Book 12 edition notes 1601–1700

There are two kinds of Emancipation: one is attainable here, in this body, it is Jivan-mukti; the other is Videha-kaivalya or that which becomes one's when one is bodiless. In 98, Jivan-mukti has been spoken of. In this verse, the observations apply to Videha-kaivalya.

Vadanti is stuvanti. Such men hymn its praises by regarding it as Supreme Deity possessed of attributes. Those attributes, of course, are the result of illusion, for in its real nature there can be no attributes in Brahma.

Brahma is knowledge without duality i.e., knowledge without the consciousness of knower and known. The knowledge or cognition of an object, when object is annihilated, assumes the form of that knowledge which is called Brahma.

The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that among mobile creatures those endued with knowledge are superior, and among all kinds of knowledge, the knowledge occurring in the Sankhya system is the highest.

i.e., if in consequence of any defect of practice or Sadhana, the Sankhyas fail to attain to Emancipation, they at least become translated into gods.

i.e., it is everything.

That Narayana who does all this is the embodiment of the Sankhya system.

The commentator explains the compound Adhyatmagatinischayam differently.

Both the vernacular translator render this verse wrongly.

Vasyante is explained by the commentator as implying Brahmanah ante and not 'at the end of that night'. The line occurs in Manu (Chap. 1. 74) where ante refers to Brahmana's day and night. Vasishtha here refers to Mohapralaya and not any intermediate Pralaya.

In the creation of Mahan or Prajapati or Virat, and of Consciousness, the element of Tamas or ignorance predominates.

This is a very abstruse verse. I am not sure that I have understood it correctly, What is said here seems to be this from Akshara arose Hiranyagarbha: from Hiranyagarbha arose Virat. This, that or the other is worshipped by ordinary men, while persons possessed of real insight do not invest any of them with attributes worthy of worship. The speaker says that the ascription of attributes, called Ignorance, and the non-ascription for destruction of that ascriptions called Knowledge, (with respect to Virat or Hiranyagarbha or Akshara) then arose. It might be asked that when there were no men as yet to worship or to condemn such worship, how could the two arise? The answer is that the two, in their subtile forms, came into existence and were afterwards availed of by men when men come into being.

From Akshara or the Indestructible is Hiranyagarbha. From Hiranyagarbha is Mahan or Virat and Consciousness. From the last are the subtile elements.

The meanings of such verses depend upon the grammatical significations of certain words that are used. They can scarcely be rendered accurately into any other language not derived from Sanskrit. What is said here is that it is Prakriti which must be said to be the Adhishthatri of the universe. Vishnu is not so. Vishnu, Brahma, Akshara, or the Indestructible, however, is said to cover or _pervade_ the universe (vyapnoti). Vishnu is Vyapka but not Adhishthatri.

In the previous section it has been said that through Tamas he takes birth among the intermediate orders, through Rajas among human beings, and through Sattwa among gods. The root kshi in Gunakshayat means aisarvya or puissance.

The soul weaves a cocoon with attributes (or, acts which result from attributes), and though free deprives himself of freedom.

Made of Chit and Not-Chit combined.

The sense seems to be that the obligation to explain a treatise in the midst of a conclave always stimulates the best faculties, and if it is a conclave of the learned the friction of intellects is sure to bring out the correct sense.

For enables them to conquer Ignorance.

When Pranayama is performed with the aid of mantras or yapa, it is said to be saguna or sagarbha or endued with substance. Concentration of mind, however, is made without the aid of such yapa.

The two and twenty sanchodans of Preranas are the two and twenty modes of transmitting the Prana breath from the toe of the foot to the crown of the head. That which transcends Prakriti is the Supreme Soul.

The reading I adopt is na-kathyate.

Atmanah is Iswarat parah.

Parisankhyadarsanam is explained by the commentator thus: Parisankhyanam, is parivarianam, i.e., the gradual pravilapam of errors; Lena darsanam or sakshatkaram.

The commentator explains that nistattwah means nirgatam tattwam aparoksham yasmat.

Param Aparam, and Avyayam are theirs in consequence of Ajksharabhavatwa. Aparam means satyakamatwa, satyasamkalpatwa, etc. i.e., puissance. Param is the indescribable felicity of Samadhi. The Srutis declare that knower of Brahma becomes Brahma.

Hence, as the commentator explains, by knowing what is called the Unmanifest one is capable of attaining to omniscience.

What is stated here is this, the Unmanifest or Prakriti, by modification, produces Mahat and the other principles. But the agency of Purusha also is necessary for such production, for Prakriti can do nothing without Purusha, and Purusha also can do nothing without Prakriti. The principles of Mahat and the rest, therefore, may be said to have their origin as much in Purusha as in Prakriti. Beside, the two being naturally dependent on each other, if Prakriti be called Kshara, Purusha also may be so called.

i.e., Jiva or Purusha.

High, such as gods, middling, such as human beings and low, such as animals.

Budha is Bodha or pure Knowledge. Abudha is the reverse of Budha. The Supreme Soul is Knowledge, while Jiva is Ignorance.

In consequence of Jiva's union with or attachment to Prakriti. Jiva takes this object for a vessel; that for a mountain, and that other for a third. When knowledge comes, Jiva succeeds in understanding that all his impressions are erroneous and that the external world is only a modification of Self. In consequence of Jiva's capacity to comprehend this, he is called Budhyamana or Comprehender.

Drisya and Adrisya, are the Seen and the Unseen, that is the gross and the subtile, or effects and causes. Swabhavena anugatam is inhering (unto all of them,) in its own nature, that is, Brahma pervades all things and unites with them without itself being changed as regards its own nature. Vudyate has manishibhih understood it.

Tattwa is explained by the commentator as anaropitaruom, i.e., invested with any form in consequence of Ignorance; Not-Tattwa is nityaparoksham i.e., always within the ken of the understanding.

That indication is 'I am Brahma.' Such conviction or knowledge even which characterises those that are awakened or Buddha, is cast off by the twenty-sixth.

These examples are often used to explain the difference between the Jiva-soul and the Supreme Soul. The Udumvara is the fruit of the Ficus glomerate. When ripe and broken, the hollow centre is seen to contain many full-grown gnats. The gnat lives in the fruit but is not the fruit, just as the fish though living in the water is not the water that is its home. Jiva, after the same way, though living in the Supreme Soul, is not the Supreme Soul.

Parah is Anyah or Chidatman. Paradharma means 'partaking' of the nature of Kshetra in which he resides. Sameyta is 'kshetrena iva ekebhya.'

This is a simile very often used for illustrating the danger of pursuing objects of the senses. Collectors of honey used to rove over mountains, guided by the sight of flying bees. These men frequently met with death from falls from precipices.

The Burdwan translator renders this verse incorrectly.

This has been repeatedly laid down in the Hindu scriptures. Gifts produce no merit unless made to deserving persons. If made to the undeserving, instead of ceasing to produce any merit, they become positively sinful. The considerations of time and place also are to be attended to. By failing to attend to them, sin is incurred where merit is expected. Truth becomes as sinful as a lie, under particular circumstances; and a falsehood becomes as meritorious as truth under circumstances. The Hindu scriptures make circumstance the test of acts.

These, including Mind, form the tale of sixteen called Vikriti or modifications of Prakriti.

These are the subtile principles or Tanmatras and not the gross elements.

Mahat is sometimes called Buddhi hence the creation of Consciousness from Mahat must be creation relating to Buddha.

Arjjava mean 'relating to straight paths or courses,' so called from the straight course of these winds or breaths. By reference to these breaths is intended the other limbs of the physical system besides those already indicated.

Rishi here means Mahan or Great. Consciousness is said to have an excellent essence, and is also a Bhuta because of its capacity to produce the Great Bhutas, five in number.

These, the commentator explains, are Mind, Buddhi or Understanding Consciousness, and Chitwa, considered as Vyashti instead of as Samashthi. These are the sires of the primeval sires, i.e., from these sprung the Mahabhutas or Great creatures (viz., the five primal elements).

Devah's is explained by the commentator as meaning the Senses and the four inner faculties. Devaih he thinks, refers to the Bhutas or Great elements. Literally rendered, the verse would read as 'the Devas are the Children of the Pitris; with the Devas, all the worlds of Mobile Being have been covered.' It is not safe to reject the learned commentator.

These two verses refer to the power of the attributes of sound etc., over Jiva. Loves and hates, and all kinds of relationship of Jiva are due to the action of the attributes named.

The duration here given has reference to the day and the night of the Mahabhutas.

Prakritisthah means 'in his own Prakriti or nature.' The sense of the line is that Purusha, even when residing in the case that Prakriti provides him with, does not partake of the nature of Prakriti but continues to be undefiled by her.

I expand this verse for bringing out the meaning. A verbal rendering will become unintelligible.

This is a difficult verse, I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. The sense to be that Prakriti, which is really unintelligent and incapable of enjoyment or endurance, becomes intelligent and capable of enjoyment or endurance in consequence of being united with Purusha who is intelligent. Thus when pleasurable or painful sensation are felt, it is the body that seems to feel it only in consequence of the Soul that presides over it.

The first line of 7 is the same in sense as the second line of 8. In the Bombay text, only the second line of 8 occurs, while the first line of 7 has been justly omitted. In fact, Tattwa and the Prakriti are the same thing.

This refers to the opinion of the atheistic Sankhyas.

By the word Rudra is meant Prana and the other breaths. The commentator explains that the etymology is utkramana kale dehinam rodayanti iti Rudrah Pranah. By regulating the vital breaths and the senses, Yogins attain to Yoga puissance and succeed in roving wherever they please in their linga-sarira or subtile bodies.

The eight limbs of Yoga are Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, Tarka, Samadhi, with the two additional ones of Yama and Niyama.

In the first line of 9 the word Pranayama is used to mean regulation of the vital breaths. In the second line, the same word implies the ayamah or nigraha of the senses with the mind. By Dharana is meant the fixing of the mind, one after another, on the sixteen things named in treatises on Yoga. By ekagrata of the mind is meant that concentration in which there is no longer any consciousness of difference between Dhyatri, Dhyeya, and Dhyana.

It is difficult for those who do not practise Pranayama to understand this fully. The fact is, Saguna Pranayama, when the breath is inhaled, the inhalation is measured by the time taken up in mentally reciting a well-known mantra. So when inhaled breath is suspended, the suspension is measured by the time taken in mentally reciting a particular mantra. When therefore, the suspended breath should be exhaled, it should be done by similarly measuring the time of exhaling. For beginners, this Saguna Pranayama is recommended. Of course only exhalation has been spoken of but it applies equally to inhalation and suspension. These three processes, in Yoga language, are Puraka, Kumbhaka, and Rechaka.

Ekantasilin means a Sannyasin, Atmarama is one who takes pleasure in one's soul instead of in spouses and children.

The pole-star.

Chakre literally means 'I made'. The commentator explains it as equivalent to swayam avirbhut.

Vipriya evidently means 'what is not agreeable.' There was evidently a dispute between Yajnavalkya and his maternal uncle Vaisampayana, the celebrated disciple of Vyasa. This dispute is particularly referred to in the next verse. Vaisampayana had been a recognised teacher of the Vedas and had collected a large number of disciples around him. When, therefore, the nephew Yajnavalkya, having obtaining the Vedas from Surya, began to teach them, he was naturally looked upon with a jealousy, which culminated (as referred to in the next verse) into an open dispute about the Dakshina to be appropriated in the Sacrifice of Janaka. The Burdwan translator incorrectly renders the word vipriya which he takes to mean as 'very agreeable.' In the Vishnu Purana it is mentioned that a dispute took place between Yajnavalkya and Paila. The latter's preceptor, Vyasa, came, and taking his side, asked Yajnavalkya to return him the Vedas which he had obtained from him. Yajnavalkya vomited forth the Vedas. These were instantly devoured by two other Rishis in the form of Tittiri birds. These afterwards promulgated the Taittiriya Upanishads.

This shows that I was then regarded as the equal of Vaisampayana himself in the matter of Vedic knowledge. Sumanta and Paila and Jaimini, with Vaisampayana, were the Rishis that assisted the great Vyasa in the task of arranging the Vedas.

This is called the fourth science, the three others being the three Vedas, Axis culture, and the science of morality and chastisement.

Prakriti is regarded as something in which Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas reside in exactly equal proportion. All the principles of Mahat, etc. which flow from Prakriti, are characterised by these three attributes in diverse measure.

By Mitra is meant here the deity giving light and heat. By Varuna is meant the waters that compose the universe.

Kah, the commentator explained, is anandah or felicity.

The comparison lies in the folly of the two persons indicated. One churning ass's milk for butter is only a fool. Similarly, one failing to understand the nature of Prakriti and Purusha from the Vedas is only a fool.

Gives a literal rendering of this verse for showing how difficult it is to understand the meaning. The commentator correctly explains the sense which is as follows: anyah or the other is the Soul as distinguished from its reflection upon Prakriti, that is the Soul in its real character as independent of Prakriti. What is said here is that when the Soul, in its real character beholds, or acts as a witness of everything (i.e., as exists in the states of wakefulness and dream), becomes conscious of both itself (the Twenty-fifth) and Prakriti (the Twenty-fourth) when, however, it ceases to behold or act as such witness (i.e., in the state of dreamless slumber of Yoga-samadhi), it succeeds in beholding the Supreme Soul or the Twenty-sixth. In simple language what is said here is that the Soul becomes conscious of both itself and Prakriti in the state of wakefulness and dream. In Samadhi alone, it beholds the Supreme Soul.

What is said here is that the Twenty-sixth or the Supreme Soul always beholds the Twenty-fifth or the Jiva-soul. The latter, however, filled with vanity, regards that there is nothing higher than it. It can easily, in Yoga-samadhi, behold the Twenty-sixth. Though thus competent to behold the Supreme Soul, it fails ordinarily to behold it. The commentator sees in this verse a repudiation of the doctrine of the Charvakas and the Saugatas who deny that there is a Twenty-sixth Tattwa or even a Twenty-fifth which they identify with the Twenty-fourth.

Tatsthanat is explained by the commentator as Varasya avaradhisrhanat, i.e., in consequence of vara overlying the avara. The instance of the string and the snake is cited. At first the string is erroneously taken for the snake. When the error is dispelled, the string appears as the string. Thus the Supreme and the Jiva-soul come to be taken as one when true knowledge comes.

The ordinary doctrine is that the Jiva-soul is indestructible, for it is both unborn and deathless, its so called births and deaths being only changes of the forms which Prakriti undergoes in course of her association with it, an association that continues as long as the Jiva-soul does not succeed in effecting its emancipation. In this verse the ordinary doctrine is abandoned. What is said here is that the Jiva-soul is _not_ deathless, for when it becomes identified with the Supreme Soul, that alteration may be taken as its death.

This is a very difficult verse. Pasya and apasya are drashtri and drisya, i.e., knower and known (or Soul and Prakriti) Kshemaya and Tattwo are drik and drisya, i.e., knowledge and known. One that sees no difference between these that is, one that regards all things as one and the same, is both Kevala and not-Kevala, etc, meaning that such a person, though still appearing as a Jiva (to others) is in reality identifiable with the Supreme Soul.

This may mean that as men speak, and as speech is Brahma, all men must be regarded as utterers of Brahma. If, again, Brahma be taken to mean the Vedas in special, it may imply that all men utter the Vedas or are competent to study the Vedas. Such an exceedingly liberal sentiment from the mouth of Yajnavalkya is compatible only with the religion of Emancipation which he taught.

The doctrine is that unless acts are destroyed, there can be no Emancipation.

Literally, 'these are not obstacles by external nature,' and are therefore irremovable by personal exertion of the ordinary kind.

Sanchodayishyanti implies questioned. Here it means questioning the king internally or by Yoga power.

Utsmayan is explained by the Commentators as 'priding himself upon his own invincibleness.' Ayaya bhavam implies her determination to make the king dumb. Visesayan is abhibhavan.

Sammantum is explained by the Commentator as equivalent to samyak jnatum.

It is difficult to say in what sense the word vaiseshikam is used here. There is a particular system of philosophy called Vaiseshika or Kanada; the system believed to have been originally promulgated by a Rishi of the name of Kanada. That system has close resemblance to the atomic theory of European philosophers. It has many points of striking resemblance with Kapila's system or Sankhya. Then, again, some of the original principles, as enunciated in the Sankhya system, are called by the name of Visesha.

The mention of Vidhi indicated, as the commentator explains, Karmakanda. The value of Karma in the path of Emancipation is to purify the Soul.

K. P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.

There is equal reason in taking up etc., implies that the bearing of the sceptre is only a mode of life like that of holders of the triple-stick. Both the king and the Sannyasin are free to acquire knowledge and both, therefore, may attain to Emancipation notwithstanding their respective emblems. In the emblems themselves there is no efficacy or disqualification.

The object of this verse is to show that all persons, led by interest, become attached to particular things. The littleness or greatness of those things cannot aid or bar people's way to Emancipation. 'I may be a king, says Janaka, and thou mayst be a mendicant. Neither thy mendicancy nor my royalty can aid or obstruct our Emancipation. Both of us, by Knowledge, can achieve what we wish, notwithstanding our outward surroundings.'

Hence, by changing my royal life for that of a bearer of the triple-stick I can gain nothing.

Yukte in the first line means in the Yogin. The Bombay reading Tridandanke is a mistake for Tridandakam. The Bombay text reads na muktasyasti gopana, meaning that 'there is no relief for one that has fallen down after having arisen in Yoga.' The Bengal text reads vimuktasya. I adopt the Bengal reading.

What the king says is that he, the king, had made no assignation with the lady is consequence of which she could be justified in entering his body. The word Sannikarsha here means sanketa. Both the vernacular translators render this word wrongly.

These faults and merits are set forth in the verses that follow.

Saukshmyam, is literally minuteness. It means ambiguity here. I have rendered verse 81 very closely to give the reader an idea of the extreme terseness of these verses. For bringing out the meaning of the verse, the following illustration may serve. A sentence is composed containing some words each of which is employed in diverse senses, as the well-known verse of Parasara which has been interpreted to sanction the remarriage of Hindu widows. Here, the object indicated by the words used are varied. Definite knowledge of the meaning of each word is arrived at by means of distinctions, i.e., by distinguishing each meaning from every other. In such cases, the understanding before arriving at the definite meaning, rests in succession upon diverse points, now upon one, now upon another. Indeed, the true meaning is to be arrived at in such cases by a process of elimination. When such processes become necessary and or seizing the sense of any sentence, the fault is said to be the fault of minuteness or ambiguity.

To take the same example; first take the well-known words of Parasara as really sanctioning the remarriage of widows. Several words in the verse would point to this meaning, several others would not. Weighing probabilities and reasons, let the meaning be tentatively adopted that second husbands are sanctioned by the Rishi for the Hindu widow. This is Sankhya.

Having tentatively adopted the meaning the second husbands are sanctioned by the verse referred to, the conclusion should be either its acceptance or rejection. By seeing the incompatibility of the tentative meaning with other settled conclusions in respect of other texts or other writers, the tentative meaning is capable of being rejected, and the final conclusion arrived at, to the effect, that the second husband is to be taken only according to the Niyoga-vidhi and not by marriage.

By prayojanam is meant the conduct one pursues for gratifying one's wish to acquire or avoid any object. Wish, in respect of either acquisition or avoidance, if ungratified, becomes a source of pain. The section or conduct that one adopts for removing that pain is called Prayojanam. In the Gautama-sutras it is said that yamarthamadhikritya pravartate, tat prayojanam. The two definitions are identical.

By occurrence of these five characteristics together is meant that when these are properly attended to by a speaker or writer, only then can his sentence be said to be complete and intelligible. In Nyaya philosophy, the five requisites are Pratijna, Hetu, Udaharana, Upanaya, and Nigamana. In the Mimansa philosophy, the five requisites have been named differently. Vishaya, Samsaya, Purvapaksha, Uttara, and Nirnaya.

These characteristics, the commentator points out, though numbering sixteen, include the four and twenty mentioned by Bhojadeva in his Rhetoric called Saraswati-kanthabharana.

Parartham means, as the commentator explains, of excellent sense. It does not mean Paraprayojanam as wrongly rendered by the Burdwan translator. The latter's version of the text is thoroughly unmeaning.

What Sulabha says here is this: the great primal elements are the same whether they make up this body or that other body; and then it is the same Chit that pervades every combination of the great elements. The object of this observation is to show that Janaka should not have asked these questions about Sulabha, he and she being essentially the same person. To regard the two as different would indicate obscuration of vision.

What is meant by this is that when creatures are said to possess more of sattwa and less of sattwa, sattwa seems to be a principle that is existent in the constitutions of creatures.

By the word Kala is meant the 16 principles beginning with Prana. What is intended to be said is that as long as the principle of Desire exists, rebirth becomes possible. The universe, therefore, rests on the principle of Desire or Vasana. The senses, etc. all arise from this principle of Vasana.

By Vidhi is meant that righteousness and its reverse which constitute the seed of Desire. By Sukra is meant that which helps that seed to grow or put forth its rudiments. By Vala is meant the exertion that one makes for gratifying one's desire.

The fact then of continual change of particles in the body was well-known to the Hindu sages. This discovery is not new of modern physiology. Elsewhere it has been shown that Harvey's great discovery about the circulation of the blood was not unknown to the Rishis.