Book 12 edition notes 1201–1300

The sense is this: dangers are always seeking to destroy the body. The body is always seeking to destroy those destroyers. This perpetual war or struggle implies the desire to injure. How then, asks Yudhishthira, is it possible for any man to lead a perfectly harmless life, harm being implied in the very fact of continued existence?

The sense, of course, is that one should acquire religious merit without wasting one's body; one should not, that is, cause one's body to be destroyed for the sake of earning merit.

On the occasion of the Jata-karma the sire says 'be thou as hard as adamant,' 'be thou an axe (unto all my foes).' The upakarma or subsidiary rite is performed on the occasion of the samavartana or return from the preceptor's abode. It is called subsidiary because it does not occur among the rites laid down in the Griha Sutras. The words uttered on that occasion are, 'Thou art my own self, O Son.'

Bhogya implies such articles as dress,--etc. Bhojya implies food, etc. Pravachana is instruction in the scriptures. Garbhadhana is the ceremonial in connection with the attainment of puberty by the wife. Simantonnayana is performed by the husband in the fourth, sixth or eighth month of gestation, the principal rite being the putting of the minimum mark on the head of the wife. The mark is put on the line of partition of her locks.

In India in every house two sticks were kept for producing fire by rubbing. These were replaced by the flint-stone and a piece of steel. Of course, Bryant and May's matches have now replaced those primitive arrangements almost everywhere, and in the hands of children have become a source of great danger to both life and property.

Prana is the organ of generation. Samslesha is union. The desires cherished are indicated in the Griha Sutras. 'Let our child be fair of complexion.' 'Let him be long-lived!' Though both parents cherish such wishes, yet their fruition depends more on the mother than the father. This is a scientific truth.

The sense seems to be this. The mother only has correct knowledge of who the father is. The commands of the father, therefore, may be set aside on the ground of the suspicion that attaches to his very status as father. Then, again, if the father be adulterous, he should not be regarded on account of his sinfulness. Chirakarin asks, 'How shall I know that Gautama is my father? How again shall I know that he is not sinful?'

The object of this verse is to indicate that when Gautama had ceased to protect his wife he had ceased to be her husband. His command, therefore, to slay her could not be obeyed.

The commentator argue that 'man being the tempted, takes the guilt upon himself; woman, being the tempted, escapes the guilt.'

The sense is this: the sire is all the deities together, for by reverencing the sire, all the deities are pleased. The mother, however, is all mortal and immortal creatures together, for by gratifying her one is sure to obtain success both here and hereafter.

Dharmasya is explained by the commentator as Yogadharma-sambandhi. Probably, Gautama blames his own carelessness in not having provided, by Yoga-puissance, against the commission of the offence. The commentator observes that the Rishi's exculpation of Indra himself is due to his own purity of nature and the entire absence of a desire to wrong other people. In reality, however, there can be no doubt that it was Indra who was to blame.

i.e., prince Satyavat said that the persons brought out for execution should not be executed. The power of kings did not extend over the lives of their subjects. In other words the prince argued against the propriety of inflicting capital punishment upon even grave offenders.

Verse 10 is a triplet.

The Burdwan translator gives a very incorrect version of this verse. He misunderstands both text and commentary completely. K.P. Singha is correct.

The commentator explains that the object of this line is to show that the very Sannyasin, when he offends, deserves to be chastised. K.P. Singha misunderstands the line completely. The Burdwan version is correct.

Both the vernacular versions of this verse are incorrect. The first half of the first line should be taken independently. The commentator explains that after gariyamsam the words api sasyu should be supplied. Aparadhe tu punah punah, etc., is said of offenders in general, and not eminent offenders only.

i.e., punishments were not necessary in former times, or very light ones were sufficient. The Burdwan version of this verse is thoroughly ridiculous.

Hence extermination is the punishment that has become desirable.

Hence, by slaying them no injury is done to any one in this or the other world.

Padma means, the ornaments of corpses. Grave-stealers that were in every country. Pisachat is Pisachopahatat. Evidently, idiots and mad men were the persons who were regarded to have been possessed by evil spirits. Daiyatam is an accusative which, like, Samayam is governed by the transitive verb Kurvita. Yah kaschit means yah kaschit mudyhah, na tu prajnah. The Burdwan version of this verse shows that the person entrusted with this portion of the Canti was altogether incompetent for the task. K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly.

The commentator supposes that after sadhun the word kartum is understood. The line may also be taken as meaning,--'If thou dost not succeed in rescuing the honest without slaying (the wicked).' Bhuta bhavya is sacrifice. The prince speaks of exterminating the rogues by slaying them as animals in a sacrifice because of the declaration in the Srutis that those killed in sacrifices ascend to heaven, purged of all their sins. Such acts, therefore, seem to be merciful to the prince, compared to death by hanging or on the block.

The world thus improves in conduct and morality through the king only behaving in a proper way. Cruel punishments are scarcely needed to reform the world.

The period of human life decreases proportionately in every succeeding age, as also the strength of human beings. In awarding punishments, the king should be guided by these considerations.

The word satya is used here for Emancipation. Mahaddahrmaphalam is true knowledge, so called because of its superiority to heaven, etc. The way pointed out by Manu is, of course, the religion of harmlessness. In verse 35, there is an address to prince Satyavat. It seems, as I have pointed out, that verses 32 to 35 represent the words of the grandsire to whom the prince refers in verse 31.

The redundant syllable is arsha.

Both acts and knowledge have been pointed out in the Vedas. The Vedas, therefore, being authority for both, one or the other cannot be censured or applauded.

Arsha means here Vedic injunctions declared through the mouths of inspired Rishis and compiled by Rishis. Viditatmanah is the Supreme Being himself. The object of the speaker is to show that no part of the Vedas can be censured, for every word in them is equally authoritative, all being God's own.

Deva-yanah is explained by the commentator as Devam atmanam janti ebhiriti, i.e., those by which the Soul is reached. The relative strength or weakness of the four modes of life hath been thus indicated. The Sannyasin attains to Moksha or Emancipation; the forest recluse to the region of Brahman; the house-holder attains to heaven (region of the deities presided over by Indra) and the Brahmacharin attains to the region of the Rishis.

The commentator explains that having commenced with the assertion that men should sacrifice from desire of heaven, the speaker fears that the hearer may deny the very existence of heaven. Hence, he takes a surer ground for justifying slaughter, viz., the ground that is connected with the consideration of food. Living creatures must eat in order to live. The very support of life requires the slaughter of life. Slaughter, therefore, is justified by the highest necessity.

i.e., there are the essential requisites of sacrifice.

The seven domestic animals are cow, goat, man, horse, sheep, mule, and ass. The seven wild ones are lion, tiger, boar, buffalo, elephant, bear, and monkey.

Vichinwita is Vivechayet with alamvartham understood; atmanah is equivalent to jivat.

All the products of the cow that are named here are not required in all sacrifices. Some are required in some, others in others. Those then that _are_ required, when coupled with Ritwijas and Dakshina, complete the respective sacrifices or uphold or sustain them.

Samhritya means Ekikritya and not 'destroying' as the Burdwan translator wrongly takes it.

The Burdwan translator, notwithstanding the clear language of both the text and commentary, wrongly connects the first line of verse 31 with the last line of 30, and makes nonsense of both verses.

By taking the two lines of 32 with the last line of 30, the Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the passage.

'Brahmanas' here means that part of the Vedas which contains the ritual.

Each constitutes the refuge of the other.

There are many such expletives, such as hayi, havu, etc.

For, as the commentator explains, one who has acquired an empire does not seek the dole of charity. In view of the high end that Renunciation is certain to bring, what need has a person of the domestic mode of life which leads to rewards that are insignificant compared to the other.

Varhi is grass or straw. Oshadhi here implies paddy and other grain. Vahiranya adrija implies 'other kinds of Oshadhi born on mountains,' i.e., the Soma and other useful hill plants and shrubs. Teshamapi mulam garhastyam should be supplied after the first line. Domesticity is the root of these, because these are cultivated or collected by persons leading the domestic mode of life. The argument in the second line is this: Oschadhibhyah pranah, pranat vahihna kinchit drisyate, atah viswasyapi mulam garhastyam.

Literally rendered, the words are,--'Without doubt, Vedic mantras enter into persons of the regenerate classes in respect of acts whose effects are seen and acts whose effects instead of being seen depend upon the evidence of the scriptures.' Practically, what is said here is that all the acts of a Brahmana are performed with the aid of Vedic mantras.

Mantras are necessary in cremating a Brahmana's dead body. Mantras are needed for assisting the dead spirit to attain to a brilliant form (either in the next world or in this if there be rebirth). These mantras are, of course, uttered in Sraddhas. After the dead spirit has been provided, with the aid of mantras, with a body, food and drink are offered to him with the aid of mantras. Kine and animals are given away by the representatives of the dead for enabling the dead ancestor to cross the Vaitarani (the river that flows between the two worlds) and for enabling him to become happy in heaven. The funeral cake, again, according to the ordinance, is sunk in water for making it easily attainable by him to whom it is offered. By becoming a human being one inherits three debts. By study he pays off his debt to the Rishis, by the performance of sacrifices he pays off his debt to the gods, and by begetting children he frees himself from the debt he owes to the Pitris. The argument then is this: when the Vedas, which are the words of Supreme Godhead, have laid down these mantras for the attainment of such objects in the next world, how can Emancipation, which involves an incorporeal existence transcending the very Karana (form) be possible? The very declarations of the Vedas in favour of acts are inconsistent with incorporeal existence or with the negation of existence with dual consciousness of knower and known.

The mention of 'Devan' as the commentator points out--Rishis and also Pitris. The amrita here that these covet is, of course, the Sacrificial libation. 'Brahma-sanjnitah' implies 'conversant with Brahma,' for the Srutis say that 'Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati.'

The terseness of the original has not been removed in the translation. Enam is the universal Soul dwelling within this physical frame. It refers to the person who constitutes himself to be the soul of all creatures or one who is conversant with Brahma or has become Brahma itself. That soul is said to have a fourfold nature, viz., it is virat (all-embracing), sutra (fine as the finest thread and pervading everything), antaryamin (possessed of omniscience), and suddha (stainless). Its four mouths, by which are meant the four sources of enjoyment or pleasure, are the body, the senses, the mind, and the understanding. What the speaker wishes to point out by this is the Bhotkritwa (power of enjoyment) of the Soul. The Kartritwa (power of action) is then pointed out by the mention of the doors which are the two arms, the organ of speech, the stomach and the organ of the pleasure (generation). These last operate as doors for shutting or confining the soul within its chamber. They are the screens or avaranas that conceal its real nature. The very gods feel their force, being unable to transcend them or their demands. He who would transcend them and shine in his own stainless nature should seek to control or restrain them. Practically, it is Yoga that is recommended for enabling one to attain to the position of the universal Soul.

'One who has cast off his upper garment' is one who clothes himself very scantily only for the sake of decency and not for splendour.

Dwandwarama very likely means here the joys of wedded couples and not 'the pleasures derived from pairs of opposites'. The sense seems to be this that man is a Brahmana who, without marrying succeeds in enjoying singly all the felicity that attaches to married life.

In reality all things are, of course, Brahma. Their external aspects are only transformations. The end of all creatures is death and rebirth till absorption takes place into Brahma by means of Yoga.

The original is very terse. I have expanded it, following the commentator. Dana-yajna kriya phalam is chitta suddhi of purity or heart; antarena is equivalent to vina; anujananti governs Brahmanyam understood. Anyat phalam in the second line implies heaven and its joys (which satisfy ordinary men). The particle anu before jananti is taken to imply gurum anu, i.e., following the instructions of preceptors.

These three verses run together and are extremely abstruse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. The construction is this: Yam sadacharam asritya samsritanam swakarmabhih (sahitam) tapah ghoratwam agatam, tam (sadacharam) puranam puranam saswatam dhruvam dharmeshu cha sutritamkitichit charitum asaknuvantah phalavanti vyushtimanti dhruvam cha karmani (mudah) vigunani, etc., pasyanti. The second line of 36 stands by itself as an explanatory sentence referring to some of the characteristics of the sadachara that is spoken of. Samsritanam, refers to men observing the different modes of life; ghoratwam agatam is samsarandhakaranasakam bhavati. What is meant by this is that the penances of such men, along with the duties they are called upon to observe by the particular mode of life they follow, become a terrible weapon, in consequence of their sadacharah, for destroying the evils of worldliness. The sadacharah spoken of here is nishkamadharmah. The latter is no new-fangled theory of men of learning but is puranam saswatam, and dhruvam. The phalavanti vyushtimanti, and dhruva karmani which fools regard to be vigyunani and anaikatitikani are, of course, those acts which are included within the word 'Yoga.' In brief, the speaker, in these three verses, wishes to inculcate that wise men, whatever their mode of life, observe its duties. But by virtue of the nishkama dharma they follow, they convert those duties and their penances into efficient means for dispelling the darkness of ignorance. Fools, on the other hand, unable to practise that nishkama dharma, look upon it and Yoga itself as fruitless and valueless although the rewards these confer are visible.

The sciences that have disputation only for their foremost object, are, according to the commentator, the sciences of the Lokayatikas, the Saughatas (or Buddhists), the Kapalikas, etc. The other sciences based on Logic that are included within the word Agama are the two Mimamsas, Sankhya, and Patanjala.

Aikatmyam is explained by the commentator as Eka eva dwaita darsana hina atma yatra bhavati. Practically, it is that state of the mind in which one perceives one's identity with everything in the universe. This is that true knowledge which brings about Emancipation or is Emancipation itself.

They are called 'robbers of the scriptures' because they always seek to rob the scriptures of their true meaning. They are 'depredators of Brahma' because they deny the very existence of Godhead. Nirarambhah is Camadyarambha-sunyah.

The particle anu means 'following the instructions of preceptors.' Samyame refers to Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. Some texts read Siddhante for samyame.

What is intended to be said here is that only a life of Renunciation, so hard to follow, can lead to Emancipation. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the second line of 64 by connecting it with the first line of 65, K.P. Singha omits it entirely.

The Vedas are Savda-Brahma or Brahma as represented by sound.

I have expanded this verse, following the lead of the commentator. Some idea may be given of the extreme terseness of such verses by offering a literal rendering: 'That lump of matter which is made a (human) body by what is contained in the Veda, is (afterwards) made (a body by the same means).' One approaches one's wife after performing the rite of Garbhadhana. In this rite, different deities are invoked to develop different organs and parts of the body of the child to be begotten. Thus begotten, the body of the child is, subsequent to birth, cleansed or purified. All this requires the aid of the Vedic mantras. What Kapila wishes to teach is that commencing with acts, knowledge should finally be acquired.

Yoga is the only way to true knowledge, hence Jnana-nishthah is Yoga-nishthah.

These and men like these are pointed out as persons deserving of gifts.

i.e., in Brahma as possessed of attributes and as freed from attributes.

Matra is explained as miyante vishya anya i.e., the understanding. What is meant by guile in the practice of righteousness may be exemplified as follows. Individual grains of barley may be given away instead of clothes by one unable to obtain clothes for gift. But one giving away barley grains when perfectly able to give away clothes would be guilty of guile.

The scriptures frequently lay down ordinances in the alternative. The absolute or substantive provisions are for the able. Those in the alternative are for them that are unable.

What is meant by the sacrifices, etc., of such men being identical with infinite Brahma is that these men were identical with Brahma and whatever they did was Brahma. They had no consciousness of self, or they did nothing for self. They were the Soul of the universe.

What is said here in effect is that at first there was only one course of duties, called sadachara or good conduct, for all men. In progress of time men became unable to obey all its dictates in their entirety. It then became necessary to distribute those duties into four subdivisions corresponding with the four modes of life.

Both K.P. Singha and the Burdwan translator have completely misunderstood verse 23 and the first line of 24, which, as the commentator explains, should be construed together. The construction is Tam (sadacharam) santah grihebhyah nishkramya eva (sannyasam kritwaiva) vidhivatprapya paramam gatim gachcchanti. Anye santo vanamasritah tam vidhivat prapya, etc. Similarly, Grihameva bhisamsritya anye santah, etc. Jato-anye, etc. Thus, all the four modes, commencing with the last, are spoken of.

It is impossible for any one to read the Burdwan version of such verses without pitying the Pandit responsible for its accuracy. Without understanding the commentary in the least, the words of the great commentator have been reproduced in the Burdwan version in a strange order, rejecting some of the connecting links without any excuse, and making the Collocation utterly unintelligible. K.P. Singha gives the substance very briefly without endeavouring to translate the words. And yet the verse presents almost no difficulty. The last line of 29 and the first line of 30 make one sentence. Chaturthopanishaddharmah is explained by the commentator as implying paramatma-vishayini vidya, tadartham dharmah. There are four states of consciousness: 1st, wakefulness; 2nd, dream; 3rd, dreamless slumber (sushupti); and 4th, Turiya, which is reached by Samadhi (abstraction of Yoga-meditation), and in which Brahma becomes realisable. What is said in these two lines is simply this: the duties (dharmah), relating to the Chaturthopanishat or, the Knowledge of Paramatman, are sadharanah or common to all the four orders of men and modes of life. Those duties, of course, are sama, dama, uparama, titiksha, sraddha, samadhi. What is said in the last line of 30 is that Brahmanas of pure hearts and restrained souls always succeed (by the help of those duties) in acquiring or attaining to that Turiya or consciousness of Brahma.

Apavargamiti is explained by the commentator as apavargaprada vidya or Brahmasakshatkararupa vrittiryasmin iti. Nityin is avasyakah. Yatidharmah is a life of Renunciation. What is meant by sanatanah is sampradayagatah.

Sadharana is opposed to kevala. Yathavalam implies yathavaira-gyam, Gachcchatam Gachcchatam means purushamatrasyavanigvya-dhadeh. The Burdwan translator misses the sense altogether and K.P. Singha quietly passes over the entire second line of this triplet. Durvala means he who is wanting in vairagya.

The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that even if there be equality in respect of the end that is attained in next life, there is more of real felicity in a life of Renunciation than in a life of enjoyment. The Burdwan translator misses the sense entirely.

The Burdwan translator gives a very erroneous version of this verse.

For by Knowledge Emancipation is obtained.

Vatarechaka is bhastra or a bellows. What is implied is, perhaps, that such a man breathes or lives in vain.

Nasti is explained by the commentator as the past and the future. Nishtha is swarupam. Literally, what is said is that everything is the Vedas, or the Vedas are everything. This is, perhaps, only an exaggerated mode of saying that the Vedas deal with everything.

The sense seems to be that while they that are ignorant regard the universe to be as existent and durable as the thunder or adamant, the man of knowledge regards it to be truly non-existent though it puts forth the appearance of existence.

I have endeavoured to give a literal version of verse 45. It is difficult, however, to seize the meaning from such versions. The word used in the first line is Tyaga implying Renunciation. The commentator correctly explains that this is that complete Renunciation which takes place in Samadhi or the perfect abstraction of Yoga. Samaptam is samyak aptam (bhavati). This samyak is Brahma. Similarly, santosha is not ordinary contentment but Brahmananda or the Supreme felicity of one who has attained to Brahma. The meaning, then, is this: in the complete abstraction of Yoga (i.e., Samadhi) is Brahma. This all the Vedas teach. In Emancipation again is the Supreme felicity of Brahma. Apavargah is not annihilation but Emancipation, which is existence in Brahma without the dual consciousness of knower and known.

I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the adjectives in the text.

The grammatical construction of this verse is very difficult to catch. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. Tehjah, kshama, santih,--these are anamayam subham, i.e., nirdukhasya sukhasyapraptau hetuh. Tatha, separates these from what follows. Abidham Vyoma Santanam, and dhruvam are governed by gamyate, Etaih sarvaih refers to Tejah and the two others. Abidham is explained as akittrimam; vyoma as jagatkaranam. The Burdwan translator gives a correct version, although his punctuation is incorrect. He errs, however, in not taking anamayam subham as one and the same. K.P. Singha errs in connecting anamayam with what follows tatha.

Nishkriti is literally escape. There is escape for those referred to; of course, the escape is to be sought by expiation. There is none for an ingrate, for ingratitude is inexpiable.

Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.

The Brahman evidently refers to the indifference of Kundadhara towards him. He had thought that Kundadhara would, in return for his adorations, grant him wealth. Disappointed in this, he says, when Kundadhara does not mind my adorations, who else will? I had, therefore, better give up all desire for wealth and retire into the woods. The passage, however, seems to be inconsistent with the Brahmana's indifference to the fine fabrics of cloth lying around him.

Persons who have won ascetic success utter a wish and it is immediately fulfilled. 'I give thee this,' and forthwith what is given in words appears bodily, ready to be taken and appropriated. The words of such persons do not follow their meanings, but meanings follow their words.

The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of this verse. He forgets his grammar so completely as to take etaih as qualifying lokah.

The verse is not difficult; the commentator, again, is very clear. The Burdwan translator, however, while citing the very words of the commentary, totally misunderstands them and makes utter nonsense of them. Ekarthanam is explained as Ekam chitiasuddhih Iswarapritirva tadarthanam madhya. The question asked is dharmartham yo yajnah samahitah (viniyuktah) tadeva vruhi and not that Yajna which sukhartham (bhavati).

One that subsists upon grains of corn picked up from the fields after the reapers have abandoned them is called a person leading the unchha mode of life. The Burdwan translator commits the ridiculous error of taking unchhavrittih as the _name_ of the Brahmana. The commentator supposes that Yajna here implies Vishnu, as expounded in the Srutis.

Syamaka is a variety of paddy called Panicum frumentaceum. 'Suryaparni' is otherwise called 'Mashaparni' (Ayurvedhartha chandrika). It is identified with Tiramus labialis, syn.--Glycine deblis. 'Suvarchala' is a name applied to various plants. Here, very probably, 'Brahmisaka,' or Herpestes Monnjera (syn.--Gratiola Monniera, Linn) is intended.

i.e., he never slaughtered living animals for offering them in sacrifices because of his inability to procure them. He, therefore, substituted vegetable products for those animals. His sacrifices, intended to take him to heaven, were really cruel in intention.

Following the Bombay text I read the last line of 8 as Sukrasya punarajatih Parnadonamadharmavit, or Sukrasya punarjnabhih, etc.; ajatih is a 'descendant.' If ajnabhih be taken as the reading it would mean 'at the repeated commands of Sukra.' The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit seems to be vicious. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect; K.P. Singha supplying something of his own will for making sense of what, he writes, and the Burdwan translator writing nonsense as usual.

K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan translator is correct.

Both the vernacular versions of this verse were incorrect. The commentator explains that the grammar is rasatalam didrikshuh sa Yajna-pavakam pravishtah. Yajne duscharitam kinnu, samipavarti mudo janah i.e., fearing to see many other defects in the sacrifice which was being celebrated by an ignorant person.

Vaddhanjalim is an adverb, qualifying ayachata. The Burdwan translator wrongly takes it as an adjective of Satyam.

In verse 8, it is said that it was a descendant of Sukra, viz., the virtuous Parnada, who had become a deer and lived in those woods as the Brahmana's neighbour. Here it is said that it was the deity Dharma who had become so. The two statements may be reconciled supposing that Dharma first became the Rishi Parnada and then, as Parnada, was metamorphosed into a deer. Tasya nishkritim adhatta is explained by the commentator in a very far-fetched way. He takes these words to mean that Dharma, who had become a deer, provided at this juncture for his liberation from that metamorphosis. I think tasya has reference to the misled Brahmana.

Yajnia is explained as yajnaya hita.

Samadhanam is the absorption of meditation, or that state of mind in which one has no longer any affection for the world, Bharyayh is genitive, but the Burdwan translator takes it for the instrumental singular.

Yo dhamah is the reading I take, and not no dharmah.

The commentator explains the grammar as panchanam (madhya ekam) artham prapya, etc.

This is the mastery or puissance that is brought by Yoga, so that the person succeeds, fiats of the will, in creating whatever he desires.

The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculous version of this verse. He cites the commentator's words without understanding them aright.

What he does is to abandon sakamah dharmah for betaking himself to nishaamah dharmah or the practice of duties without desire of fruit, for only such a course of conduct can lead to Emancipation.

By dharma here is meant nishkama dharma, for the fruits of sakama dharma are not eternal, heaven like all things else having an end.

What is said in this verse is this: when a man wants an earthen jar, he works for creating one. When he has got one, he no longer finds himself in the same state of mind, his want having been satisfied. Similarly, with men desirous of heaven and earthly prosperity as the reward of virtue, the means is Pravritti or acts. This or these cease to operate with those who having acquired such virtue set themselves for the achievement of Emancipation, for with them the religion of Nivritti is all in all.