalpam, i.e., desires or purposes. The man of ripe understanding, by doing this, attains to that knowledge which is not subject to decay with age. Hence, such knowledge is superior to knowledge acquired in the ordinary way.

Compassion may sometimes lead to excess of attachment, as in the case of Bharata towards his little deer. The universe is the result of acts because acts determine the character of the life the soul assumes. In the case of Bharata, he was obliged to take birth as a deer in his next life in consequence of all his thoughts in the previous life having been centred on a deer.

K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse. Tat should be supplied before asnute; there is redundant va in the first line. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.

The buddhi here referred to is intelligence cleansed by scriptures. Samahitam manak is, as explained by the commentator, mind freed from anger and malice, etc., i.e., properly trained.

One should not covet, etc., like kingdoms and thrones in the case of ordinary men. "Non-existent objects," such as sons and wives that are dead or that are unborn or unwed.

Samsara, as explained by the commentator, means both this and the other world. It is bound in speech in this sense, viz., that whatever is spoken is never destroyed and affects permanently both the speaker and the listener, so that not only in one life, but in the infinite course of lives, the speaker will be affected for good or for evil by the words that escape his lips. This fully accords with the discovery of modern science, so eloquently and poetically enunciated by Babbage, of the indestructibility of force or energy when once applied. How appalling is the sanction (which is not a myth) under which evil speaking is forbidden.

Such self-disclosure destroys the effects of those acts and prevents their recurrence.

Robbers laden with booty are always in danger of seizure. Even so unintelligent men bearing the burdens of life are always liable to destruction.

Nishpraiharena means Niruddhena as explained by the commentator.

I adopt the reading prakasela and the interpretation that Nilakantha puts upon it.

K.P. Singha translates these words very carelessly. The Burdwan translator, by following the commentator closely, has produced a correct version. Kulmasha means ripe grains or seeds of the Phaselous radiatus. Pinyaka is the cake of mustard seed or sesamum after the oil has been pressed out. Yavaka means unripe barley, or, as the commentator explains, raw barley powdered and boiled in hot water.

What is meant by the first line of the verse is this. The Soul had, before the creation, only Knowledge for its attribute. When Ignorance or Delusion, proceeding from Supreme Brahma, took possession of it, the Soul became an ordinary creature, i.e., consciousness, mind, etc., resulted. This Ignorance, therefore, established itself upon Knowledge and transformed the original character of the Soul. What is stated in the second line is that ordinary knowledge which follows the lead of the understanding is affected by ignorance, the result of which is that the Soul takes those things that really spring from itself to be things different from itself and possessing an independent existence.

The correct reading, I apprehend, is upagatasprihah and not apagatasprihah. Nilakantha is silent. All that he says is that the first verse has reference to 'yogins,' the second to yogins and 'non-yogins' alike. Both the vernacular translators adhere to apagatasprihah.

I expand verse 8 a little for giving its meaning more clearly than a literal version would yield. All the impressions, it is said here, in dreams, are due either to the impressions of this life or those received by, the mind in the countless lives through which it has passed. All those impressions, again, are well-known to the Soul though memory may not retain them. Their reappearance in dreams is due to the action of the Soul which calls them up from the obscurity in which they are concealed. Avisena's theory of nothing being ever lost that is once acquired by the mind and the recollection of a past impression being, due to a sudden irradiation of the divine light, was, it seems, borrowed from Hindu philosophy.

The sense is this: a particular attribute among the three, viz., Goodness or Passion or Darkness, is brought to the mind by the influence of past acts of either this or any previous life. That attribute immediately affects the mind in a definite way. The result of this is that the elements in their subtile forms actually produce the images that correspond with or appertain to the affecting attribute and the manner in which it affects the mind.

Nothing less than yoga can discard or destroy them, for they really spring from desires generated by past acts.

The Bombay reading Manohrishyan is better.

Both the external and the internal worlds are due to Consciousness, which, in its turn, arises from delusion affecting the Soul. That which is called the Mind is only a product of the Soul. The world both external and internal, is only the result of Mind as explained in previous sections. Hence the Mind exists in all things. What is meant by all things existing in the Soul is that the Soul is omniscient and he who succeeds in knowing the Soul wins omniscience.

The body is called the door of dreams because the body is the result of past acts, and dreams cannot take place till the Soul, through past acts, becomes encased in a body. What is meant by the body disappearing in the mind is that in dreamless slumber the mind no longer retains any apprehension of the body. The body being thus lost in the mind, the mind (with the body lost in it) enters the Soul, or becomes withdrawn into it. Nidarsanam is explained as Nischitadarsanam Sakshirupam. The sense of the verse is that in dreamless slumber the senses are withdrawn into the mind; the mind becomes withdrawn into the Soul. It is the Soul alone that then lives in its state of original purity, consciousness and all things which proceed from it disappearing at the time.

i.e., the mind becoming pure, he gains omniscience and omnipotence.

The Burdwan translator, using the very words of Nilakantha, jumbles them wrongly together and makes utter nonsense of both the original and the gloss.

Brahma cannot, as the commentator properly explains, be seized like a creature by the horns. All that one can do is to explain its nature by reason and analogy. It can be comprehended only in the way indicated, i.e., by Pratyahara.

The commentator thinks that the Rishi alluded to in this verse is Narayana, the companion and friend of Nara, both of whom had their retreat on the heights of Vadari where Vyasa afterwards settled himself. Tattwa here does not, the commentator thinks, mean a topic of discourse but that which exists in original purity and does not take its colour or form from the mind. Anaropitam rupam yasya tat.

The religion of Pravritti consists of acts. It cannot liberate one from rebirth. The whole chain of existences, being the result of acts, rests upon the religion of Pravritti. The religion of Nivritti, on the other hand, or abstention from acts, leads to Emancipation or Brahma.

Nidarsarkah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to drashtum ichcchan.

Avyakta or Unmanifest is Prakriti or primordial matter both gross and subtile. That which transcends both Prakriti and Purusha is, of course the Supreme Soul or Brahma. Visesham, is explained by the commentator as 'distinguished from everything else by its attributes.'

i.e., as the commentator explains, Purusha is non-creating and transcends the three attributes.

Asamhatau is explained by the commentator as atyantaviviktau. Purushau implies the two Purushas, i.e., the 'Chit-Soul' and the Supreme Soul.

The four topics are these: the points of resemblance between Prakriti and Purusha, the points of difference between them: the points of resemblance between Purusha and Iswara; and the points of difference between them. The four considerations that cover these topics are absence of beginning and end, existence as chit and in animation, distinction from all other things, and the notion of activity.

Yoginastam prapasyanti bhagavantam santanam--even this is what people always say to yoga and yogins.

The commentator in a long note explains that what is really implied by this verse is that one should betake oneself to some sacred spot such as Kasi for casting off one's life there. Death at Kasi is sure to lead to Emancipation, for the theory is that Siva himself becomes the instructor and leads one to that high end.

When divested of Rajas, i.e., freed from the senses and the propensities derived from their indulgence.

Adehat is explained by the commentator as Dehapatat. Dehantat applies to the destruction of all the three bodies. By the destruction (after death) of the gross body is meant escape from the obligation of rebirth. The karana body is a subtiler form of existence than the Linga-sarira: it is, of course, existence; Prakriti as mentioned in verse 21.

Paropratyasarge means on the rise of a knowledge of Brahma. Niyati is Necessity, in consequence of which jiva goes through an endless wheel of existences; Bhavantaprabhavaprajna is bhavanamanta-prabhavayorevaprajna yesham. The object of the verse is to show that such mistaken persons as take the body, the senses, etc., and all which are not-Self, to be Self, are always taken up with the idea that things die and are born, but that there is nothing like emancipation or a complete escape from rebirth.

'By the aid of patience' is explained by the commentator as without leaving their seats and changing the yoga attitude, etc. 'Withdrawing themselves from the world of senses' means attaining to a state that is perfectly independent of the senses and, therefore, of all external objects. 'Adore the senses in consequence of their subtility,' as explained by the commentator, is thinking of Prana and the Indriyas as Self or Soul. I do not understand how this amounts to the statement that such yogins attain to Brahma.

'Proceeding according to (the stages indicated in) the scriptures' alludes to the well-known verses in the Gita, beginning with Indriyebhyah parahyartha, etc. The several stages, as mentioned in those verses, are as follows: Superior to the senses are their objects. Superior to the objects is the mind. Superior to the mind is the understanding. Superior to the understanding is the Soul. Superior to the Soul is the Unmanifest. Superior to the Unmanifest is Purusha (Brahma). There is nothing above Purusha. Dehantam is explained as that which is superior to Avyakta or Unmanifest, hence Brahma or Purusha.

A flash of lightning repeatedly realised becomes a mass of blazing light. Perhaps this is intended by the speaker.

In the Bengal texts, verse 28 is a triplet. In the second line the correct reading is Dehantam.

Mara, Prakriti, and Purusha, or Effects, their material Cause, and the Supreme Soul.

Nanapashandavashinah is another reading which is noticed by the commentator. It is explained as 'censurers of diverse sects of Lokayatikas.'

Panchasrotas implies the mind which is said to have five currents.

These are the annamaya, the pranamaya, the manomaya, the vijnanamaya, and the anandamaya. For particulars, vide Wilson's Dict.

The verb used is nyavedayat, literally, 'represented,' i.e., 'started' for discourse, or enquired into. The Burdwan translator renders it 'exposed' or 'promulgated,' which, I think, is incorrect.

The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder by supposing that Asuri obtained this knowledge in consequence of the questions of his disciple. The fact is, samprishtah, as correctly explained the commentator, means samyak prishta prasno yasya. K.P. Singha avoids the error.

Kutumvini means a matron or the wife of a house-holder.

Either Markandeya or Sanatkumara, according to the commentator.

I slightly expand Sarvanirvedam according to the explanation given by Nilakantha. The Sankhya doctrine proceeds upon the hypothesis that all states of life imply sorrow. To find a remedy for this, i.e., to permanently escape all sorrow, is the end of that philosophy.