Book 12 edition notes 1101–1200

The meaning is this: the senses, the mind, the understanding, etc., are all due to acts. These, therefore, are said to rest upon acts and draw their sustenance therefrom.

I expand the first line of 14 for giving the meaning clearly.

The sense is that the understanding, being stained or afflicted, the Soul also becomes stained or afflicted. Enam is atmanam. Vidhritam is 'placed like an image upon a mirror.'

Because the son had not yet obtained the light of full knowledge.

It is curious to note how carelessly this verse is rendered in the Burdwan version. In the Bengal texts there is a misprint, viz., tatha for rasah. The Burdwan translator does not notice it, but gives just eight qualities instead of ten. Capacity to be congealed is to be inferred from cha. K.P. Singha is correct.

The Rishis, it is evident, regarded an entity not as an unknown substance in which certain known properties inhered, but as the sum total of those properties themselves. So far as the human mind is concerned, there is no warrant for the proposition that matter is an unknown substance in which extension, and divisibility etc., inhere; on the other hand, matter, as it appears to us, is only extension, divisibility, etc., existing in a combined state.

The elements are five in number. Their properties number fifty. The five especial properties of the understanding should be added to those five and fifty. The total, therefore, of the properties of the understanding comes up to sixty.

This is a difficult verse. Anagatam is agama-viruddham. The grammatical construction, as explained by the commentator, is this: tat (tasmin or purvaslokokokte vishaya yat) anagatam tava uktam tat chintakalilam. (Twam tu) samprati iha (loke) tat (maduktam) bhutarthatattwamsarvam avapya bhuta-prabhavat santabuddhi bhava. Bhutarthah is Brahma, and bhutaprabhavat is Brahmaiswaryat. (This is an instance of the ablative with 'lyap' understood). What Bhishma wishes Yudhishthira to do is not so much to attend to the various theories about the origin of the universe but to carefully attend to the method of attaining to Brahma. To be of tranquil heart, of course, implies the possession of a nirvrittika buddhi.

i.e., they could be slain by only their equals who were engaged with them, meaning that all those warriors were very superior men. They could not possibly be slain by others than those with whom they fought.

In the case of gods and Rishis, thinking and summoning are the same.

The commentator explains that the accusatives in the first line of verse 5 governed by hareyam in the previous verse.

A Padmaka consists of ten digits, i.e., a thousand millions or a billion according to the French method of calculation.

To lead a life in the woods with the deer and after the manner of the deer confers great merit. Vide the story of Yayati's daughter Madhavi in the Udyoga Parvam ante.

The commentator explains that this means that Death would attain to the status of all-pervading Brahma. Even this is the boon that the Self-born grants her for protecting her against iniquity and allaying her fears.

i.e., being freed from wrath and aversion.

Vasishtha's work commences with the query--What is dharmah? The first answer is 'anything consistent with the Srutis and the Smritis.' Then comes Sishtacharah or the conduct of those called Sishta or the good.

However casuists may argue and moralists pretend, a lie like that of Sir Henry Lee for saving his prince from the hands of Cromwell (vide Woodstock), or like that of the goldsmith's son, even when he was dying, for saving the prince Chevalier from the hands of his would-be captors, is excusable in the estimation of many and even meritorious according to some. The world again is agreed that if an adulterer be called into the witness box, perjury would be a venal offence compared with the meanness of betraying the honour of a confiding woman. Hence, the exclusion of such a witness (according to almost every system of law) in trials for adultery. The Rishis wrote for men and not angels. The conduct referred to is that of the good and pious.

In explaining verse 7, the commentator uses the words that I have enclosed within parenthesis. According to him, verse 9 hath reference to the robbed thief while he goes to the king for invoking justice.

There is another reason why one should not give way to intoxication of might and should not set at naught the eternal injunction against taking what belongs to another. K.P. Singha incorrectly translates this line.

Implying that such a man is always alive to his own faults. He never thinks that others are guilty of an offence which he, in a moment of temptation, may have committed.

K.P. Singha wrongly translates this line.

The construction is not at all difficult; yet both the vernacular translators have misunderstood it, the Burdwan version being thoroughly unintelligible. This is only another form of the well-known saying--'do to others as you would that they should do to you.'

The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version of the second line: yad is equivalent to yadi: anyasya stands for anyam. The genitive inflection is used for the accusative. Tatah stands for tasmin implying aupapatye vishaye. Kuryat is driggochari-kuryat.

The surplus should not be coveted for its own sake but for such use.

The second line is incorrectly rendered by K.P. Singha.

Priyabhyupagatam is priyena praptam and not hinsaya.

I am not sure that I have understood the original correctly. Nilakantha says that the sense intended to be conveyed is that Yudhishthira finds fault with Bhishma's previous course on the indications of righteousness.

The argument, as explained by the commentator is this: Bhishma has said that righteousness and its reverse arise from one's acts producing happiness or misery to others, and that they both affect one's future life in respect to the happiness and misery enjoyed or endured therein. But living creatures, says Yudhishthira, are seen to take their births, exist, and die, of their own nature. Nature, therefore, seems to be the efficient cause of birth, existence, and death, and not the declarations in the Srutis, consistent though those declarations be with considerations of felicity or the reverse. The study of the Vedas, therefore, cannot alone lead to a knowledge of righteousness and its reverse.

Distress may be of infinite variety. Derogation also from duty may, therefore, be of infinite variety. It is impossible to note these derogations (justifiable in view of the degree of distress felt) in any code of morals, however comprehensive.

The commentator cites the example of Sudras listening to forbidden scriptures in expectation of merit. They commit sin by such acts. Then again high Brahmanas like Agastya, by cursing the denizens of the Dandaka forest, achieved great merit. In persons universally called ordinary or even low, indications are observable of good behaviour, and in those acknowledged to be good and respectable, acts may be noticed that are not good. That therefore, which is called the conduct of the good is extremely unascertainable.

The commentator cites the instance of the stoppage of the Horse-sacrifice in consequence of the interference of Indra with Janamejaya while the latter was bent upon celebrating one for the acquisition of merit.

The vapoury edifices and forms seen in the distant sky are called Gandharva-nagara from the peculiar belief that they are cities or towns inhabited by the Gandharvas, a class of beings superior to men. They appear to the view only to disappear very soon. What the speaker wishes to say is that sacrifices and religious acts at first appear romantic and delightful in consequence of the fruits they hold forth, viz., heaven and felicity. But when they are examined by the light of philosophy, they disappear or shrink into nothingness, for as acts, they are transitory and their consequences too are of the same character.

The object of this verse is to show that it is extremely difficult to ascertain who the good are whose conduct should be taken as the standard of righteousness.

The commentator cites the instance of Drona and others of that class. These men must be regarded as Mahajanas and Sadhus, but how can their conduct be regarded as righteous? What Yudhishthira means to say is that the standards of righteousness or that by which a good man may be known, is difficult of ascertainment.

The example of Viswamitra, Jamadagnya, and Vasishtha are cited by the commentator. The first won pre-eminence by his mastery over weapons. The second lost his character as a Brahmana by the profession of arms. The third lost nothing although he punished Viswamitra's insolence by using even carnal weapons.

What Yudhishthira says here is that righteousness or virtue or duty does not depend upon the Srutis or the Smritis, nor upon considerations of happiness or misery. On the other hand, righteousness is arbitrary in respect of its standard, that being called righteous which was called so by the learned of ancient times. As regards happiness or misery, its cause is eternal nature.

'In this connection,' i.e., the subject of the true cause to which is to be ascribed the dispensation of happiness or its reverse.

His gross body was within the water. Nevertheless, by Yoga power, he was able to rove over the world in his subtile body and beheld everything he wished to see.

Criya is explained by the commentator as implying the possession of Vedic lore.

This was a new vow that Jajali began to observe, the vow, viz., of travelling over the entire earth, sleeping there where evening overtook him.

A Beniya's shop is a miscellaneous depot. It contains chiefly spices and drugs, but there is no article for domestic use that may not be found in such a shop.

Bhandajivanah is one who lays out capital and lives upon its profits.

Charin is sancharanam for food.

In some of the Bengal texts, verse consists of 3 lines. The 3rd line, however, is omitted in the Bombay edition.

The commentator observes that in the second line the speaker explains what morality with its mysteries is.

Padmaka or Padma-kashta is the rootstock of Nymphoea lotus. A kind of medicinal wood also is indicated by it, which is brought from Malwa and Southern India. To this day, it enters into the composition of many drugs used by Hindu Physicians. Tunga is either the filaments of the lotus, or the tree called Punnaga which is identified with the Calophyllum inophyllum of the Linnean genera. The Bombay reading parichcchinnaih for parachcchinnaih does not seem to be correct.

In the Bengal editions, verse consists of one line. In the Bombay text, it is included with the 10th verse which is made a triplet. The meaning is that weighing creatures I regard all of them as equal. In my scales a Brahmana does not weigh heavier than a Chandala, or an elephant heavier than a dog or cat.

The sense is this: there is variety in this world. It is, however, like the variety of aspects which the sky shows. It is the same Godhead that manifests itself in diverse forms even as it is the same sky that puts forth various aspects in consequence of the appearance and disappearance of clouds.

Devairapihita-dwarah means persons whose doors (senses) have been closed by the deities, i.e., men with senses that are defective or lost.

That state is Brahma, and there is no fear of return from it. Hence, it is called abhayam padam.

The commentator explains that the mention of putra-pautrinam indicates that kulachara or family practices (if not very cruel) are authoritative.

The correct reading seems to be vimuchyate.--The sense is this: there is an eternal course of righteousness as laid down in the Vedas. That which is called the conduct of the good may sometimes be stained by some errors. Fools, led by this, give up righteousness itself. On the other hand, wise men, avoiding those errors, take what is good and are saved. An old saying is cited by the commentator to the effect that when all is threatened, a wise man gives up half for saving the remainder. A fool, however, gives up the whole when only half is threatened with destruction.

The word iha in verse is the only indication of the speaker's desire to allude to the union of relatives in this world.

K.P. Singha quietly omits the second half of the second line. The Burdwan translator, as usual, blunders in rendering it. The fact is, krosatah is not an adjective of vrikat, but stands for the roaring Vadava fire. The commentator distinctly mentions drishtante Vadavagnih.

Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood this verse.

Alpahrillekhah is explained by the commentator as alpam vahyasukham hridilekheva pratishthitam yesham; hence, men who seek ordinary felicity, viz., that which has a termination. The patavah are of course, the truly wise, i.e., those that seek felicity that is unending. Kritsna is Brahma; tadartham abhayadanamitinirnaya yesham, i.e., the truly wise practice it for the sake of Brahma. It is almost impossible to understand verses such as these without the aid of the commentator.

Padashinah has reference to Devah. The sandhi in Devapi is arsha. The deities become stupefied in his _track_, i.e., fail to see or find it out, for such a man is apadah, i.e., transcends the highest regions of felicity, such as even the region of Brahman, because of their non-eternity. Such a man attains to Brahma, which is infinite and eternal.

Bhuta is explained by the commentator as Brahma, and Bhavya, as heaven or the regions of felicity in the next world. In the Vedas both kinds of duties occur, such as Samah, etc., for Brahma, and sacrifices, &c., for heaven.

The commentator cites some conflicting ordinances about the slaughter of kine. The subject of duty, is thus confused, contradictory declarations being noticeable in the Vedas.

Badha here means striking or beating. If taken in the sense of 'death' the meaning would be putting some to death so that others may be frightened. These verses are a noble protest against the institution of slavery.

Some texts read Prishadhro-gamlavanniva, meaning Prishadhara perpetrated a great sin by killing a cow (mistaking it for a tiger, as the story goes).

The cow is called the mother because of the use to which she is subservient. Her milk nourishes every infant as much as the mother's bosom. The bull, again, is Prajapati, because like Prajapati he creates offspring and assists man in the production of food.

Nahusha had killed a cow and a bull for honouring the Rishis. The latter, however, expressed their dissatisfaction at the act, and cleansed him of the sin in the manner indicated in the text. The commentator cites the instance of how Indra was cleansed of the sin of Brahmanicide. The Rishis, in compassion, distributed the sin among all beings of the feminine sex. That sin manifests itself in their periodical flows and the consequent impurity.

The commentator explains that the Rishis addressed Nahusha in that style even when they knew that he had not intentionally slain the cow and the bull. The object of the speaker is to show the enormity of the act when done intentionally.

The fact is, all Sacrifices, in which injury is done to animal and vegetable life are Sacrifices for Kshatriyas. The only Sacrifice that Brahmanas should perform is Yoga.

Sacrifices are always attractive for the fame they bring. Their performance depends upon wealth. The acquisition of wealth leads to the commission of many evil acts.

The sense is that in former days when the true meaning of Sacrifice was understood and all men performed them without being urged by the desire of fruit, the beneficial consequences that flowed were the production of crops without tillage (and without injury to animals that live in holes and burrows). The good wishes the Rishis cherished for all creatures were sufficient to produce herbs and plants and trees. May not this be taken as an indication of the traditional idea of the happiness of Eden before the fall of man?

'Bereft of wisdom' is explained by the commentator as implying the non-attainment of emancipation.

This verse is exceedingly terse and condensed. In the second line, the words Brahmana vartate loke, literally rendered, mean 'who believes that only Brahma exists in the world.' The commentator takes these words as implying 'who regards every essential of Sacrifice as Brahma.' Although I have followed the commentator, yet I think his interpretation to be rather far-fetched. Why may not the words be taken in a literal sense? He who takes Brahma to be all things and all things to be Brahma, becomes sinless and deserves to be called a Brahmana. The last word of the second tine simply means 'who does not regard his own self as the actor.' The view expressed in the Gita is that we should do all acts believing ourselves to be only agents or instruments of the Supreme deity. Acts are His, we are only His tools. Such a conviction is sure to guard us against all evil acts.

What is said in verse 17 is that when Sacrifices are done from a sense of duty, notwithstanding their incompleteness, they become efficacious. It is only when they are performed from desire of fruit that expiation becomes necessary if their completion be obstructed by any cause. Having thus applauded the Sacrifices (represented by acts) of the truly wise, other kinds of Sacrifices are indicated in verse 18. K.P. Singha translates 18 correctly. The Burdwan version is erroneous.

Swayajna is literally 'sacrifice in one's own self'; hence, Yoga, Brahmam vedam is Pranava or Om.

K.P. Singha erroneously translates this verse. The Burdwan version, so far as it goes, is correct. Sarvam Brahma is explained as Pranava, which is akhilam daivatam, for the Srutis declare that Omkarah sarvadaivatyah, Brahmani is Brahmavidi. What is intended to be said in this verse is that when such a man eats and is gratified, the whole universe becomes gratified. In the Vana Parvam, Krishna, by swallowing a particle of pottage gratified the hunger of thousands of Durvasa's pupils.

Such a man regards all things as Brahma, and himself as Brahma.

K.P. Singha blunders in rendering the second half of the first line. Yasah, the commentator explains, is Mahadyasah or Brahma. 'The path of the righteous,' the commentator thinks, is Yoga.

i.e., they perform mental Sacrifices.

'For the reason,' i.e., because they cannot officiate at the Sacrifices of those that are truly good. In the second line (28 is a triplet), the nominative sadhavah is understood. The meaning is that such men, that is, the truly good, accomplish their own duties not for benefiting their own selves but for the good of others. What is said in the third line is that observing both kinds of behaviour, i.e., that of the good and that of the misguided, I follow the path of the former by abstaining from every kind of injury.

Yajneshu is 'among Sacrifices.' Yani has reference to the different kinds of the Sacrifices, viz., those performed from desire of fruit and consequently productive of Return, and those not performed from desire of fruit and consequently leading to Emancipation. Tena stands for tena Yajnena. What the speaker wishes to lay down is that only a certain class of sacrificers succeed in attaining to an end whence there is no return.

The sense seems to be that they perform mental Sacrifices, and not actual sacrifices after having created by Yoga-power all the necessary articles.

The sin of slaughtering a cow will not touch such a person, his soul being above the influence of acts.

i.e., I have for this reason spoken in praise of Renunciation and not that frame of mind in which one acts from desire of fruit.

These are, of course, the indications of complete Renunciation. Such a man never bends his head to another and never flatters another, for he is above all want.

Verse 35 is a triplet. In the first two lines the speaker says that one who does not accomplish the acts specified, fails to attain to a desirable end. In the last line, idam, refers to the duties of a true Brahmana or the indications of the Renunciation as laid down in verse 34. Daivatam kritwa, is explained by the commentator as Daivatamiva sevaniyam kritwa, Yajnam is Vishnu or Brahma as the Srutis declare.

The Munis referred to in the first line are those mentioned in verse 31 above. They are the atmayajins or mental sacrificers. Kashtam is gahanam. Asya in the second line refers to the particular Yoga of those Munis. Lest the Yoga propounded by Tuladhara be regarded as altogether new, a circumstance that would detract from their merit, the commentator explains the words natah as preceded by Avekshamana api understood.

Yasmin here is equivalent to Yadi, it being, as the commentator explains, Vibhaktipratirupakam avyayam. Eva is equivalent to Evam, meaning Twaduktaprakarena; atmatirtha means atmaiva tirtham or Yajnabhumistatra. Prapnuyat in the second line stands for prapnuyuh. The use of the singular for the plural is arsha.

What is said here is this: the sacrifices of some men become lost through absence of faith. These men, it is plain, are not worthy of performing any kind of sacrifice internal or external. The performance of sacrifice, however, is easy. The cow and her products can minister to all sacrifices. In the case of those that are able, full libations of clarified butter, of milk, and of curds, are sufficient to enable them to perform whatever sacrifice they wish. As regards those that are poor, the dust of a cow's hoof and the water in which a cow's tail and horns have been washed, are quite sufficient to enable them to perform their sacrifices. Purnahuti should not, I think, be taken as different from clarified butter, etc.

All these verses are exceedingly terse. Anena vidhina is the mode which the speaker himself advocates, viz., the performance of sacrifices without slaughter of animals. Niyojayan is an instance hetau satri. After prakaroti Sraddham is understood. Ishtam here means Yagam. Yajunam (as in verse 35 above) is Brahma.

The soul is itself a tirtha. A tirtha, of course, is a spot containing sacred water. One should seek the acquisition of merit in the soul instead of going to places called sacred and lying in different parts of the earth. 'According to his own ability' means 'according to the best of his power.' If one can perform a sacrifice with clarified butter, one should not do it with the dust of a cow's hoofs.

Dharmasya vachanat kila is explained by the commentator as Dharmasya ahinsatmakasya samvandhino vachanat. I think the words may also mean, 'obeying the voice of Dharma.'

The two negatives in the second line amount to an affirmative assertion.

Vaivaswati is 'appertaining to Vivaswat or prakasarapachidatma', hence 'Brahma-vishayini'. 'Daughter of Surya' means Sattwiki. Faith is vahirvangamanasi, i.e., is 'the outward form of speech and mind,' implying that it 'transcends (the merit born of) speech (recitation) and mind (meditation).'

'Defects of speech' are the incorrect utterance of mantras. 'Defects of mind' are such as listlessness, haste, etc.

Kadarya is explained by the commentator as 'miserly.' I think it may be taken also in a more extended sense. Then again vardhushi is a usurer and not necessarily a dealer in corn.

The commentator is entirely silent upon this verse. The two Bengali versions have proceeded in two different ways. The four classes of persons indicated in the previous verses are (1) he that is destitute of faith but is (outwardly) pure, (2) he that has faith but is not (outwardly) pure, (3) a miserly person possessed of learning, and (4) a usurer endued with liberality. The answer of Brahman, without touching other points, refers particularly to faith. The liberal man's food is sanctified by faith. The food of him that has no faith is lost. For this reason, the liberal man's food, even if he happens to be a usurer, is worthy of acceptance, and not so the food of the miser even though he may be possessed of Vedic lore.

The commentator takes the word divam as implying hardakasam. They sported (not in the ordinary felicity of heaven but) in the puissance of Yoga.

Gograhe is explained by the commentator as 'a sacrifice in which kine are slain.' Yajnavatasya is an instance of the genitive for the accusative. It means Yajnavatsthan nirdayan Brahmanan. The expression may also mean 'in the cow-pen within the sacrificial enclosure.'

Avyaktaih is explained by the commentator as Yajnadi-dwaraiva khyatimichchhadbhih.

Kamakara may also mean recklessness, Vahirvedyam is 'on the outer Vedi or altar.' The actual slaughter takes place on this vedi. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word.

Upasya, is explained by the commentator as 'living near an inhabited place.' Vedakritah Srutih are the fruits indicated in the Vedas of the acts laid down in them. Acharah has reference to the duties of the domestic mode of life. Acharah should be made anacharah, i.e., should not be followed. The Sannyasa mode of life is thus recommended.

The meaning is this: ordinary men abstain from tainted meat, regarding all meat as tainted which is obtained from animals that are not killed in sacrifices and in course of religious acts. The speaker, however, holds that this practise is not worthy of applause, for all meat is tainted, including that of animals slain in sacrifices. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly though his rendering is not literal. The Burdwan translator, misunderstanding text and commentary, jumbles them together and gives an incorrect rendering.

Hence there is no need for sacrifices with slaughter of animals, and alcohol, etc.