Book 12 edition notes 801–900

These are the characteristics of that Delusion under which man takes birth in this world and goes on living till he can permanently conquer all sorrow.

The construction of the first foot is Atmano mrityuh Anatma, meaning the Soul's death (or that which is called death) is the Soul's extinction. Verse 24 recites the opinion of the Sceptics, not that of the speaker. K.P. Singha mistranslates the verse. The Burdwan translator renders it correctly.

This and all the following verses are statements of the sceptic's arguments.

Verse 29 is highly terse. The words are grammatically unconnected with one another. Only a few substantives have been used. These represent the heads of the different arguments urged by sceptics for showing the non-existence of anything besides the body which is seen and felt. I have, of course, followed the commentator in his elaboration of the sense of the verse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right.

Some idea may be formed by the English reader of the extreme terseness of these verses by attending to the elaborations contained within the parentheses above. The exigencies of English grammar as also of perspicuity have obliged me to use, even in the portions unenclosed, more words than what occur in the original Sanskrit. All these verses are cruces intended to stagger Ganesa.

Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. This fact is, without clearly understanding either the text or the gloss, they have used bits of the gloss without being able to convey any intelligible idea. The gloss sometimes requires gloss to make it intelligible. The commentator says that the theory of rebirth mentioned in verse 34 is that of the Sugatas or Buddhists. That theory is refuted in verse 35. The objection to the Buddhistic theory is that mere ignorance and karma cannot explain rebirth. There must be an indestructible Soul. This the Buddhists do not allow, for they believe that Nirvana or annihilation is possible. The argument, as sketched, proceeds in this way: the being that is the result of the rebirth is apparently a different being. What right have we to assert its identity with the being that existed before? Ignorance and karma cannot _create_ a Soul though they may affect the surroundings of the Soul in its new birth. The objections to the Buddhistic theory became clear in the verses that follow.

The sense is this: it is never seen in the world that the acts of one person affect for good or for evil another person. If Chaitra exposes himself to the night air, Maitra never catches cold for it. This direct evidence should settle the controversy about the unseen, viz., whether the acts of one in a previous life can affect another in a subsequent life if there be no identity between the two beings in two lives.

It is needless to say that I have considerably elaborated the second line of the verse, as a literal rendering would have been entirely unintelligible. For example's sake I give that rendering; "That which is separate Consciousness is also different. That from which it is, does not recommend self."

If (as has already been said) the second Consciousness be the resulting effect of the loss or destruction itself of the previous Consciousness, then destruction is not annihilation, and, necessarily, after Nirvana has been once attained, there may be a new Consciousness or new birth, and, thus, after having again attained to Nirvana the same result may follow. The Buddhistic Nirvana, therefore, cannot lead to that final Emancipation which is indicated into the Brahmanical scriptures.

The Buddhists then, according to this argument, are not at all benefited by asserting the existence of a permanent Soul unto which each repeated Consciousness may inhere. The Soul, according to the Brahmanical scriptures, has no attributes or possessions. It is eternal, immutable, and independent of all attributes. The affirmance of attributes with respect to the Soul directly leads to the inference of its destructibility, and hence the assertion of its permanency or indestructibility under such conditions is a contradiction in terms, according to what is urged in this verse.

The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to point out that the senses, when destroyed, merge into their productive causes or the substances of which they are attributes. Of course, those causes or substances are the elements or primordial matter. This leads to the inference that though attributes may meet with destruction, yet the substances (of which they are attributes) may remain intact. This may save the Buddhist doctrine, for the Soul, being permanent and owing consciousness, etc., for its attributes, may outlive, like primordial matter, the destruction of its attributes. But the speaker urges that this doctrine is not philosophical and the analogy will not hold. Substance is conjunction of attributes. The attributes being destroyed, the substance also is destroyed. In European philosophy too, matter, as an unknown essence to which extension, divisibility, etc., inhere, is no longer believed in or considered as scientific.

Here the speaker attacks the orthodox Brahmanical doctrine of the character of the Soul.

Possibly because they art based on Revelation.

The first five are the effects of intelligence; the vital breaths, of wind; and the juices and humours, of stomachic heat.

Intelligence is called avyaya because it leads to Emancipation which is such. It is also called mahat because of its power to lead to Brahma which is mahat. Tattwanischaya is called the seed of Emancipation because it leads to Emancipation.

That path consists of yoga.

By casting off the mind one casts off the five organs of action. By casting off the understanding, one casts off the organs of knowledge with the mind.

i.e., in each of these operations three causes must exist together.

The inference is that the functions being destroyed, the organs are destroyed, and the mind also is destroyed, or, the mind being destroyed, all are destroyed.

The commentator correctly explains that na in nanuparyeta is the nom. sing. of nri (man), meaning here, of course, the dreamer. Nilakantha's ingenuity is certainly highly commendable.

Uparamam is yugapadbhavasya uchcchedam or extinction of the state of association of the Soul with the understanding, the mind, and the senses. This dissociation of the Soul from the understanding, etc., is, of course, Emancipation. Emancipation, however, being eternal, the temporary dissociation of the soul from the understanding, etc., which is the consequence of dreamless sleep, is the result of Tamas or Darkness. That dissociation is certainly a kind of felicity, but then it differs from the felicity of Emancipation, which is everlasting, and which is not experienced in the gross body.

In this verse the speaker points out that the felicity of Emancipation may at first sight seem to be like the felicity of dreamless sleep, but that is only an error. In reality, the former is untouched or unstained by darkness. Na krichechramanupasyati is the reading I take, meaning "in which no one sees the slightest tincture of sorrow." The kind of sorrow referred to is the sorrow of duality or consciousness of knower and known. In Emancipation, of course, there cannot be any consciousness of duality. Both the vernacular versions are thoroughly unmeaning.

In this verse the speaker again points out the similarity between dreamless sleep and Emancipation. In both swakarmapratyayah Gunah is discarded. Gunah, as explained by Nilakantha, means here the whole range of subjective and objective existences from Consciousness to gross material objects, swakarmapratyayah means karmahetu kavirbhava, i.e., having acts for the cause of their manifestation; this refers to the theory of rebirth on account of past acts.

The sense of the verse is this: all creatures are perceived to exist. That existence is due to the well-known cause constituted by Avidya and desire and acts. They exist also in such a way as to display a union between the body and Soul. For all common purposes of life we treat creatures that we perceive to be really existing. The question then that arises is--which (the body or the Soul) is destructible?--We cannot answer this question in any way we like, like for swaswato va katham uchcchedavan, bhavet (i.e., how can the Soul, Which is said by the learned to be Eternal, be regarded as destructible?) Vartamaneshu should be treated as, Laukikavyavareshu. Uchcchedah is, of course, equivalent to Uchcchedavan.

i.e., the gross body disappears in the subtile; the subtile into the karana (potential) form of existence; and this last into the Supreme Soul.

Merit and sin, and with them their effects in the form of happiness and misery both here and hereafter, are said to be destroyed when men become unattached to everything and practise the religion of abstention or nivritti. The paraphrase of the second line is asaktah alepamakasam asthaya mahati alingameva pacyanti. Alepamakasam asthaya is explained by the commentator as Sagunam Brahma asthaya.

Urnanabha is generic term for all worms that weave threads from within their bellies. It does not always mean the spider. Here, it implies a silk-worm. The analogy then becomes complete.

Nipatatyasaktah is wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly but takes nipatali for utpatati.

Samudayah is explained by the commentator as equivalent to hetu.

Giving food and clothes to the poor and needy in times of scarcity is referred to.

The reading I adopt is Vrataluvdhah. If, however, the Bengal reading vrataluplah be adopted, the meaning would be "such men are deceived by their vows," the sense being that though acquiring heaven and the other objects of their desire, yet they fall down upon exhaustion of their merit and never attain to what is permanent, viz., emancipation, which is attainable by following the religion of nivritti only.

The object of Bhishma's two answers is to show that the giving of pain to others (sacrificing animals) is censurable, and the giving of pain to one's own self is equally censurable.

Existence comes into being and ceases. Non-existence also comes into being and ceases. This is the grammatical construction. The words, of course, imply only the appearance and disappearance of all kinds of phenomena.

This refers to the theory set forth in the previous sections about the Soul's real inactivity amidst its seeming activity in respect of all acts.

The Burdwan translator renders the second line as "six thousand Gandharvas used to dance before thee seven kinds of dance."

Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse. A samya is explained as a little wooden cane measuring about six and thirty fingers breadth in altitude. What Vali did was to go round the Earth (anuparyagah, i.e., parihrityagatavan) throwing or hurling a samya. When thrown from a particular point by a strong man, the samya clears a certain distance. This space is called a Devayajana. Vali went round the globe, performing sacrifices upon each such Devayajana.

Pravyaharaya is explained by the commentator as prakrishtokaye.

I follow Nilakantha's gloss in rendering this verse. Hatam is explained as nirjivam deham, i.e., the body divested of Soul. He who slays another is himself slain, means that a person who regards his own self as the slayer is steeped in ignorance, for the Soul is never an actor. By thinking that he is the actor a person invests his Soul with the attributes of the body and the senses. Such a man (as already said) is Hatah or slain (i.e., steeped in ignorance). Comparing this with verse 19 of Sec. 11 of the Gita, we find that the same thing is asserted therein a slightly different way. 'He who regards the Soul as the slayer and he who regards it as slain are both mistaken. The Soul does not slay nor is slain.'

Compare this with the saying usually credited to Napoleon that St. Helena was written in the book of Fate.

The original, if literally rendered, would be 'Time cooks everything.'

Bhujyante is explained by the commentator as equivalent to palyante or samhriyante.

Brahma is indestructible as jiva or Soul, and is destructible as displayed in the form of not-Self.

I expand verse 50 for giving its sense as a literal version would be unintelligible.

One that is borne with great difficulty.

Literally, the desire for action; hence abundance or plenty that is the result of action or labour.

All these names imply plenty and prosperity.

i.e., with hands not washed after rising from his meals or while going on with his meals.

The commentator explains that according to the Pauranic theory, the world stands all around the mountains of Meru. The region of Brahman stands on its top. The Sun travels round Meru and shines over all the directions or points of the compass. This happens in the age called the Vaivaswata Manwantara (the age or epoch of Manu the son of Vivaswat). But after the lapse of this age, when the Savarnika Manwantara comes, the sun will shine upon only the region on the top of Meru, and all around there will be darkness.

i.e., all things are destructible instead of being eternal.

The commentator explains that Hridyam means Hritstham swarupam. By Kalyanam, of course, Moksha or Emancipation is intended.

As explained in previous verses, one striving to attain Emancipation must set himself to yoga. As a consequence of yoga, one acquires (without wishing for them) many wonderful powers. The accomplishment of one's objects then follows as a matter of course.

The sense is this: a wise man never regards himself as the actor; and hence never feels sorrow. Whatever sorrow overtakes him he views unmoved and takes it as the result of what had been ordained. Not so the foolish man. He deems himself to be the actor and looks upon sorrow as the result of his own acts. Hence, he cannot view it unmoved. Sorrow, therefore, lies in one's regarding oneself as the actor; the true view being that one instead of being an actor is only an instrument in the hands of the great Ordainer.

The object of this verse is to show that right conclusions in respect of duties are very rare.

This is a hard hit, The listener, viz., Indra, had violated, under circumstances of the most wicked deception, the chastity of Gautama's spouse Ahalya. Gautama had to punish his wife by converting her into a stone. This punishment, however, reacted upon Gautama inasmuch as it put a stop to his leading any longer a life of domesticity. In spite of such a dire affliction Gautama did not suffer his cheerfulness to depart from his heart. The effect of the allusion is to tell Indra that the speaker is not like him but like Gautama, i.e., that Namuchi was not the slave of his passions but that he was the master of his senses and the heart.

The we here is the pronoun of dignity, applying to the speaker only and not to both the speaker and the listener.

The sentence is an interrogative one. The Burdwan translator mistakes the meaning. K.P. Singha is correct.

These things had not happened for many days in consequence of the wickedness of the Asuras. With the victory of Indra, sacrifices returned, and with them universal peace.

The words are Dhruvadwarabhavam. The commentator is silent. Probably a Himalayan Pass. The vernacular translators think it is the region of the Pole-star that is intended. Dhruva is a name of Brahman the Creator. It may mean, therefore, the river as it issues out of Brahman's loka or region. The Pauranic myth is that issuing from the foot of Vishnu, the stream enters the Kamandalu of Brahman and thence to the earth.

The reader of Lord Lytton's works may, in this connection, be reminded of the discourse between Mejnour and the neophyte introduced to him by Zanoni, in course of their evening rambles over the ridges of the Appenines.

K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.

It is difficult to give to non-Hindu people the idea of what is uchchhishta. The hand becomes uchchhishta when set to food that is being eaten. Without washing that hand with pure water, it is never used by a Hindu for doing any work. The food that remains in a dish after some portion of it has been eaten is uchchhishta. The idea is particular to Hinduism and is not to be seen among other races or peoples in the world.

Yavasa is pasture grass.

Payasa is a kind of pudding prepared of rice boiled in sugared milk. Krisara is milk, sesamum, and rice. Sashkuli is a sort of pie, made of rice or barley boiled in sugared water.

No merit attaches to the act of feeding an illiterate person.

The correct reading is Vyabhajat. The Bengal reading vyabhayat would imply a tautology, for the second line would then give the same meaning as the first.

Everything else liable to be affected by primordial nature. Only the Supreme Soul cannot be affected. Hence, Brahma is often said to be "above Prakriti." Prakriti, here, is of course used in its largest sense.

The second line of verse 8, and the last clause of the first line of verse 9, are wrongly rendered by both the vernacular translators. K.P. Singha omits certain portions, while the Burdwan translator, as usual, writes nonsense. The verb is nihnuvanti, meaning 'conceal': i.e., 'do not brag of.' The verb vadishyanti is to be repeated after ahite hitam. For hitam ahitam may be read by way of antithesis.

K.P. Singha mistranslates this verse.

The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word anavajnata. K.P. Singha skips over it.

The sense is this: though really unattached, he seems to be attached. In this there is especial merit. A man doing the duties of a householder, without, however, being attached to wife and children and possessions, is a very superior person. Such a one has been compared to a lotus leaf, which, when dipped in water, is never soaked or drenched by it. Some, seeing the difficulty of the combat, fly away. In this there is little merit. To face all objects of desire, to enjoy them, but all the while to remain so unattached to them as not to feel the slightest pang if dissociated from them, is more meritorious.

Kalajnanena nishthitam are the words of the original. Vyasa's answer is taken up with assigning limits to the successive periods of Creation and Non-existence, or the durations of Brahman's wakeful and sleeping periods.

Agre is explained by the commentator as srishteh prak.

The Krita extends in all for 4,800 years. The Treta for 3,600; the Dwapara for 2,400; and the Kali for 1,200. These are, however, the years of the deities. Verses 15-17 and 20-21 occur in Manusmriti, Chapter 1.

This verse occurs in Manusmriti, corresponding with 81 of Chapter 1. The reading, however, in Manusmriti, is slightly different, for the last clause is Manushyanpavartate. In rendering verse 23, I take this reading and follow Medhatithi's gloss. If Nilakantha's gloss and the reading in both the Bengal and the Bombay texts be followed, the passage would run thus,--"No instruction or precept of that age ran along unrighteous ways, since that was the foremost of all ages." Nilakantha explains parah as sa cha parah. K.P. Singha skips over the difficulty and the Burdwan translator, as usual, gives an incorrect version.

The total comes up to 12,000 years. These constitute a Devayuga. At thousand Devayugas compose a day of Brahman. Verse 28 occurs in Manusmriti, Chapter 1.

The reader who has gone through the previous Sections can have no difficulty in understanding this. The external world is nothing but Mind transformed. Mind, therefore, is spoken of here as Vyaktatmaka or that which is the soul of the vyakta or that is manifest, or that which is the vyakta, or between which and the vyakta there is no difference whatever. Some of the Bengal texts do not conclude Section 231 with the 32nd verse but go on and include the whole of the 232nd Section in it. This, however, is not to be seen in the Bombay texts as also in some of the texts of Bengal that I have seen.

Tejomayam is explained by the commentator as Vasanamayam or having the principle of desire or wish within it, otherwise Creation could not take place. Yasya is used for yatah.

By Mahat is meant Pure or Subtile Intelligence. The Manifest starts into existence from Mind or has Mind for its soul. Hence, as explained in previous Sections, Mind is called Vyaktatmakam.

These seven great Beings or entities are Mahat, the same speedily transformed into Mind, and the five elemental entities of Space, etc.

Verses 4, 5, 6 and 7 occur in Manusmriti, corresponding with the latter's 75, 76, 77 and 78 of Chapter 1.

Chit or Jiva is called Purusha or resider in body, because when overlaid with Avidya by the Supreme Soul, it is not possible for it to exist in any other way than by being invested with a covering or case made of primordial matter determined by the power of acts. Here, however, it means limbs or avayavam.

What is stated in verse 10, 11 and 12 is this: the seven great entities, in their gross form, are unable, if separate, to produce anything. They, therefore, combine with one another. Thus uniting, they first form the asrayanam of sarira i.e., the constituent parts of the body. They, at this stage, must be known by the name of Purusha of avayava, i.e., mere limbs. When these limbs again unite, then murtimat shodasatmakam sartram bhavati, i.e., the full body, possessed of form and having the six and ten attributes, comes into existence. Then the subtile Mahat and the subtile bhutas, with the unexhausted residue of acts, enter it. The plural form 'mahanti' is used because, as the commentator explains, 'pratipurusham mahatadinam bhinnatwapratipadanertham,' i.e., the same 'mahat,' by entering each different form apparently becomes many. Thus there are two bodies, one gross, and the other subtile called 'linga-sarira.' The residue of acts is thus explained: all creatures enjoy or suffer the effects of their good and bad acts. If, however, the consequences of acts, good and bad, be all exhausted, there can be no rebirth. A residue, therefore, remains in consequence of which rebirth becomes possible. Creation and destruction, again, are endlessly going on. The beginning of the _first_ Creation is inconceivable. The Creation here described is one of a series. This is further explained in the verses that follow.

The six and ten parts are the five gross bhutas, and the eleven senses of knowledge and action including mind. The great creatures are the tan-mantras of the gross elements, i.e., their subtile forms. At first the gross body (with the principle of growth) is formed, into it enters the subtile body or the linga-sarira. At first (as already said) the gross elements come together. Then the subtile ones with the residue of acts. Then enters the Soul which is Brahma itself. The Soul enters into the subtile form for witnessing, or surveying. All creatures are only manifestations of that Soul due to the accident of Avidya or Maya. Tapas means, as the commentator explains, alochana.

i.e., this variety of Being and this variety of relations.

Anubhe is explained as ubhayavyatiriktam. Sattwasthas are those that depend upon the really existent, i.e., those that regard Brahma as the sole cause competent for the production of all effects.

It is exceedingly difficult to understand the true meaning of these verses. A verbal translation is not calculated to bring out the sense. Apparently, the statement that all things are contained in the Vedas is nonsense. In reality, however, what is intended to be said is that as the Vedas are Speech or Words, the Creator had to utter words symbolizing his ideas before creating anything. It is remarkable that there is a close resemblance between the spirit of the first chapter of Genesis with what is contained in the Srutis on the subject of Creation. Let there be Earth, and there was Earth, says the inspired poet of Genesis. Nilakantha cites exactly similar words from the Srutis as those which Brahman uttered for creating the Earth, such as, Bhuriti vyaharau as Bhumimasrijat. Then the four modes of life with the duties of each, the modes of worship, etc., were also indicated, hence, all acts also are in the Vedas which represent the words of Brahma.

All things are Sujata or well-made by him. In Genesis it is said that God uttered particular words and particular objects sprang into existence, and He saw that they were good.

The first line contains only technical terms. Nama means Rigveda. Hence, it stands for study of all the Vedas. Bheda stands for half, i.e., for the wife, who must be associated with her husband in all religious acts. Tapah is penance; hence it stands for all kinds of observances like chandrayana, and modes of life, vanaprastha, etc. Karma means such acts as the saying of morning and evening prayers, etc. Yama is sacrifice like jyotishtoma etc. Akhya means such acts as lead to good fame, like the digging of tanks, the making of roads, etc. Aloka, meaning meditation, is of three kinds. Lastly, comes Siddhi, meaning that emancipation which is arrived at by one during this life. The instrumental plural kramaih should be construed as dasabhih karmaih namadibhi sahita Vedeshu prechate. K.P. Singha has correctly rendered the verse, omitting reference to Siddhi. The Burdwan translator has totally misunderstood it.

Gahanam is explained by the commentator as duravagaham Brahma; vedavadeshu means, according to him, the rites and observances laid down in the Vedas. It is better, however, to take it literally, i.e., for the words of the Vedas. Vedanteshu means 'in the Upanishads,' which come _after_ the Vedas, Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse.

This verse is, no doubt, pleonastic. The commentator interprets it in the way I have rendered it. Yathadharmam, according to him, means 'without transgressing acts and duties consistent with virtue'; yathagamam means 'following the authority of the scriptures'; vikriyate implies 'do from motives of advantage and gain.' The sense seems to be that in the three other yugas, men, without absolutely abandoning virtue, perform good acts and Vedic sacrifices and rites and scriptural vows and observances, from motives of low gain and not as a Preparation for Emancipation. Thus even in the Kali age, Vedic rites are not absolutely unknown. The motive, however, from which these are undertaken is connected with some low or sordid gain.

Samayah sthanam matam; sa eva bhutani bhavati; sa eva tan dadhati. This is the construction, as explained by the commentator.

From what has been said in the previous Sections, the reader will have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by abhivyaktatmakam manah. It is mind that is the essence of all that is abhivyakta or manifest. That mind swallows up the attribute of Space. Hence it is avyaktam, that swallows up the manaso vyaktam. This swallowing up is Brahmah sampratisancharah or destruction of the outward universe in its manifest vastness. The commentator gives the substance of the verse in these words: manahkalpito virat manasi eva liyate. From the verses that follow it would seem that the object of this section is to describe the yogin's pratyahara and not the actual dissolution of the universe.

Verses 16 and 17 are exceedingly difficult. The commentator has shown great learning in expounding them. Unfortunately, the subject is a yoga mystery, and the explanation and illustrations of the commentator refer to things beyond the reach of ordinary experience and intelligence. The words Chandramas, Kala, and Valam, and Akasa also and Ghosa (in verse 17), are technical terms of yoga. I referred the passage to more than one learned Pundit. My referees are of opinion that a yoga mystery is here expounded, which yogins alone can understand. European scholars will probably smile at the statement that there is a hidden meaning in these words. Most readers will take the verses for nonsense. Reflection, however, has convinced me that yoga is not nonsense. One who has not studied the elements of Geometry or Algebra, cannot, however intelligent, hope to understand at once a Proposition of the Principia or the theorem of De Moivre. Failing to give the actual sense, I have contented myself with giving a verbal translation.

Jatakarma is the ceremony that is performed with certain Vedic mantras immediately after a child's birth. There are many such ceremonies to be performed till Samavartana or return from the preceptor's home after completion of the period of pupilage. These ceremonies are necessarily such that they must be performed by the child's father or somebody else whom the latter might call in.

In this country, no fees are charged for tuition. The pupil, however, after completing his studies, may give his preceptor a final fee which is determined by the choice of the preceptor himself and which varies according to the means of the pupil leaving the preceptor's home for his own.

By begetting children, one pays off one's debt to ancestors; by studying the Vedas, one pays off one's debt to the Rishis; and by performing sacrifices one pays off one's debt to the deities.

It is a deadly sin to take anything from the father-in-law or other relatives (by marriage) of a daughter. What is got from such sources is, to this day, spent freely. Those persons that sell their daughters in marriage are universally reckoned as fallen.

The fact is, the duty of the householder obliges him to worship the deities and the Pitris, and to become hospitable to the others named. The Brahmana, however, has no ostensible means for discharging this duty. The only means open to him is acceptance of gifts. In this case, acceptance, therefore, for such ends is not productive of demerit.

Kritadapi is explained by the commentator as pakvannadapi.

The sense is that there is no gift which is too valuable for such persons.