Book 12 edition notes 1501–1600

Destiny here means the result of the acts of past lives.

The reading I adopt is jatikritam karma etc. Hence, this Verse also represents the arguments of the sceptic or the Charvakas. The four kinds of acts are Nitya, Naimittika, Kamya, and Nishiddha. If, however, for 'jatikritam karma, etc.,' the reading yantyakritam karma be adopted, the meaning would be--'In one's next life one does not meet with fruits that are not the results of one's acts of past life.' This must be so, for the opposite opinion would imply the destruction of acts and their consequences. Then again, such an opinion would conflict with the received opinion of mankind, for men, when they obtain the fruits of any act, always recollect the four kinds of acts of a past life for explaining the accession of those fruits.

Verses 12 to 14 represent the theory of the sceptic, and I have rendered them as such. Only by reading verse 13 as 'yantyakritam karma, etc.,' the commentator points out that it may be taken as an observation of Parasara himself. As regards verse 15, it represents the ipse dixit of the speaker. He does not think that the sceptic is at all entitled to a reply. It is scarcely necessary to say that the Burdwan translator makes a thorough mess of these verses. K.P. Singha gives the substance correctly.

The commentator shows that this is an answer to the sceptic's averment about Nature being the cause of everything. Fire is hot by nature, therefore, it does not become hot at one time, cold at another, and _lukewarm_ at another time. One becomes either wholly happy or wholly unhappy or wholly happy and unhappy at the same time. Man's nature should not be such. The difference of state is produced by difference of causes.

A Brahmana is precluded from eating many things. Many things again that he is competent to eat on all days of the year. In fact, there are many rules for regulating the fare of a Brahmana. To this day, an orthodox Brahmana abstains from many kinds of food. A Brahmana, therefore, who is unscrupulous in respect of his food, is no Brahmana and deserves to be pitied. Similarly, a man who cooks food for himself is an object of pity. Raw food, such as fruits, etc., one may take without offering a share thereof to guests and others. But cooked food can never be taken without a share thereof being given to others. Yati cha Brahmachari cha pakvannaswaminavubhau, hence he that takes cooked food without giving a share to these is said to eat Brahmaswam or that which belongs to a Brahmana.

This is a very abstruse verse. The grammatical construction of the first line is asritena manasa vrittihinasya seva sasyate. Asritena is niralamvanena. By seva is meant homage paid to the Supreme in the form of devotion and concentrated meditation. It implies, of course, a thorough reliance on God. Vrittihina is one who has cast off the means of livelihood, implying one who abstains from worldly objects. In the second line, dwija is a vocative. Nirvritta is nishpanna, qualifying seva. Atihastat is 'from one who has transcended the use of the hand,' i.e., the necessity of acts. Atihastanirvritta, means 'obtained from a competent preceptor.' In brief, what is stated here is that such seva should be learnt from competent preceptors and not by discussion among persons in the stage of spiritual progress.

The object of this verse, the commentator points out, is to show the desirability of practising that seva soon or without loss of time.

In the discourse of Sanatkumara to Vritra, these six colours have been mentioned, and the nature of the acts by which one attains to a superior colour or falls down from a superior to an inferior one. Vide Sec. 280, ante.

A particular kind of Chandala is called kusalin.

Pratyapannasya is viparita-drishteh. Natma is dehadih. Tatah is papaddhetoh. Virochate, is viseshena atmatwena rochate.

Pratyapattih is Vairagyam or Renunciation. As regards Prasthitasya it may be taken either as implying one that is dead or one that has betaken himself to Yoga. In the latter case, the verse would mean that that man who betakes himself to Yoga without adopting Renunciation meets with much sorrow.

The object of this verse is to show that conscious sin can never be destroyed by expiation. The only means by which sin can be destroyed is by enduring its fruits.

The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of this verse. Guna-yuktam is explained by the commentator as equivalent to punyakarma. Prakasam is equivalent to budhipurvakam prakasya or jnatwa. It is formed by the suffix namul.

Yathatatham is sthula-sukshma-taratamyena. The sense is that all acts done knowingly produce fruits according to their nature. If gross, the fruits produced are gross; if subtile, the fruits produced are subtile.

The speaker's opinion is that all acts are productive of fruits. If good, the fruits are good. If bad, the fruits are bad. There is this difference, however, between acts done knowingly and those done in ignorance: the former produce commensurate fruits i.e., if gross, their fruits are gross; if subtile, the fruits are subtile; but the latter produce fruits that are not so, so that even if heinous, the fruits do not involve a large but only a small measure of misery. There is no other difference between the two kinds of acts.

The object of this verse is to show that such acts form the exception and they are kept out of my sight in this discourse on acts. The Rishi Viswamitra caused the death of the hundred sons of Vasishtha, and yet he had not to go to hell for it.

The sense seems to be that when even such near relatives are cast off if found to be wanting in affection, the fact cannot be gainsaid that people never do good to others except when they hope to benefit themselves by such acts.

What is intended to be said is that the acceptance of a gift from a superior person is equal in point of merit to a gift made by a poor person. A wealthy man, by making a gift, earns greater merit than by accepting a gift.

i.e., by Dhyana and Dharana.

This has reference to Usanas' attaining to the status of a planet (Venus) in the firmament.

Nadantah is one word. It means Hinsa-sunyah. Danti cchinatti iti danta. Its reverse is Nadantah.

Nirdishta refers to Seva.

i.e., they take the hues of the society they keep. Hence, it is very desirable for them to live with the good.

This son of Dhatri is the god of the clouds.

The Burdwan translator gives a most ridiculous version of the expression Dhigdandasasanah. Unable to catch the sense, which however is certainly very plain, he actually interprets the words to mean 'living under the sway of king Dhigdanda.' K.P. Singha gives the correct meaning.

In this verse also, the Burdwan translator takes Dhigdanda as the name of a king. He gives an equally ridiculous version of the second line. Abhyagachchan is explained by the commentator as having vishayan understood after it. The sense is that they began to enjoy all objects of the senses to an excess. Both Devan and Brahman are accusatives governed by Avamanya. K.P. Singha translates both the lines correctly.

This verse is taken as a metaphorical statement. The three Asuras are, of course, Kama, Krodha, and Lobha. Gaganagah (staying in the firmament) is interpreted as 'existing in Maya'. Sapurah as 'with their gross, subtile, and potential forms;' 'felled on the earth is explained as 'merged into the pure chit.' The whole is taken to imply a spiritual destruction of all the evil passions and a restoration of man to his original state of purity.

This chief of the Asura passions was Mahamoha or great Heedlessness. The word Devas here is taken to mean the senses. Of course, if verse 16 be not taken metaphorically, then may Devas be taken in its ordinary sense of the deities.

The genius of the two languages being different, it is very difficult to render the phraseology of the first line. Literally rendered, the line would read 'they remain or stay on those acts, and establish them.' Besides being unidiomatic, the sentence would be unmeaning. 'To stay or remain on any act' is to adhere to it. 'To establish it' is to regard it as a precedent and cause it to be regarded by others as a precedent.

Samsiddhadhigamam is explained by the commentator thus: Samsiddhah is nityasiddah, i.e., atman; tadadhigamam is atmajnanam.

The very gods are subject to prosperity and adversity, and their effects of loves and hates. There is no mode of life in which these may not be found.

After sukham supply bhavati or some such verb. Tyajatam stands by itself and refers to kamya karma, meaning they that abstain from such acts as are not nitya but as are only kamya or optional.

The sense is that those who betake themselves to penances as the consequence of despair, are many. Those men, however, are very rare who adopt penances, being at once impressed that the happiness of domesticity is unreal and ends in misery.

i.e., their penances of past lives.

I am not sure that I have correctly understood the second line of this verse. Akrita-karmanam is explained by the commentator as anut-pannatattwajnanam and upabhogavarityagah is Renunciation or Vairagyam phalani has tapasah understood before it. But why phalani instead of phalam?

The second line of this verse concludes the argument. The tasmat has reference to all the statements before, and _not_ to only the first line of 26. The statement in the second line is the same as the second line of verse 13 above.

I expand the second line a little for making it intelligible.

By 'stainless penances' is meant nishkamam tapah or penances undertaken without desire of fruit.

Tyaktwa has nishkalmasham tapah understood after it. The order of the words is Phalarthi apriyani etc., vishyatmakam tat phalam prapnoti. The distinction between nishkamam and sakamam tapah is this; through the former one attains to happiness. Even the earthly wealth he earns becomes fraught with happiness; through the latter, however, one meets with diverse kinds of sorrow resulting from the earthly possessions he succeeds in obtaining.

The grammar of the first line is this: Dharme tapasi dane cha (sati avihitakarme) vidhitsa, etc. If vidhitsa be taken with 'dharma, etc.,' the verse would be unmeaning.

The first line is difficult to construe. Tatah means 'inconsequence of the pain that attends the gratification of the senses.' Sarvasya refers to vivekinah; jyayase phalartham is 'for the sake of the highest fruit,' which, of course, is Emancipation. Gunah is 'same', 'dama, etc.'

The commentator points out that the object of this verse is to show that everything one owns or does is not the result of the past acts. Spouses, food, drink, etc., one obtains as the result of past acts or praravdha karma. In respect of these, purushakara or Exertion is weak. Hence, to put forth Exertion for their acquisition would not be wise. As regards the acquisition of righteousness, however, there Exertion is efficacious. Hence, one should, with Exertion, seek to conform to one's own duties as laid down in the scriptures. Without such a distinction between destiny (praravdha) and Exertion (purushakara), the injunctions and interdictions of the Scriptures would be unmeaning. The Burdwan translator, citing portions of the commentary without at all understanding them, makes utter nonsense of the verse. K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly.

Sacrifices and all other acts undertaken from a sense of vanity, are destructible as regards their consequences, for heaven is terminable. Penances, however, that are undertaken without desire of fruit are not so, for these lead to Emancipation. Tesham refers to those mentioned in the first line of verse 37. It should not be taken to mean men in general, as the Burdwan translator wrongly does.

Kam is Brahmanam. The commentator explains that Brahmana (the Creator) is equivalent to Brahmana; and that Vishnu is equivalent to Kshatriya. What is said, therefore, in this verse (according to him) is that a Sudra, by practising the common duties of all the four orders, succeeds in his next life in becoming a Brahmana. Thus say Brahmanas learned in the scriptures; but the opinion of Parasara is that such a Sudra, in his next life, takes birth as a Kshatriya.

I am not sure that I have understood these two verses correctly. Verse 33 is evidently a cruce.

Yathakarman means 'from one stage to another.' Karmapatham is yogam. The stages here referred to are vichara, vitarka, Ananda, and Asmita. What is stated in this verse is that one who casts off all attachments, and who devotes himself to Yoga, succeeds in attaining to the felicity of Emancipation.

The Burdwan translator wrongly renders the second line of this verse. All the texts read this line in the same way.

Snigdhais implies affectionate seniors such as mothers, etc.; karmani is explained by the Commentator as abhyanga-karmani, i.e., the rubbing of oil, etc., Such acts, when children are ill, are often done unto them by mothers. This is forbidden, for they are menial offices which seniors should never be permitted to perform.

Vinasamabhikankhatam is explained in the alternative by the commentator in a very fanciful way. Kriyavatam is explained as 'observant of the duties of Tirthavasins.'

The commentator is for explaining the second line exoterically.

Dehat is Deham prapya. Yena is yena pumsa. Upapaditam has reference to panchatwam in the previous verse. The sense of the verse is this: he who meets with a sudden death in a tirtha or sacred place, does not become emancipated but obtains another body in his next life similar to the one he loses. Adhyanam gatakah is that though set or placed on the path of Emancipation, yet he becomes a traveller: his state is due to the inglorious manner of his dissolution.

The object of this verse is to show that the man dying in a sacred place becomes reborn as a Rudra or a Pisacha and quickly attains to Emancipation in consequence of his contiguity to Siva. Mokshabhuteshu is Moksha-yogyeshu. The neuter form of taddeham is arsha.

Gunanancha in the second line of verse 14 refers to the objects of the senses, which, as explained in previous Sections, have no independent existence, for they exist only as they exist in desire. The compound of the primal essences and the other things mentioned assumes different shapes through the force of the desires of previous lives.

Acts are all perishable in respect of their consequences.

It is difficult to give foreigners an idea of what is called Apamrityu. All deaths that are caused by such accidents as involve ignominy are called Apamrityu. Death from snake-bite, from a fall, by drowning, at the horns of an animal, etc., are instances of Apamrityu.

Both yasya and sa refer to the foe called Ignorance. Rajaputra is a vocative. Paraiti is nasyati.

Vanchate is preceded by kamena understood.

It has been explained in previous sections that sreyas or nisreyas means good or excellent as applied to moral merit.

By buddhiman is meant the man who is freed from attachment. Similarly, by durbuddhih is meant the man who is the slave of attachments.

Karanapekshi is thus explained by the commentator: karanaphaladanatmika kriya tannirvittyapekshi. The sense is that sin can never be destroyed except by endurance of its fruits.

The sense is that after the manner of the fabulous gem, Jiva attracts to itself, through Yoga, the status of Brahma.

The Burdwan translator, without understanding the commentary, makes utter nonsense of this verse. K.P. Singha is not far wrong, but he does not bring out the principal point which is sought to be inculcated here. Sesame seeds are repeatedly mixed with fragrant oil. The more they are so mixed the more fragrant do they become. After the same manner, men acquire the quality of Sattwa by associating with persons of cleansed souls. The measure of Sattwa is dependent on the measure of the association.

The track is that of Knowledge. Vide verse 3 above.

Having used the words vistaran (Diverse) and samkshepah (Few), in the second line of this triplet, the speaker explains their meaning in the third. By 'Diverse' is meant all those fruits that consist of unstable enjoyments; hence, the diverse acts laid down in the Vedas and other scriptures. By 'Few' is meant Renunciation, or abstention from acts. What is said, therefore, in this verse is this: they that betake themselves to acts, which for their fruits all sorts of enjoyment, meet with misery; while they that abstain from acts or practise Renunciation meet with happiness. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect.

It is difficult to understand what is meant by this verse. By progress in Yoga, the Soul can certainly cast off the mind and other attributes by which it is invested. The simile is unintelligible. The stalk of the lotus has its roots in mire. Does the first line mean, therefore, that the stalk speedily springs upwards and leaves the mire at its roots?

The commentator explains that the intention of this verse is to explain that the universe which is created by the mind is destroyed afterwards by the mind itself.

The sense is that one who has cast off objects of enjoyment and become emancipated, does not obtain rebirth.

I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. The practice of fishermen (in India) is to sink their boats when they leave them for their homes, and to raise them again when they require them the next day. They do not leave their boats afloat for fear of the injury the waves may do to them by tossing them too much.

By Prakriti here is meant the harmony of Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas. As long as these three qualities are in harmony with one another, i.e., as long as there is no preponderance in any of them over the other two, so long there cannot be creation or the operations of the buddhi or understanding.

In this verse the word Prakriti is used in an entirely different sense. It means here Ignorance.

Sariragriha-sanjnasya is 'of one who regards his body to be an accompaniment of the Soul instead of regarding it to be the Soul.' 'Who regards purity as its sacred water', i.e., who, without resorting to the sacred waters whither others go for cleansing themselves, thinks that purity, both internal and external, is capable of cleansing him.

Vide note to verse 21 above.

The object of the verse is to show that one should not, for the sake of friends and kinsmen and spouses and children, abstain from pursuing one's true end. The practice of charity again is the true diet which supports a man.

Astapadapada is a weight of gold. The word, as used in this verse, means a quantity of gold. Whether the reading be mudreva or sutrena, the sense remains unchanged. What is said here is that the mother, etc., are like lines traced with gold by the side of real gold; i.e., the mother, etc., are of no value or use in the acquisition of prosperity. K.P. Singha misses the meaning. The Burdwan translator, however, makes a most ridiculous exhibition of himself. Without understanding the commentary at all, in fact, not having been able to read the words of the commentary aright, he has produced a ridiculous jargon that is utterly unintelligible. Daksha is a vocative, meaning 'possessed of cleverness.' The words he daksha yatha, etc., of the commentator are read by the Burdwan Pundit as: deha-kshaya, etc.

Apariharavan is incapable of being resisted. Samagatih as wind. Asmasara-vihitam is 'made by means of iron or the saw.' Asmasara stands here for krakacha or karapatra.

The commentator explains that by tapah is meant the practice or observance of one's own duties. Damah is restraining the senses. Satyam is truthfulness of speech, and atmaguptih is subjugation of the mind. The knots are attachments and desires, etc.

i.e., the assailant, finding his victim forgiving, himself burns with repentance.

Vishayena yami is the correct reading; i.e., then here is palatal, and vishayena is in the instrumental case. The Bengal reading is vicious, for it reads Vishaye nayami.

The Moon is endued with nectar, and, therefore, might have been such a man's equal; but the Moon waxes and wanes; therefore, the Moon cannot approach to an equality with such a man who is the same under all changes. Similarly, the wind, though unstained by the dust it bears is not the equal of such a man; for the wind is changeful, having slow, middling and quick motion. The Burdwan translator makes utter nonsense of the reference to the Moon and the wind. K.P. Singha gives the sense correctly.

The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show the merits of that man whose ignorance has disappeared.

i.e., when Brahmanas incur obloquy they are said to become impure; they are again regarded as possessing the status of humanity only because they die.

The examples of Viswamitra and others may be cited in this instance.

Dharana is holding the soul in self-reflection, preventing it the while from wandering. Samadhi is complete abstraction.

Akhandam is Sarvakalam; uposhya is tyaktwa. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse. He takes mansam for masam; but no difference of reading occurs between the Bengal and Bombay texts.

The ten properties included in Sattwa or Goodness are gladness, cheerfulness, enthusiasm, fame, righteousness, contentment, faith, sincerity, liberality, and lordship. The nine properties included in Rajas or Passion are belief in the deities, (ostentatious) charity, enjoyment and endurance of happiness and sorrow, disunion, exhibition of manliness, lust and wrath, intoxication, pride, malice, and disposition to revile. The eight qualities included in Tamas or Darkness are unconsciousness, stupefaction, excess of stupefaction, muddiness of the understanding, blindness (of results), sleep, heedlessness, and procrastination. The seven incidents of Buddhi or the Understanding are Mahat, consciousness, and the five subtile essences. The six incidents of Mind are Mind and the five senses. The five incidents appertaining to Space are space, water, wind, light, and earth. According to a different school of philosophy, Buddhi, or the Understanding is said to have four incidents appertaining to it, viz., doubt, ascertainment, pride, and memory. Tamas (darkness) also is otherwise regarded to have only three incidents, viz., inability of comprehension, partial comprehension, and totally erroneous comprehension. Rajas (Passion) is (according to this school) regarding as having only the two incidents of inclination (to act) and sorrow. Sattwa has but one incident viz., Enlightenment.

'Durga' is an inaccessible region such as a forest or wilderness which cannot be passed through except with great pain and danger.

The correct reading seems to be sthira-vratati-samkulam.

Udadhi is, literally, a water-jar. In this country most people, while swimming, use water jars as buoys. The mouth of jar being dipped into the water the air confined within it serve to support heavy weights. I have heard that the most rapid currents are crossed by milkmaids in this way, all the while bearing milk pails on their heads.

In the second line of 72, dustaram janma means janma-yuktam dustaram.

The sense seems to be that by practising the Sankhya doctrine men cease to have any regard for even their gross bodies. They succeed in realising their existence as independent of all earthly or heavenly objects. What is meant by the Sun bearing them in his rays and conveying to them all things from every part of the universe is that these men acquire great puissance. This is not the puissance of Yoga but of knowledge. Everything being regarded as unsubstantial and transitory, the position of Indra himself, or of Brahman, is looked upon as desirable and unworthy of acquisition. Sincere conviction of this kind and the course of conduct that is confirmable to it is literally puissance of the highest kind, for all the purposes of puissance are capable of being served by it.

This is taken as meaning that the Sankhyas are conveyed to the firmament of the heart. Perhaps, what is intended by it is that they become withdrawn from external objects and even the impressions of all external things.

Perhaps, this means the pleasures of heaven.

i.e., they who have identified themselves with Brahma.

Yudhishthira's question seems to be this. Is there or is there not consciousness in the emancipate state? Different scriptures answer this question differently. If it be said that there is consciousness in that state, then why discard heaven and its pleasures, or the religion of Pravritti or acts which lead to those pleasures? Where is the necessity then of Sannyasa or the religion of Nivritti or abstention from all acts? On the supposition of there being consciousness in the emancipate state, the Religion of Pravritti should be taken as superior. If, on the other hand, the existence of consciousness be denied, that would be an error. Dnkshataram is ayuktaram.

Although I make use of the word 'perceive' yet remembering that the mind is included among the senses and regarded as the sixth sense, the functions of recollection, representation, etc., are also implied by the word pasyati. The Burdwan translator gives a ridiculously erroneous version of this verse.

The commentator explains that the simile of the froth is introduced in consequence of its disappearance with the disappearance of water. K. P. Singha is incorrect in taking the instance of froth as illustrative of the quickness of the destruction.

Sarvatra does not mean 'through every part of the sleeper's body' as K. P. Singha takes it, but sarvavishaye as the commentator correctly explains it.

Iha is sapne Anisah is nasti isah or pravartaah yasya.

For the Soul, in dreams, sees and hears and touches and smells etc., precisely as it does while awake.

The sense seems to be that a person who becomes emancipate in this life becomes so in Samadhi. When the state of Samadhi is over, his mind and senses return; and returning they do the bidding of the Supreme, i.e., bring about both happiness and misery, which, of course, are the consequences of the acts of past lives though that happiness and misery are not felt. In the next verse is said that these men very soon leave their bodies and become freed from rebirth.