Book 12 edition notes 901–1000

The first and the fourth verses are triplets in the Bengal texts.

These are, of course, religious acts.

In the Bengal texts verse 12 consists of one line. This, I think, is correct. Verses 13, 14, 15, and 16 form one sentence. Verse 12 is complete by itself. The udaka in kalodaka should be taken as meaning stream or river otherwise ahoratrajalena would be pleonastic. Again arthakamajalena, to avoid redundancy, should be taken as implying the springs that supply the water. Vihinsa-taruvahina is, 'having benevolence for the trees that float on its water.' This idea is beautiful. Creatures that are being borne away in the stream of Time may catch these trees of benevolence for saving themselves. The Burdwan translator misunderstands vihinsa and makes nonsense of the idea. Altogether, though highly ornate, the metaphors are original. Of course, the idea is eminently oriental. Eastern rhetoric being fond of spinning out metaphors and similes, which, in the hands of Eastern poets, become highly elastic.

K.P. Singha misunderstands this verse. The Burdwan translator is also inaccurate.

The place should be a level spot, not impure (such as a crematorium, etc.), free from kankars, fire, and sand, etc.; solitary and free from noise and other sources of disturbance. Acts include abstention from food and sports and amusements, abstention from all kinds of work having only worldly objects to accomplish, abstention also from sleep and dreams. Affection means that for good disciples or for progress in yoga. Objects refer to sacred fuel, water, and suppression of expectancy and anxiety, etc. Means refer to the seat to be used, the manner of sitting, and the attitude of the body. Destruction refers to the conquest of desire and attachments, i.e., renunciation of all attractive things. Certainty means the unalterable belief that what is said about yoga in the Vedas and by preceptors is true. The nom. sing. inflection stands for the instrumental plural. Eyes include the other senses. All these should be restrained. Food means pure food. Suppression refers to the subjugation of our natural inclination towards earthly objects. Mind here has reference to the regulation of the will and its reverse, viz., irresolution. Survey means reflection on birth, death, decrepitude, disease, sorrow, faults, etc. In giving these meanings, I, of course, follow Nilakantha.

Notwithstanding Nilakantha's gloss which shows great ingenuity and which has been apparently followed by both of them, the Vernacular translators have misunderstood Portions of these verses which sketch out the course of life which one desirous of attaining to Emancipation or Brahma is to follow. Particular virtues or attributes have been represented as particular limbs of the car. It does not appear that there is (except in one or two instances), any especial aptitude in any of those virtues or attributes for corresponding with One instead of with another limb of the figurative car. Upastha is that part of the car on which the driver sits. Varutha is the wooden fence round a car for protecting it against the effects of collision. Shame is the feeling that withdraws us from all wicked acts. Kuvara is the pole to which the yoke is attached. Upaya and Apaya, which have been called the kuvara, are 'means' and destruction'--explained in verse above. Aksha is the wheel. Yuga is the yoke. Vandhura is that part of yuga where it is attached to the pole, i.e., its Middle, about which appears something like a projecting knob. Nemi is the circumference of the wheel. Nabhi is the central portion of the car upon which the rider or warrior is seated. Pratoda is the goad with which the driver urges, the steeds. The commentator explains that jiva-yuktah means having such a jiva as is desirous of attaining to Emancipation or Moksha. Such elaborate figures are favourite conceits of Oriental poets.

Adopting the Kantian distribution of the mental phenomena, viz., the three great divisions of Cognitive faculties, Pleasure and Pain, and Desire and Will, Sir William Hamilton subdivides the first (viz., the Cognitive faculties), into the acquisitive faculty, the retentive faculty, the reproductive faculty, the representative faculty, and reason or judgment by which concepts are compared together. Dharana corresponds with the exercise of the Representative faculty or the power by which the mind is held to or kept employed upon a particular image or notion. It is this faculty that is especially trained by yogins. Indeed, the initial stop consists in training it to the desirable extent.

The seven kinds of Dharanas appertain respectively to Earth, Wind, Space, Water, Fire, Consciousness and Understanding.

All these have been explained lower down.

The construction of both these lines is difficult to understand. The prose order of the line is 'yogatah yuktesu (madhye) yasya yatha, etc., vikrama (tatha vakshyami); atmani pasyatah (janasya) yuktasya yogasya (yatha) siddhi (tatha vakshyami).' Yogatah means upayatah, i.e., according to rules and ordinances. Vikrama is used in a peculiar sense, viz., anubhavakramah, i.e., the order of conception or conceptions in other order. Atmani pasyatah means 'of him who looks into himself,' i.e., who withdraws his mind from the outer world and turns it to view his own self. Without Nilakantha's aid, such verses would be thoroughly unintelligible.

Pasyatah means 'of that which sees,' i.e., of the Atman or Soul.

The Understanding is called the _soul_ of the five elements and of the consciousness of individuality because these six things rest on it or have it for their refuge. The reader will easily understand this from what has been said in the previous Sections.

It is from the Unmanifest or the Supreme Soul that the world or all that is Manifest, springs or emanates. The Yogin, in consequence of his superior knowledge, apprehends all that is Manifest to be but the Unmanifest Supreme Soul.

Na kritina, i.e., kriti eva. 'Nirakriti' is regardless of dress and appearance. K.P. Singha wrongly translates both these words.

i.e., who has neither friend nor foe. This means that he regards all creatures with an equal eye, showing particular favour to none, and having no dislike for any. Coldness of heart is not implied, but impartial and equal benevolence for all. Taking praise and blame equally, i.e., never rejoicing at praise nor grieving at blame.

It is said that with the practice of Yoga, during the first stages, certain extraordinary powers come to the Yogin whether he wishes for them or not. In a previous Section it has been said that that Yogin who suffers himself to be led away by these extraordinary acquisitions, goes to hell, i.e., fails to attain to Emancipation beside which heaven itself with the status of Indra is only hell. Hence, he who transcends the puissance that Yoga brings about becomes Emancipate.

Dhirah is explained as dhyanavan. Santi has reference to Emancipation, for it is Emancipation alone that can give tranquillity or final rest. The commentator points out that in this verse the speaker shows a decided preference for the Sankhya philosophy.

Vide Gita, verses 4 and 5, Chapter V.

Brahmanam is arsha for Brahmam.

I follow Nilakantha's gloss in rendering the words Vidya, Pravritti and Nivritti, as used in this verse. By the first, the commentator thinks, is meant that course of instruction in consequence of which error may be dispelled and truth acquired. The usual illustration of the cord and the snake is given. The former may be mistaken for the latter, but when the mistake ceases, correct apprehension follows. Pravritti has been sufficiently indicated in the text in which the words of the gloss has been incorporated. By Nivritti is meant the doctrine of the Sunyavadins and Lokayatikas (evidently the Buddhists) who seek annihilation or extinction as the only true Emancipation. Both the Vernacular translators are wrong. The Burdwan translator, as usual, citing the very words of the gloss, misunderstands them completely.

The construction of the first line is 'yastu achetanah bhavam vina swabhavena (sarvam bhati iti) pasyan, etc., etc., pushyate (sa na kinchana labhate).' Bhavan is explained as 'adhishthanasattam.' The commentator is of opinion that the speaker refers in this verse to the Sunyavadins.

The Bombay text reads Putwatrinamishikamva.

Enam is singular. The commentator thinks it should be taken distributively. In verse 3, the doctrine of the Nihilists (Sunyavadins) has been referred to. In verse 4, that of the Lokayatikas. In both, Nature is spoken of as the cause, with this difference that the former regard the universe to be only an erroneous impression of an existent entity, while the latter regard it as a real entity flowing from and manifesting itself under its own nature. Both doctrines, the speaker says, are false.

Both the Vernacular translators skip over the word paribhava in the second line of verse 6. The commentator correctly explains that swabhava in 6 means swasyaiva bhavah sattakaranam iti, ekah pakshah. Paribhava, he explains is paritah swasya itaresham bhavah. The first refers to the Nihilists, the second to the Lokayatikas or to verses 3 and 4 respectively.

It is by the wisdom that all these results are achieved. Wisdom is the application of means for the accomplishment of ends. Nature never rears palaces or produces vehicles and the diverse other comforts that man enjoys. He that would rely upon Nature for these would never obtain them however long he might wait. The need for exertion, both mental and physical, and the success which crowns that exertion furnish the best answer, the speaker thinks, to both the Nihilist sand the Lokayatikas. The word tulyalakshanah is skipped over by both the Bengali translators.

By para is meant the Chit or Soul, by avara, all else, i.e., non-ego or matter. The words Prajna, Jnana, and Vidya are all as used here, equivalent. The second line of this verse is wrongly rendered by both the Bengali translators, the Burdwan translator, as usual, not understanding the words of the gloss he quotes.

It is difficult to render the word cheshta as used here. Ordinarily it implies effort or action. It is plain, however, that here it stands for intelligent energy, implying both mental and physical effort or action, for its function is to distinguish or differentiate.

The itarani do not refer to Pisachas as rendered by K.P. Singha, but to birds which are called Khechare or denizens of the sky or air. Khechara may include Pisachas, but these are also Bhuchara or denizens of the surface of the earth.

The commentator explains that for ascertaining who are uttama or foremost, the middling, or intermediate ones are first spoken of and their distinctions mentioned in the following verses. Of course, the foremost are foremost, and the intermediate ones can never be superior to them. For all that, intermediate ones are observers of the duties of caste; the foremost ones are not so, they having transcended such distinctions; hence, tentatively, the ignorant or popular opinion is first taken, to the effect that the observers of caste are superior to those who do not observe Jatidharma.

This probably means that as the Vedas had not been reduced to writing, their contents rested or dwelt in memories of men versed in them.

To understand what is birth and what is death, and to avoid birth (and, therefore, death), are the highest fruits of knowledge of the Soul. Those that have no knowledge of the Soul have to travel in a round of repeated rebirths.

i.e., of power that comes of Yoga.

The word para (the locative form of which is used here) always means that which is high or foremost. It is frequently employed to mean either Brahma or the Soul, and as Soul is regarded to be a part of Brahma, para has but one and the same meaning. The Burdwan translator takes it for 'Scriptures other than the Vedas.' K.P. Singha skips over it. Of course, savda-Brahma stands for the Vedas.

To look upon everything in the universe as one's own. Soul is the highest aspiration of a righteous person. It is yoga that enables one to attain to this highest ideal of existence. One who realises this is said to be a true Brahmana, a really regenerate person, in fact, a god on Earth. Adhiyajna and Adhidaivata are words that signify the Soul.

What the distinction is between anta and nidhan is not obvious. The commentator is silent. K.P. Singha translates the verse correctly. The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of the words in the second line.

Whether karma is swabhava or jnanam means (as the commentator explains) whether it is obligatory or optional. Jnanam, of course, means here jnana-janakam, i.e., leading to knowledge. Knowledge is essential to success or emancipation. If acts become necessary for leading to knowledge, the doubt may then arise that they cease to be obligatory, for knowledge may be supposed to be attainable otherwise than by acts. K.P. Singha translates this verse correctly, the Burdwan translator incorrectly, and, as usual, misunderstands the gloss completely.

The first line of this verse is exceedingly terse. The construction, as explained by the commentator, is Tatra (samsaye) purusham prati Jnanam (jnanajanakam) chet (karma) syat, (tarhi) sa (eva) Vedavidhih. One cannot help admiring Nilakantha for his patience and ingenuity.

Daiva is explained by the commentator as Grahah or Kalah. I think, it is used to signify some kind of blind force whose origin is untraceable. Hence, I render it necessity. Vritti in verse 5 is evidently Exertion, for the word implies course of conduct, Avivekam is samuchchayam or a combination of all the three.

'Inspired with doubt,' with reference to the declarations of the Srutis. 'Possessed of tranquil souls,' i.e., not penetrated by doubts of any kind.

In the Treta and the other Yugas people are seen professing attachment or devotion to one only of the Vedas and not to the others, be it the Richs, the Samans, or the Yajuses. The speaker, dissatisfied with this refers to the Krita age as one in which such difference of faith were not observable. The men of that age regarded all the Vedas equally, and, in fact, as even identical.

Jiva or Chit becomes puissant and succeeds in creating the universe by means of penance. By penance one attains to Brahma, and, therefore, universal puissance. This has been sufficiently explained in the previous Sections.

This is one of the most important verses in this section, for, as the commentator explains, this furnishes the answer to the question proposed in the previous section, viz., 'what is that knowledge?' In the Vedas both acts and knowledge have been spoken of. In the province of acts, Brahma has been represented as Indra and the other gods. Brahma, therefore, as spoken of there, is 'gahana', or hidden to (or inconceivable by) even those that are conversant with that province or sphere of the Vedas. In the Vedanta, again, knowledge or Vidya has been spoken of as the means by which to attain to Brahma. The knowledge or Vidya, therefore, which is the subject of the question, is not what is implied by Pravritti dharma or by Nivritti as used in the previous section.

The second line of this verse corresponds with the second line of verse 87 of Chapter II of Manusmriti.

They are seen and not seen is an idiomatic expression for 'becoming invisible.'

i.e., kine do not yield copious and sweet milk; the soil ceases to be fertile; water ceases to be sweet; and the medicinal and edible herbs lose their virtues of healing as also their flavour.

The commentator thinks that Swadharmasthah is connected with asramah in the first line. I prefer the more obvious construction.

Varshati means pushnati. Angani means the observances necessary for the practice of Yoga as also all kinds of rites and vows. The Vedas cause these to grow, and they, in their turn, aid all students of the Vedas in achieving their purposes.

Prabhavah is uttpattih, or origin; sthanam is poshanam. Both the Vernacular translators skip over the last word, thinking that prabhavasthanam, is one word. The commentator notices them as separate. In the beginning of the second line, yatra is understood, Swabhavena, is explained by the commentator as Brahmabhavena, natu vikritena rupena. I think the explanation is correct, and have adopted it accordingly in the text.

Yatha in the first line of verse means, as the commentator explains, yat prakarakam.

The commentator points out that by these four words the four modes of life are indicated.

The commentator explains that this means that amongst embodied creatures they that are ignorant take those great entities which are really non-ego for either the ego or its Possessions.

The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that the Yoga view of the Soul being only the enjoyer but not the actor, is not correct. On the other hand, the Sankhya view of the Soul being neither the enjoyer nor the actor, is true. The deities, remaining in the several senses, act and enjoy. It is through ignorance that the Soul ascribes to itself their enjoyments and their actions.

I render Bhutatma by knowledge, following the commentator who uses the words buddhyupadhirjivah for explaining it.

Niyama and Visarga are explained by the commentator as 'destruction' and 'creation.' I prefer to take them as meaning 'guiding or restraining,' and 'employing.' Practically, the explanations are identical.

What is meant by the objects of the senses residing within the bodies of living creatures is that (as the commentator explains) their concepts exist in 'the cavity of the heart' (probably, mind) so that when necessary or called for, they appear (before the mind's eye). Swabhava is explained as 'attributes' like heat and cold, etc.

This is a very difficult verse. I have rendered it, following Nilakantha's gloss. In verse the speaker lays down what entities dwell in the body. In the rest he expounds the nature of Sattwa which the commentator takes to mean buddhi or knowledge. He begins with the statement that Sattwasya asrayah nasti. This does not mean that the knowledge has no refuge, for that would be absurd, but it means that the asraya of the knowledge, i.e., that in which the knowledge dwells, viz., the body, does not exist, the true doctrine being that the body has no real existence but that it exists like to its image in a dream. The body being non-existent, what then is the real refuge of the knowledge? The speaker answers it by saying Gunah, implying that primeval Prakriti characterised by the three attributes is that real refuge. Then it is said that Chetana (by which is implied the Soul here) is not the refuge of the knowledge for the Soul is dissociated from everything and incapable of transformation of any kind. The question is then mentally stated,--May not the Gunas be the qualities of the knowledge (instead of being, as said above, its refuge)? For dispelling this doubt, it is stated that Sattwa is the product of Tejas (Desire). The Gunas are _not_ the product of Tejas. Hence the Gunas, which have a different origin cannot be the properties of Sattwa. The Gunas exist independently of Desire. Thus the knowledge, which has Desire for its originating cause, rests on the Gunas or has them for its refuge. In this verse, therefore, the nature of the body, the knowledge, and the Gunas, is expounded. The grammatical construction of the first line is exceedingly terse.

Such men behold Brahma in all things. Abhijanah is explained by the commentator as sishyakuladih. This seems to be the true meaning of the word here.

In rendering this word tatam (where it occurs in the Gita), it has been shown that to take it as equivalent to 'spread' is incorrect. In such connections, it is evident that it means 'pervaded.'

If I have understood the gloss aright, this is what the first line of 21 means. Vedatma is explained as Vedic sound, i.e., the instructions inculcated in the Vedas. The word atma in the second clause means simply oneself or a person or individual. The sense then is this. The Vedas teach that all is one's soul. The extent to which one succeeds in realising this is the measure of one's attainment of Brahma. If one can realise it fully, one attains to Brahma fully. If partially, one's attainment of Brahma also is partial.

The track of such a person, it is said, is as invisible as the skies. The commentator explains that the very gods become stupefied in respect of the object which such a man seeks, the object, of course, being Brahma.

That, of course, in which Time is cooked, is Brahma.

By this the speaker says that Brahma is not to be found in any particular spot however holy.

Because Brahma is infinite.

'Niyatah' is explained by the commentator as achanchalah, and vasi as without the fault of upadhi. 'Hansati, i.e., gachechati ite,' hence gatimati.

The sense is that the Soul residing within the body is identical with the Supreme Soul, and men of wisdom only know it.

The construction is Hansoktancha yat aksharam tat (eva) kutastham aksharam, meaning that there is no difference between Jivatman and Paramatman. Both are identical.

Sattwena is explained as 'by intelligence or the knowledge.'

The construction, as explained by the commentator, is Brahma tejomayam sukram; yasya sukrasya sarvam idam tasyapi Brahma rasah. The last word means sarah.

Both the Vernacular translators have skipped over this line. The meaning is this: Brahma opened his eyes for becoming many, as the Srutis declare, and thereupon he became many. This, as the commentator explains, Ikshana-kartritvena sarvatmakatwam gatam, or by a glance Brahma became the Soul of all things mobile and immobile.

The commentator explains that Brahmanah padam means prakritim. He thinks, therefore, that the last clause of the second line means 'should seek to subdue prakriti which is the layasthanam of mahattattwa.' I prefer the obvious sense of the words.

Parimitam Kalam is explained by the commentator as equivalent to six months as the srutis declare.

These two verses set forth the Yoga ideal. By the practice of Yoga all these are capable of being acquired or attained. But then the Yogin who suffers himself to be led away by those valuable possessions is said to fall in hell, for the enjoyment of this kind is nothing but hell compared to the high object for which Yogins should strive. Pramoha, Brahma, and Avarta, are technical terms. Equality with the wind means speed of motion, power to disappear at will, and capacity to move through the skies.

A chaitya is a sacred or a large tree which stands firm on its roots and about which all round a platform of earth is raised. Vrikshagra means 'in the front of a tree,' probably implying 'under the shade of its spreading branches.'

The commentator explains that he should imitate the wind by becoming asangah, i.e., unattached to all things. Aniketah means without a house or fixed abode.

It is difficult to understand what is meant by Savda-Brahmativartate. I follow the commentator. 'Brahma as represented by sound, is, of course, Pranavah or Om, the mystic monosyllable standing for the trinity.' K.P. Singha, taking Savda-Brahma for an accusative, regards it as implying,--'such a man transcends all Vedic rites.' This is precisely the meaning attached to it by the commentator where it occurs in verse 7 of section 236 ante.

The inferior order here referred to is, of course, the Sudra order. The commentator points out that whereas only the three superior orders are regarded to be eligible for the study of Sankhya and for inculcation of such Srutis as Tattwamasi (That thou art), here Vyasa lays down that as regards the Yoga path, _all_ are eligible to betake themselves to it.

'Fixed senses,' i.e., when the senses are fixed on the mind and the mind on the understanding. Ajaram is immutable or unchanging, or that in which there is no change for the worse (or for the better). By subtility is indicated the incapacity of being apprehended, and by mahattaram is meant infinity.

The anu anudrisya is explained as Guruvachanamanu. Thus seems to be the true meaning, otherwise avekshya would be pleonastic, abhutagatim is bhutasamplavaparyantam, i.e., till the destruction of all beings. Imam is sastraprasiddham.

The Vedas proclaim the efficacy of both acts and knowledge. Acts are not laid down for those that have knowledge.

Subhashita is explained by the commentator as ayam tu paramo dharma yat yogena atmadarsanam.

Na vartate does not mean annihilated but, as the commentator explains, aham asmi iti na jana atmanam.

Manasena karmana is explained by the commentator as sankalpena.

The meaning is this: the man of acts is like the new-born moon, i.e., subject to growth and decay.

This has been explained in a previous section.

The soul resides in the body without partaking of any of the attributes of the body. It is, therefore, likened to a drop of water on a lotus leaf, which, though on the leaf, is not yet attached to it, in so much that it may go off without at all soaking or drenching any part of the leaf. Yogajitatmakam is yogena jito niruddha atma chittam yena tam, as explained by the commentator.

Literally, 'Tamas and Rajas and Sattwa have the attribute of Jiva for their essence.' The particular attribute of Jiva here referred to is the Jnanamaya kosha. Jiva, again, is all accident of the Soul. The Soul comes from the Supreme Soul. Thus the chain of existence is traced to the Supreme Soul. In verse 20 again it is said that the body, which by itself is inanimate, when it exists with the Soul, is an accident of Jiva as uninvested with attributes.

I follow Nilakantha substantially in his interpretation of this verse. Two kinds of creation are here referred to as those of which Vyasa has spoken in the previous Sections. The first is Ksharat prabhriti yah sargah, meaning that creation which consists of the four and twenty entities commencing with Kshara or Prakriti. The other creation, consisting of the senses with their objects, represents buddhaiswarya or the puissance of the buddhi, these being all buddhikalpitah. This second creation is also atisargah which means, according to the commentator, utkrishtah and which is also pradhanah or foremost, the reason being bandhakatwam or its power to bind all individuals. I take atisargah to mean 'derivative creation,' the second kind of creation being derived from or based upon the other, or (as I have put it in the text) transcends or overlies the other.

It is explained in previous sections how the course of righteousness is regulated by the character of the particular Yuga that sets in.

Vyasa has already explained the character of the two apparently hostile declarations. The meaning of Suka's question, therefore, is that if two declarations are only apparently hostile,--if, as explained in the Gita, they are identical,--how is that identity to be clearly ascertained? The fact is, Suka wishes his sire to explain the topic more clearly.

The course of conduct of human beings,' i.e., the distinctions between right and wrong. Vimuktatma is taken by the commentator to imply tyaktadehah. The second line may also mean 'having cast off (by Yoga) the consciousness of body, I shall behold my own Soul.'

I do not follow the commentator in his interpretation of this line.

'When the huts become smokeless,' i.e., when the cooking and the eating of the inmates are over. 'When the sound of the husking rod is hushed,' i.e., when the pestle for cleaning rice no longer works, and consequently when the inmates are not likely to be able to give much to the mendicant.

There is an apparent conflict between the two declarations. If both are authoritative, they cannot be regarded to be scriptural declarations in consequence of their conflict; if one is so and the other not so, the scriptural character of the latter at least is lost. The scriptures cannot but be certain and free from fault. How then (the question proceeds) is the scriptural character of both to be maintained?

The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder in rendering Jaghanyasayi, which he takes to mean 'sleeping on a wretched bed.' Jaghanya implies, here as elsewhere, subsequence in point of time.

Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood the last part of the second line. It does not mean that the disciple should approach the preceptor when summoned, implying that he should be prompt to answer the summons, but that he should not disturb his Preceptor by clamouring for lessons or instruction. He should go to his preceptor for taking lessons only when his preceptor summons him for it.

Meaning, he should cast submissive or humble glances instead of staring boldly or rudely.

Learning was never sold in this country in ancient times. The final fee is not a return for the services of the preceptor but a token of gratitude from the pupil. Its value depended upon the ability of the disciple, though there are stories in the scriptures of disciples coming to grief on account of their persistent forwardness in pressing the acceptance of this fee. Vide the story of Galava in the Udyoga Parva.

The fourth kind of conduct, called kapoti is also called unchha. It consists of collecting such seeds of grain as have fallen down from the ears and as have been abandoned by the reapers.

Thus the second is more meritorious than the first, the third than the second, and the fourth than the third. The fourth or last, therefore, is the first in point of merit.

It is said that the householder who cooks must give a share of the cooked food to a Brahmacharin or Yati or any one who comes as a guest. If he does not do it but eats the whole of what has been cooked, he is regarded as eating what belongs to a Brahmana. This, of course, is a high sin.