Book 12 edition notes 1001–1100

The commentator supposes that these relatives and kinsmen are named because of the great likelihood there is of disputes arising with them on account of shares of inheritance.

The sense is this: these various persons, if duly reverenced by the householder, are able to send the latter to the places indicated or make him comfortable in those places.

Vide verses 2 and 3 of this Section. Of the four courses, the first or Kusaladhanya, is left out here. The three others, of course, are the Kumbhadhanya, the Aswastana (otherwise called Unchhasila), and the Kapoti. The Burdwan translator makes a blunder in enumerating the three kinds of domesticity here referred to.

The Burdwan version of this verse is incorrect.

The cow is a sacred animal and there is merit in feeding and properly tending a cow. Forest recluses kept kine for merit as also for homa or sacrifice with the ghee obtained from them. The story of Vasishtha's cow is well-known.

These five are Agnihotra, Darsapurnamasi, Chaturmasya, Pasu sacrifice and Soma sacrifice.

The Burdwan translator misunderstands the words abhravakasah. It is a well-known word occurring in almost every lexicon. Wilson explains it correctly.

i.e., They do not use a regular husking or cleaning apparatus for cleaning the grain they use as food.

So that very small portion of the grain comes out for drink or mixes with the water.

i.e., who had no fixed residence and who never sought with any effort for the necessaries of life. The Burdwan translator takes both yathavasah and akritacramah for two independent names of Rishis instead of taking them as adjectives of Sudivatandi.

i.e., whose wishes were immediately crowned with success, in respect of both blessings and curses, etc.

Niranandah is explained as krichcchrachandrayanadiparatwat.

Anakstrah is explained by the commentator as 'different from stars and planets but still freed from darkness' and, therefore, effulgent or luminous. Anadhrishyah is fearless.

Atmayaji is explained as one who performs his own sraddha or obsequial rites. The Sandhi in the next word is arsha; atmakrida is one who does not take pleasure in wife or children but whose source of pleasure is his own self: Similarly, atmasraya is one who without depending upon kings or others takes refuge in himself.

Such sacrifice, for example, as those called Brahma-yajna, etc.

Yajinam yajna is the sacrifice of ordinary sacrifices, i.e., the usual sacrifices consisting of tangible offerings unto the deities, and performed with the aid of Vedic mantras. The ablative implies cause. Atmani ijya is sacrifice in Self, i.e., Yoga. The meaning of the first line, therefore, is when through performance of ordinary sacrifices and rites, the mind becomes pure and the sacrificer is enabled to practise yoga. Unto the three fires he should duly sacrifice on his own self, means, of course, that without any longer adoring his fires by visible rites and actual recitation of mantras, he should, for the sake of emancipation, worship in his own self or seek the extinction of mind and knowledge in Yoga.

To this day every orthodox Brahmana or Kshatriya or Vaisya never eats without offering at the outset five small mouthfuls unto the five vital breaths, i.e., Prana, Apana, Samana, Udana, and Vyana.

Vapya or Vapayitwa means causing or obtaining a shave. The Burdwan translator makes a blunder by supposing it to mean parivyapta. The Sannyasa mode of life, as well-known, can never be entered without a previous shave. K.P. Singha gives the correct version.

It is difficult to render the word abhaya into English. 'To give abhaya to all creatures' is to pledge oneself to a life of total harmlessness, or to practise universal compassion or benevolence. Abstention from every kind of injury is the great duty of the fourth mode of life.

The duties included in yama (as explained by the commentator) are universal benevolence, truthfulness, faith, Brahmacharya, and freedom from attachment. Those that are included in niyama are purity (of body and mind), contentment, study of the Vedas, meditation on the Supreme, etc. Swasastra sutra means the sutras of his own sastras--i.e., the duties laid down in respect of that Sannyasa which he has adopted; the chief of which is enquiry after the Soul or Self: Bhutimanta implies Vedic recitation and the sacred thread. He who has taken to Sannyasa should display energy in these, i.e., persistently enquire after the Soul and throw away all caste-marks, and other indications. 'The desirable end' is of course, gradual Emancipation of that obtained at once. Following the commentator, K.P. Singha gives the correct version. The Burdwan version, containing the very words of the gloss, is based upon a complete misconception of their meaning.

The commentator correctly explains that by the first line of this verse, Vyasa answers his son's question. The two modes referred to are the first and the second, and not the second and the third as K.P. Singha in his vernacular version wrongly states. Having answered the question, the speaker (in the second line) proceeds to indicate the simple or straight path for reaching the highest object of men's endeavour, viz., Paramartham or Brahma.

Bhava-samahitah is explained as chitta-samadhanavan.

The skull is to be used as a drinking vessel. Kuchela, which I render 'rags', is supposed by the commentator to signify reddish or brown cloth which has, from age, lost its colour.

Elephants, when hurled into a well, become utterly helpless and unable to come out. That person, therefore, into whom words enter like elephants into a well, is he who answers not the evil speeches of others. What is said here is that only a person of such forbearance should betake himself to mendicancy or Sannyasa.

I have given a closely literal version of this verse. The commentator explains that first line refers to the person who deems himself to be everything and everything to be himself. The second line refers to the same individual who, by Yoga, can withdraw his senses and the mind and consequently make the most populous place appear as totally solitary or unoccupied. This is the Yoga process called Pratyahara and is described in section 233 ante. The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version. K.P. Singha follows the commentator.

Suhitya, whence sauhitya, means no satiety but the full measure of gratification from eating. The speaker wishes to lay down that a mendicant or renouncer should never take food to the full measure of gratification. He should eat without completely appeasing his hunger.

I follow the commentator in his exposition of kaunjara which he derives as kun (earth or the body which is made of earth) jaravati iti kunjarah, i.e., a Yogin in Samadhi. The sense seems to be that the fruits of Yoga include or absorb the fruits of every other act. The rank and status of Indra himself is absorbed within what is attained to by Yoga. There is no kind of felicity that is not engulfed in the felicity of Emancipation, which Yoga alone can confer.

The commentator thinks that by the 'one duty of abstention from injury' is implied the fourth mode of life or Sannyasa. What is said, therefore, is that the observance of the single duty of harmlessness includes that of every other duty; or, what amounts to the same thing, the fourth mode of life is singly capable of giving merit which all the others may give together.

Haryartham means 'for the sake of Hari.' i.e., one who takes away merit, implying a disciple or attendant. Some texts read Ratyrtham, meaning 'for the happiness (of others).'

Because all acts are fraught with injury to others. Whether 'acts' betaken in its general sense or in the particular sense of 'religious acts,' their character is such.

Both the vernacular translators have completely misunderstood the second line of this Verse. The commentator correctly explains that Tikshnam tanum means the religion of injury, i.e., the religion of sacrifices and acts. 'So' for 'sa' is arsha; as also anantyam for anantyam which, of course, implies moksham or Emancipation. The commentator correctly supplies yatah after apnoti and shows that prajabhyah is equivalent to prajanam. The last clause of the second line, therefore, means sa moksham apnoti, yatah prajabhyah (or prajanam) abhayam. The dative, not ablative as the vernacular translators take it, is not bad grammar, although the genitive is more agreeable with usage.

A tentative version is offered here, following the actual words used in the original.

All these expressions apply to the Supreme Soul. Immeasurable in the firmament implies that the Supreme Being is vaster than the firmament. 'Made of gold' means, as the commentator explains, Chit having knowledge only for its attribute.' 'Born of the egg,' i.e., belonging to the universe. 'Within the egg' means 'capable of being apprehended in the heart.' 'Equipped with many feathers,' i.e., having many limbs each of which is presided over by a particular deity. The two wings are absence of attachment or complete dissociation from everything, and joy and gladness and aptitude for enjoyment. 'Rendered effulgent by many rays of light,' i.e., transformed into a living and active agent by means of eyes, cars, etc.

The sense is that he who understands the wheel of Time is a person worthy of universal regard. The excellent joints of that wheel are the parva days, viz., those sacred lunations on which religious rites are performed.

I give a little version of verse 33, following the commentator as regards the meaning of samprasadam. The sense, however, of the verse is this: Brahma, in the previous sections, has often been spoken of as Sushupti or the unconsciousness of dreamless slumber. The universe flows from Brahma. Unconsciousness, therefore, is the cause or origin or body of the universe. That unconsciousness, therefore, pervades all things, viz., gross and subtile. Jiva, finding a place within that unconsciousness existing in the form of gross and subtile, gratifies the deities, prana and the senses. These, thus gratified by jiva, at last gratify the open mouth of the original unconsciousness that waits to receive or swallow them. All these verses are based upon the figurative ideas that find expression in the Upanishads.

Smriti is memory. One whose smriti is lost means one whose conceptions of right and wrong are confounded. Atmanah sampradanena is 'by the surrender of oneself' to one's own passions or Kamadibhyah as the commentator explains.

Chittam is explained by the commentator as the gross understanding, and Sattwa as the subtile understanding. The understanding that is concerned with the images brought by the mind or the senses is called gross; while that which is concerned with ideas about Brahma is called subtile. Kalanjara is explained by the commentator either as standing for the mountain of that name, i.e., irremovable as the mountain so called; or, as one who destroys the effect of Time, i.e., one who subdues Time instead of being subdued by that universal conqueror.

The purification here referred to consists in transcending the consciousness of duality. Righteousness should be avoided because of its incapacity to lead to Emancipation which is much higher than heaven. Atmani sthitwa means living in one's real or true nature, i.e., merging everything into the Soul. This is attained when the consciousness of duality is transcended.

Atmanam in the first line is the Jiva-soul, and atmani is the Supreme Soul. In the second line also, the same distinction is observed between the two words.

Brahmanas, who having completed the study of the Vedas have betaken themselves to the domestic mode of life, are so called. Here, probably, the reference is to persons having faith in the Vedas and of pure conduct.

Adhyatma is topic bearing on the Soul. Here it signifies the seven and twenty usual topics of philosophical discourse, viz., the five organs of action, the five organs of knowledge, the mind and three others called Chitta, etc., the five vital breaths, the five elementary substances, Desire. Acts, and Avidya.

The second clause of the second line is explained by the commentator as yasmin kamani nimitte sati yat anupasyati.

The grammatical construction is Gunebhyah paramagatah gunan na ativartante. The meaning is this: Mind, Understanding, and Nature (or individual disposition of man or animal or vegetable, etc) are all due to their own previous states. Nature in particular being the result of the desires of a past state of existence. Such being their origin, they too are due to the five entities named. As regards their functions, it is said that having reached to that which is Gunebhyah parama, i.e., Srotradikaryam swarupam, they do not transcend the gunas themselves; or in other words having become endued with the faculty or power of seizing particular attributes (such as scent, form, etc)., they actually seize or apprehend them.

In other words, the senses and the mind are nothing but the understanding displayed in a particular shape or form. The principal function of the mind is to cherish and discard impressions. The understanding is nischayatmika or engaged in arriving at certainty of conclusions.

Everything above the soles of the feet and below the crown of the head, is, of course, the whole body or self or the person. Asmin kritye is, aham iti yat darsanam tasmin karaniye. There can be no doubt that the commentator correctly explains the meaning.

Neniyate is as the commentator explains, an instance of karmakartari prayogah. Hence, the meaning is that both the attributes of form etc., and the senses with mind which apprehend those attributes, are the understanding itself, so that when the understanding is not, these also are not. The object of this verse is to establish the identity of the understanding with the senses, the mind, and the attribute with the senses and the mind apprehend. Both the vernacular versions are inaccurate.

The three attributes of Rajas, Tamas, and Sattwa do not spring from any different thing but from their own counterparts existing in a previous state of existence or life. They arise from their respective states as they existed with the Chitta or understanding in a previous life. Hence Chitta, and the objects of the senses and the senses also arising from it, are all affected by these three Gunas.

The last word in the first line is not prabodhita but aprabodhita.

In the original, the word atman is used in various senses. Sometimes it stands for the Jiva-soul, sometimes for the Supreme Soul, sometimes for essence or the principal portion of anything, sometimes for one's own self, and sometimes even for the person or body. It is not difficult to distinguish in which sense the word is used in what place.

Vela is tide or current. The Understanding, although it exists with the three states of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas, can yet transcend them by Yoga. The ordinary and extraordinary states of the understanding are spoken of in this verse.

The Bengal texts make this a verse of one line. In the Bombay text, verse 9 is made a triplet, so that this line is included in it. Medhyani is explained as medha, rupadi jnanam, tatra tani.

If I have understood this verse correctly, the theory of perception laid down is a sort of idealism which has not, perhaps, its counterpart in European metaphysics. The senses are first said to be only modifications of the understanding. The mind also is only a modification of the same. A particular sense, say the eye, becomes subservient to the understanding at a particular moment. As soon as this happens, the understanding, though in reality it is only the eye, becomes united with the eye, and entering the mind raises an image there, the consequence of which is that that image is said to be seen. External world there is, of course, as independent of mind and understanding. That which is called a tree is only an idea or image created in the mind by the understanding with the aid of the sense of vision.

The speaker here combats the theory that the qualities of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas inhere to the objects themselves of the senses. His own view is that they inhere to the Mind, the Understanding, and Consciousness. The qualities may be seen to exist with objects, but in reality they follow objects in consequence of their permanent connection with the mind, the understanding, and consciousness which have agency in the production of objects. The commentator cites the instance of a wife's beautiful and symmetrical limbs. These excite pleasure in the husband, envy in a co-wife, and desire (mixed with pain at its not being gratified) in a weak-hearted gazer. All the while the limbs remain unchanged. Then again, the husband is not always pleased with them, nor is the co-wife always filled with envy at their sight, nor is the gazer always agitated. Like the spokes of a wheel which are attached to the circumference and which move with circumference, the qualities of Sattwa, etc., attached to the mind, understanding and consciousness, move along with them, i.e., follow those objects in the production of which the mind, etc., are causes.

This version of verse is offered tentatively. I give the substance without following the exact order of the original. Compare this verse with 42 of section 194 ante.

As soon as the darkness of the understanding is dispelled and true knowledge succeeds, the Soul becomes visible.

i.e., who adopts the Sannyasa or the last mode of life after having duly gone through the preceding modes.

Gunan in the first line means Vishayan, in the second line it means Sattivadin, Vikriyatah is vikram bhajamanan. How the understanding creates objects has been explained in previous sections.

Na nivartante is explained by the commentator as na ghatadivat nasyanti kintu rajjuragadiva badha eva, etc., and he concludes by saying that according to this theory niranvayanasa eva gunanam, or, in other words, that the Gunas are not so destroyed by knowledge that they do not return.

According to the speaker then, there is not much practical difference between the two opinions here adverted to, and one's course of conduct will not be much affected by either of the theories that one may, after reflection, adopt.

Janmasamartham is explained as certain to be acquired by virtue of birth or of the practice of the duties laid down for one's own order. Parayanam is moksha-prapakam.

The Bengal reading buddhah is preferable to the Bombay reading Suddhah which would be pleonastic in view of what follows in the second line.

Lokam is explained as lokyate iti lokah, i.e., objects of enjoyment such as wife, etc., aturam, is afflicted with faults or defects. Ubhayam kritakritam is as the commentator explains, sokasokarupam or aropitam and anaropitam.

Many of the verses of this and the previous section correspond with those of section 194 ante. Many verbal changes, however, are noticeable. In consequences of those changes, the meaning sometimes becomes lightly and sometimes materially different.

Gocharaebhyah, literally, pastures, is used here to signify all external and internal objects upon which the senses and the mind are employed. Their proper home or abode is said to be Brahma.

The absence of anything like precision in the language employed in such verses frequently causes confusion. The word atma as used in the first line is very indefinite. The commentator thinks it implies achetanabuddhi, i.e., the perishable understanding. I prefer, however, to take it as employed in the sense of Chit as modified by birth. It comes, I think, to the same thing in the end. The 'inner Soul' is, perhaps, the Soul or Chit as unmodified by birth and attributes.

Abhavapratipattyartham is explained by the commentator as 'for the attainment of the unborn or the soul.'

The commentator explains the first line thus: yatha sarvani matani tatha etani vachansi me. He takes the words: yatha tatha kathitani maya as implying that 'I have treated of the topic yathatathyena.'

The commentator explains that tasya tasya has reference to gandhadeh. Pracharah means vyavahara. Pasyatah is Vidushah.

i.e., one that only knows the Vedas and has observed the vow of Brahmacharya is not a superior Brahmana. To become so requires something more.

I follow the commentator closely in rendering this verse. Sarvavit is taken in the sense of Brahmavit. Akamah is one contented with knowledge of Self. Such a man, the Srutis declare, never dies or perishes. The two negatives in the last clause nullify each other. The Burdwan translator, with the gloss before him, for he cites copiously from it, misunderstands the negatives. K.P. Singha is correct.

Avidhanat is explained as dayanaishkainyayorananusaranat.

Kamakantah is explained as kamaih kantah, i.e., manoharah.

Heaven is Brahma invested with attributes. Tranquillity of soul is Brahma uninvested with attributes. Upanishat is explained as rahasyam. This renders 'recondite object'. The sense of the verse is that each of the things mentioned is useless without that which comes next; and as tranquillity or Brahma uninvested with attributes is the ultimate end, the Vedas and truth, etc., are valuable only because they lead to tranquillity.

Both the Vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly. In the first place, ichcchasi is equivalent to ichccheta. Santoshat is for the sake of santosha. Sattwam is buddhiprasadam. Manas is explained as sankalpa or samsaya. The grammatical order is sokamanasoh santapya kledanam. The commentator adds santapamiti namulantam, i.e., formed by the suffix namul.

Samagrah is literally 'full or complete,' implying that such a man becomes jnana-triptah. Only five attributes are mentioned in this verse but santosha mentioned in verse 13 should be taken to make up six.

Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse incorrectly. In the first place shadbhih has reference to the six things mentioned in verse 11 and 12 above. These six again should be satwagunopetaih, i.e., destitute of the attributes of Rajas and Tamas. Unless freed from those two, even the six, of themselves, will not lead to knowledge of the Soul. Tribhih has reference to Sravana, manana, and nididhyasana. Ihastham is 'residing within the body.' Pretya implies transcending consciousness of body or jivati eva dehe dehabhimanadutthaya. Tam gunam is muktalakshanam. The sense, in simple words, is this: transcending all consciousness of body they that succeed in knowing the Soul which resides within the body become emancipated. The first line of the verse simply points out how the Soul may be known.

Anweti is explained as vardhate.

The reading I adopt is saviseshani, and not aviseshani although the latter is not incorrect. In treatises on yoga, viseshah imply the gross elements and the eleven senses including the mind. Aviseshah imply the five subtile elements (tanmatrani) and buddhi. By Gunan is meant Mahat and Avyakta or Prakriti. If aviseshani be taken, the reference to the subtile elements would imply that the grosser once have already been transcended.

Atikrantaguna-kshayam, i.e., one who has transcended disregards the very puissance that the destruction of the gunas is said to bring about.

Karyyatam is Prakriti which alone is active, Purusha being inactive. Paramam karanam is, of course, Brahma uninvested with attributes.

Dwandwani is governed by anushthitah. Mahat here is elaborate. The speaker, having first discussed the subject elaborately, intends to speak of it in brief in this Section.

Panchasu is explained by the commentator as Panchatmakeshu. Hence, he properly points out that bhava and abhava and kala are included by the speaker within bhutas or primary elements. Bhava implies the four entities called karma, samanya, visesha and samavaya. By abhava is meant a negative state with respect to attributes not possessed by a thing. We cannot think of a thing without thinking of it as uninvested with certain attributes whatever other attributes it may possess.

Enlarged, the constructions of the original becomes thus: 'uttareshu (bhuteshu) (purvabhuta) gunah (santi).'

Uttarah imply the three entities known by the names of Avidya (Ignorance), Kama (desire), and Karma (acts). This part of the verse is skipped over by the vernacular translators.

i.e., the soul when invested with Avidya and desire becomes a living creature and engages in acts. It is through consequences then that are derived from acts that the infinite Soul (or Chit) becomes Jivatman.

This is a very difficult verse and no wonder that both the vernacular versions are defective. K.P. Singha gives the substance, skipping over many of the words. The Burdwan translator, though citing largely from the gloss, misunderstands both verse and gloss completely. The grammatical construction is this: Ebhih sarvaih kalatmakaih bhavaih anwitam sarvam yah akalushiam pasyati (sah) samoham karma nanuvartate. Sarvam here refers to pranijatam or the entire assemblage of living creatures. Kalatmakaih bhavaih is punyapapadi samskaratmabhih. Bhavaih is taken by the commentator as equivalent to bhavanabhih. I prefer to take it in the sense of entity. He who looks upon these as akalusham, i.e., as unstained Chit (that is, he who has a knowledge of the Soul), becomes freed from samoham karma, i.e., succeeds in becoming nishkamah in consequence of his acquaintance with atmatattwa.

'Conversant with the scriptures,' i.e., Yogin; 'acts laid down in the scriptures' are the practices connected with Yoga. Saririnam, the commentator takes, implies the Soul as invested with a subtile body; of course, Saririn as distinguished from Sariram generally means the Soul or the owner of the Sariram without reference to the body. Hence, the word cannot be taken as referring to the Soul as uninvested with the lingasarira.

I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Sahitah is nividah; drisyamanah is explained as 'though unseen by the eye is yet realised through instruction and by the aid of reason.'

Tapah is rasmi-mandalam. Prati-rupam is pratyupa-dhi. Sattwam is sattwapradhanalingam. The sense, in simple words, seems to be that the Yogin beholds within his own body and those of others the Souls or Chits residing there as invested in subtile forms.

Both atmachintitam and karmajam rajas are governed by Jahatam. The first means all that is: 'kalpitah in self' i.e., the creations of the understanding or the mind, implying, of course, the objects of the senses or the external world. The second means kamadi vyasanam, i.e., the calamities constituted by desire, etc. Pradhanadwaidhamuktah is one who is freed from identity with Pradhana or the Universal cause; hence, the puissance that Yoga brings about. Such Yogins have their subtile forms under complete control under all conditions and at all times. They can enter at will into other forms. Sattwatma is linga-dehah.

Satatam qualifies anwitah. Nityam qualifies charishnuh. Sadanityah is explained by the commentator as in reality terminable, though the words always etc., have been used. The plain meaning of the verse is that Yogins, in their linga body, rove everywhere, not excluding the most blissful regions in heaven itself.

The meaning is this: like Yogins, ordinary men even have the linga-sariram. In dreams, the gross body is inactive. Only the subtile body acts and feels. The Burdwan translator misunderstands this verse completely.

Atikramanti is understood at the end of the verse. Vajropamani is explained by the commentator as 'so undying that they are not destroyed at even the universal destruction; hence, of course, the karana bodies.' The karana bodies are the potentialities, existing in the tanmatra of the elemental substances, of forming diverse kinds of linga bodies in consequence of the acts of Jiva in previous periods of existence.

Etat is: maduktam vakyam; yogam implies yogapradhanam. Samadhau samam has reference to 'yogam.' What the speaker wishes to say in this verse is that dhyana is not laid down for Sannyasins alone but it is laid down for all others as well.

Pradhanam is Avidya or Ignorance. Viniyoga is Viparinama. The particle anu always interpreted as 'following' the scriptures or some special branch of knowledge that treats of the subject spoken of.

The correct reading is ayasaih meaning 'made of iron,' and not 'ayasaih.' K.P. Singha adheres to the incorrect reading. The chains of iron here are either the diverse longings cherished by worldly men, or, perhaps, the bodies with which men are invested.

The dual genitive duhkhayoh is used because worldly sukha also is regarded as duhkha. 'Tyajamannah' is equivalent to 'tyaktum ichccha.' It is an instance of hetau sanach.

Yena is explained as Stryadina hetuna. 'Sah' is Stryadih. Samrohati is Vardhayati. 'Tam' is Vardhakam.

'Uddhriyate' is literally 'tears up.' The use of the word 'asina' suggests also 'cutting.' The root of the tree, of course, is Avidya or Ignorance.

K.P. Singha wrongly translates the first line. The Burdwan translator quotes the gloss without understanding it. The first half of the first line, literally rendered, is 'the senses are the mind-citizens,' meaning, as the commentator rightly explains, that they are citizens under the lead of the mind. 'Tadartham' means 'for the sake of the senses,' i.e., 'for cherishing them.' Prakritih is mahati kriya pravrittih, Tadartham is kriyaphalam, i.e., happiness or misery. The meaning, in brief, is this: the body is a city. The understanding is its mistress. The mind is her principal servitor. The senses are the citizens under the lead of the mind. In order to cherish the senses the mind engages in acts productive of visible and invisible fruits i.e., sacrifices and gifts, and the acquisition of houses and gardens, etc. Those acts are liable to two faults, viz., Rajas and Tamas. The senses (both in this life and the succeeding ones) depend upon the fruits (happiness or misery) of those acts.