Book 12 edition notes 1401–1500

There are three vocatives in this verse, expressive, of course, of great surprise. I omit them in the translation.

A kind of substance like lac that oozes out of the stones of certain mountains during the hot months. It is also called Silajit, is taken internally by many men in the belief that it increases digestion and strength.

The Indian cuckoo, noted for his clear musical kuhus. This is the favourite bird of Indian poets.

i.e., Thou, however, art not so; therefore, it is a matter of surprise that thou shouldst not yet know me. The sense is not at all difficult, but K.P. Singha skips over it.

Both the vernacular translators have erred in rendering this line. What Mahadeva says to Uma is, how is it that you have thus been stupefied? It is thou that stupefiest others! To see thee stupefied has created surprise in me.

Mahadeva is called Virupaksha in consequence of his three eyes, the third eye making his features dreadful to behold. He is also called Tryaksha for his possession of three eyes.

Every worshipper of Mahadeva must fill his mouth with air and then, shutting his lips, strike his cheeks, letting the air gently out at each stroke, and helping it with air from the lungs for keeping the current steady. By doing this a kind of noise is made like Bom, Bom, Babam, Bom. Mahadeva is himself fond of this music and is represented as often making it.

Vrisha is explained by the commentator as vrishti-kartri; Vrishya as Dharmavriddhikartri; Go-vrisha as Nandirupa; Katankata as Nityagamanasila; Danda as Niyantri.

Godhead is frequently likened to anahatasavda or sound not perceptible by the ear, or sound in its nascent state.

Huns are mystic sounds that stand as emblems for various things. 'Beyond three Huns' means, perhaps, 'beyond the influence of wrath.'

In Sacrifice the butter is poured with mantras into the mouth of a selected Brahmana who represents the gods, and into also the sacred fire. What is said here is that the great god is of the form of that Brahmana and of the sacred fire.

This alludes to the sports of Krishna in the groves of Vrinda with the rustic children who were his companions.

The sacred stream of the Ganges, issuing out of Vishnu's feet, is held by Brahman in his Kamandalu or jar. Thence it issues out, and coursing through the heavens fall down on the head of Siva, for Siva alone is mighty enough to bear that fall. The matted locks of Siva bear the mark of the fall. This six well-known acts here referred to are Yajana, Yajana, Adhyayana, Adhyapana, Dana, and Pratigraha (i.e., performing sacrifices, assisting at the sacrifices of others, studying, teaching, making gifts, and accepting gifts). The three acts in which Siva is engaged are Yajana, Adhyayana, and Dana (i.e., the first, the third, and the fifth in the above enumeration).

The commentator explains that by Sankhya the speaker means 'the propounder of the sceptical philosophy.' By Sankhya-mukhya which I render, 'the foremost of Sankhyas' is meant 'follower of the theistic philosophy of Patanjala.' By Sankhya-yoga is meant both Vedanta and Yoga.

'That hast a car and that hast no car' means, as the commentator explains, 'capable of coursing, without obstruction, through Water, Fire, Wind, and Space.'

Isana is 'much desired' or 'much coveted by all persons.'

i.e., thou createst and destroyest these repeatedly or settest them in motion.

These are syllables which all singers of the Samans utter for lengthening short words in order to keep up the metre.

i.e., He who is adored in these hymns is thyself and no other.

These are the ten colours known to the Rishis.

Lohitantargata-drishtih is explained by the commentator as Lohita antargata cha drishtirasya. By 'red eyes' is, of course, meant eyes of the colour of the lotus. By 'eyes turned inwards' is meant one whose gaze is upon his soul, i.e., one who is engaged in Samadhi.

Chalachalah is explained as exceedingly chalah or swift. Achalah is nasti chalo yasmat; hence chaleshu (api) achalah is swift amongst the swift, or swifter than the swiftest.

The great god is a fish wandering in the waters, i.e., as Jiva wanders in space; he is a fish in the net, i.e., as Jiva, invested with Darkness or Illusion, is obliged to take birth.

Meghakala is the time when clouds appear, i.e., the time of the universal deluge. Samvartaka and Valahaka are the two clouds that appear on the occasion of the universal destruction.

Mili-Mili is explained by the commentator differently. According to him, one connected with all things as cause is Mili. It is duplicated to show that Siva is always so. I prefer taking the word as meaning 'cause of causes.' 'The bearer of Danda, with, again, a bald head' is a Paramahansa, i.e., one who has renounced the world and its ways.

The four Sacrificial fires are Treta, Avasathya, Dakshina, and Sahya.

Silpika is one who is not well-skilled, or is ill-skilled, in the arts. It implies a common artisan.

Dhatri is adikartri or Vishnu. Vidhatri is the four-headed. Brahman Sandhatri is he who joins all things into one; the second Vidhatri means the designer of destinies.

The identity of Maheswara with Narayana or Krishna is here preached. In his incarnation of Krishna, Vishnu sported with the children of the cowherds of Vrinda and sportively lowed as a cow. He also protected the kine of Vrinda from floods, poison, etc. Govrisheswara is Nandi, the attendant of Mahadeva.

The word Go in Gomargah is used to signify the senses.

Durvaranah is explained by the commentator as 'irresistible when coming as Death.' Durvishah is 'destroyer of all kinds of poison in thy form of Amrita.' Durdharshah is incapable of being frightened. Durvishah is incapable of being measured.

Vishagnipah is drinker of poison and fire. Siva is represented as the acceptor of all things that are rejected by others. In this consists his true divinity, for to the Deity nothing in the universe can be unacceptable or worthy of being cast off. The ashes of the funeral pyre are his, the poison produced by the churning of the ocean was his. He saved the universe by swallowing the poison on that occasion.

Tushitadyapah is the correct reading. Thou protectest him who is the adya of the tushita, i.e., thou protectest Brahman himself.

The commentator explains that what is meant by Mahadeva's staying 'alone' is that he is the knower, the known, and knowledge. 'On the other side of the ocean' means 'on the other side of desire and attachment, etc.' 'Overwhelming many thousands of persons' means 'overwhelming all creatures,' i.e., transcending them by his energy and knowledge.

Of course, Yogins are spoken of.

The eclipses of both the Moon and the Sun are caused, according to the Pauranic mythology, by Rahu devouring the Moon and the Sun at certain well-known intervals. Rahu is an Asura whose head only is still alive. Vide Adi Parva, On Churning of the Ocean.

Garbhah means embryos or infants in the womb. The deities were referred to by this word, for they are embryos that have been born in Mahadeva. Patitah has twattah understood after it. Anu means 'after' i.e., 'after Brahman's creation.'

These Beings are Rudras or portions of the great Rudra.

Tasmaih paramgatah,--param is utkrishtam i.e., Renunciation and other superior practices. Tasmai is 'for the sake of That,' i.e., for Iswarah.

Hence in this, the present Kalpa too, I am obliged to do the same, for all Kalpas must be similar in respect of the events that transpire in them.

Matri-pakshe seems to be a misreading for bhartripakshe.

By gunah which I have rendered 'virtues,' is, of course, intended all that constitute the body, including mind and understanding, all, in fact, that become the accompaniments of the Soul.

Karma-buddhi is to be taken as one. It means the consciousness or apprehension of functions. Each sense or organ instinctively knows what its object is and apprehends that object immediately. This apprehension of its own functions, which every sense possesses, is here designated as Karma-buddhi. Mana-shashththani here simply means 'mind completing the tale of six.' It has no reference to the five senses having the mind for the sixth, for the senses have already been named in the previous verses.

Acts here means the acts of past lives, or the desire dwelling in an incipient form, due to the acts of past lives. The commentator explains that the cha in the second line means the five attributes indicated in the first line.

The word Buddhya in the first line is taken by the commentator as an instrumental and not as a genitive. Hence he takes it that Kalpitani is understood after it.

i.e., occupies them one after another.

Murti is a misreading for apurti or discontentedness. The Burdwan translator retains murti in his Bengali version. It is not clear which reading K.P. Singha adopts. The Bengali substitute he gives is murchccha or stupefaction.

i.e., there are no materials of which it is constituted. Hence Sattwa or Buddhi has no asrayah or upadana.

What the speaker inculcates in verses 41 and 42 is this: some are of opinion that with the apparent destruction of the body, the attributes that make up the body do not cease to exist. It is true that they cease to become apprehensible by the senses; but then, though removed from the ken of the senses, their existence may be affirmed by inference. The argument is that, if destroyed, their reappearance would be impossible. The reappearance, however, is certain. (For rebirth is a doctrine that is believed to be a solemn truth requiring no argument to prove it). Hence, the attributes, when apparently destroyed, do continue to exist. They are regarded as then inhering in the linga or subtile body. The counter opinion is that, when destroyed, they are destroyed for ever. The latter opinion is condemned by the speaker.

In the second line the word is Gadhamavidwansah, i.e., 'ignorant of its bottom or depth.' K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly, without translating the verse literally. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of it. Both however, wrongly take agadha as the final word in yathagadha, forgetting that agadham is a masculine adjective incapable of qualifying nadim which is feminine. Ayam is Jiva. The last clause is to be taken as buddhiyogam anuprachyuta ayam tatha.

This is not a difficult verse, yet both the vernacular translators have misunderstood it. What is said in the first line is this: yat vahudosham karoti, yat (cha) purakritam, ekatah cha dushyati. Both the finite verbs have jnanin (the man of knowledge) for their nominative understood. Dushyati means nasyati or destroys. The meaning then is that the man of Knowledge destroys his sinful acts of both this and past lives. The commentator cites the well-known simile of the lotus leaf not being drenched or soaked with water even when dipped in water. Now, this is that unseen fruit of Knowledge. In the second line, the visible fruits are indicated. The man of Knowledge refrains from censuring the wicked acts of others and from perpetrating any wicked act himself. Yat cha dushyati means yat parakritam anishtam dushyati or nindati, yat karoti means yat swayam ragadi-doshat karoti; tadubhayam apriyam (sa) na karoti, the reason being dwaitadarsana-bhavah. Such a man truly regards the universe as identifiable with himself.

i.e., in even thy direst distress thou dependest on thyself. To cross the fearful river of life without a raft and with the aid of only one's bare arms implies great self-dependence.

That which did not exist and will not exist, exists not at the present moment. Everything, therefore, which is of the nature of asat is non-existent. Our sorrows are connected with the asat. Knowing this, I have cast off all sorrows.

I have understood that acts are for sorrow; that the fruits also of acts are for sorrow in spite of the apparent character of some; and that the fruits of acts are varied, sometimes other fruits appearing than those expected. Hence, I do not indulge in sorrow, for I avoid acts and do not grieve for not obtaining the fruits of acts or for the accession of fruits other than those apparently agreeable.

The sense is that we who avoid acts, are not dead; in fact, we live quite as others do; and those others, how unequally circumstanced! The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the first line simple though it is.

Ignorance lies at the root of sorrow. By casting off ignorance, we have avoided sorrow. Hence, neither religion or religious acts such as Sacrifices, etc., can do us any good or harm. As regards happiness and misery again, these two cannot agitate us at all, since we know their value, both being ephemeral in comparison with the period for which we are to exist.

Hence, no one should indulge in pride, saying, 'I am happy,' nor yield to sorrow, saying, 'I am miserable.' Both happiness and misery are transitory. The man of wisdom should never suffer himself to be agitated by these transitory states of his mind.

The first word is read either as bhavatmakam or bhavatmakam. The first means samsararupam; the second, drisyatmakam.

I am obliged to behold them because I am a living being having a body, but then I behold them as an unconcerned witness.

The scriptures contain both kinds of instruction. There are declarations that are entirely in favour of Acts or observances. There are again declarations in favour of Knowledge. What the speaker asks is that the Rishi should discourse upon what the speaker should do, i.e., whether he should betake himself to the acquisition of Knowledge or to the doing of acts.

i.e., Each Asrama speaks of particular observances and courses of conduct as beneficial. This, therefore, is a source of confusion to men of plain understandings. Is there no distinction then among duties or observances in respect of their beneficial character? This is the question propounded. The commentator thinks by the word asramas is meant the four principal faiths and _not_ the modes of life.

I retain the word asrama in the English version as it is very doubtful in what sense it has been used in the original. The commentator explains that by four asramas are meant the four principal forms of creed prevalent at one time in India. The first is that there is no such thing as virtue or righteousness. This is ascribed to Sakya Simha or Buddha. The second is that righteousness consists in only the worship of trees, etc. The third is that only is righteousness which the Vedas have laid down. The fourth is that transcending righteousness and its reverse there is something for whose attainment one should strive. Yatha samkalpitah is explained by the commentator as yo yena sreyastena bhavitastasya tadeva sreyah.

Gunoddesam is Gunakirtanam or the announcement of merits. What Narada says here is this: the asramas are four. The merits of each have been proclaimed by their respective founders. The principal merit each claims is that it leads to knowledge of Self. Now, the announcement is nanarupam; it is also prithak; and lastly, it is viprasthitam or contradictory, for, as the commentator points out, that which a particular asrama announces to be righteous is according to another unrighteous. Both the vernacular translators give incorrect versions.

Te refers to asramas. Abhipretam is atma-tattwarupam. Yanti is equivalent to prapayanti.

Mitranam is taken by the commentator to be equivalent to sarva-bhuta-labhayapadanam, i.e., they who have given the pledge of harmlessness to all creatures. By enemies is meant here the envious and harmful.

In previous Sections the nature of Truth has been discussed. A formal truth may be as sinful as a lie, and a lie may be as meritorious as a Truth. Hence, the ascertainment of Truth is not easy.

Atiyoga and Ayoga are well-known words which have no chance of being misunderstood in the way in which they have been misunderstood by both the vernacular translators. Indeed, K.P. Singha blunders ridiculously, while the Burdwan translator limits them to only the use of food, supposing the commentator's concrete examples exhaust the meaning.

i.e., where an intermingling takes place of the four orders of men, viz., where Varna-sankara occurs.

Mere companionship with the righteous leads to righteous acts; while that with the sinful leads to acts of sinfulness.

Anuvishayam is vishayam anu vartate, i.e., rasah or flavour. An eater of vighasa is a good or pious man. What is said here is that such men eat for only filling their stomachs and not because eating is source of enjoyment or gratification. Atmavishayan is Buddherviseshatovandhakan, i.e., rasa-viseshan.

Agamayamanam is Agamam pramanajam jnanam atmana ichcchatam.

Akasasthah is niralamvanah, i.e., men who have no foundations to stand upon. The Bombay text reads dosham, the Bengal texts, doshan; the sense remains unaltered. The Bombay reading is atmapujabhikama, while the Bengal reading is the same word in the plural form. I accept the singular form and take it as qualifying panditah.

Some of the Bengal texts read khattam. The Bombay reading is khatwam. The commentator explains that khatwam samarudhah Tibra duhkha-grastah. Anusayi means purvakarmavasanavan. The sense seems to be this: the desires born of one's past acts, i.e., acts of previous lives, adhere to the mind. Nothing can wipe them off, save Nivritti and Tattwajnanam or knowledge of truth. One should, therefore, practise the religion of Nivritti and seek to acquire knowledge of Truth.

Both the vernacular translators quietly skip over the word pratyanantarah.

i.e., where the people are virtuous and given to the performance of their duties.

Kamesah is possessor of all objects of desire or enjoyment. The sense is this: where the king, casting off desire, wins prosperity for himself; i.e., though possessed of wealth, is not attached to wealth. The expression may also mean 'master of desire,' i.e., where the king casts off desire and masters his desires without allowing the latter to master him.

Pratyupasthite is pritipatwena upasthite, i.e., hiyantanesati.

I am not sure that I have understood aright the second line of this verse. It may also mean, 'No one is able to enumerate all that is beneficial for the Soul in consequence of the wideness of subject.'

Vrittam has uddisya understood after it. The Bombay text reads pranihitatmanah; the Bengal reading is pranihitatmanah. If the Bengal reading be accepted, it would mean 'whose soul is fixed or established on Yoga.' Tapasa is explained by the commentator as swadharmena, in view of the question of Galava which Narada answers. The sense, however, would remain unaltered if it be taken as standing for Self-control or penances.

Sampadam is explained by the commentator as upadesa-yogyata-sriyam.

Some texts read sakyam; the reading sakyah also occurs. If the former be accepted, it must be taken as referring to tadawayam as the commentator explains. No alteration in sense occurs by adhering to the one reading or the other.

In the second line some of the Bengal texts read lobheshu. The correct reading is lokeshu. Both the vernacular translators adhere to the wrong reading.

Mokshartha is moksha-prayojanah.

The argument contained in these verses is this: as thou dost not know what becomes of thy relatives when they die, thou canst not help them then. It seems plain, therefore, that when thou shalt die thy relatives will not be able to do thee any good. Hence, thou gainest nothing by bestowing thy thoughts on thy relatives, forgetting thy own great concern, viz., the acquisition of Emancipation. Similarly, when thy relatives live and suffer irrespective of thy life or death, and thou too must enjoy or endure irrespective of their existence or efforts, it is meant that thou shouldst not be forgetful of thy own highest good by busying thyself with the concerns of thy relatives.

The sense is that one who takes only a handful of corn for the support of life even when millions upon millions of carts loaded with corn await his acceptance, is certainly to be regarded as freed. Literally rendered, the second line is--'who beholds a shed of bamboo or reeds in a palace,' meaning, of course, as put above, 'one who sees no difference between the two.'

Avritti is want of the means of sustaining life: thence, scarcity or famine.

The sense is that as the maintenance of wives and children is painful, one should withdraw from the world and retire into solitude.

The sense seems to be this: Is it a life of domesticity that thou wouldst lead? There is no harm in thy doing this, provided thou behavest in the way pointed out. Is it Emancipation that thou wouldst pursue (in the usual way), i.e., by retiring into solitude and betaking thyself to Sannyasa? Thou mayst then behave in the way pointed out, and, indeed, that is the way of Sannyasa which leads to Emancipation.

The planet Venus is supposed to be the sage Usanas or Sukra.

The commentator explains the allusion by saying that formerly Vishnu, induced by the deities, used his discus for striking off the head of Usanas' mother. Hence the wrath of Usanas against the deities and his desire to succour their foes, the Danavas.

The construction of this verse is very difficult. The order of the words, is--Indrotha jagatah prabhuh. Dhanada, etc., tasya kosasaya prabhavishnuh.

Persons crowned with Yoga-success are competent to enter the bodies of others and deprive the latter of the power of will. Indeed, the belief is that the latter then become mere automata incapable of acting in any other way except as directed by the enlivening possessor.

The etymology of Pinaka is panina anamayat. The initial and final letter of pani (pi) and the middle letter of anamayat (na), with the suffix ka make Pinaka.

The last half of the last line may be taken as applying to Usanas.

The vriddhim that Mahadeva saw could not be his own, for the greatest cannot be greater. The commentator, therefore, is right in holding that vriddhim refers to the greatness of Usanas within Mahadeva's stomach.

The sa refers to Usanas and not to Mahadeva, as the commentator rightly points out.

i.e., the religions of all the orders and all the modes of life.

The scriptural injunctions are that one should sacrifice in honour of the gods, pour libations on the sacred fire, make gifts etc. In these exists Righteousness.

The grammar of the third line is a little involved. Tasmin refers to Dharme. Supply nisthavantah after tasmin. The sense, of course, is that believing in the efficacy of righteousness, people of all modes of life accomplish the duties of their respective modes.

The sinful become intermediate animals. The virtuous attain to heaven. They that are both virtuous and sinful attain to the status of humanity. They that acquire Knowledge become Emancipated.