The Sanskrit Epics, page 469
179 All these are different kinds of Yoga, or the different stages of Yoga practice.
180 i.e., knowledge being attained, the fruits of action are attained by, at least, their end being compassed.
181 Sankhya is renunciation of action, while Yoga is devotion through action.
182 The grammatical form of the word Yoga as here employed is exceptional.
183 The first atman is explained as the soul, the second as the body, by all the commentators.
184 Taking means taking anything with the hands.
185 Water when thrown over a lotus-leaf escapes without soaking or drenching the leaf at all.
186 Telang renders Pura as city, of course, the body having two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth, and two openings for excretions, is meant.
187 Such men are exempted from the obligation of re-birth. Leaving this body they merge into the Supreme Soul.
188 The word is Swapacha meaning a member of the lowest caste.
189 “Brahma is faultless and equable”; so Sreedhara and others,— “since faultless equality is Brahma.”
190 The sense is that they are at one with Brahma both here and hereafter.
191 Renouncer and devotee Sannyasin and Yogin.
192 Which spring from desire.
193 Self in this sloka is explained by the commentators as mind. The mind, unless controlled, cannot lead to devotion.
194 Chitta and atma are explained by the commentators as “mind and body.”
195 Fixed on one’s own self, i.e., withdrawn from all objects of sense. Thus Sankara.
196 Nischayena is explained by Sankara as equivalent to “with preservence” or steadily. Sreedhara explains it as equal to “with the certitude of knowledge acquired by instruction.”
197 Mriti-grahitaya Buddhya is, as explained by Sankara and others “with understanding controlled by patience.” K. T. Telang renders it “with firm resolve coupled with courage.”
198 i.e. I am always visible to him, and he too is always within my sight and I am always kind to him.
199 i.e. how its stable existence may be secured, the mind being by nature ever restless.
200 Fallen off from both, i.e., from heaven (through work) and absorption into Brahma (through devotion).
201 Without leaving anything, i.e., entirely.
202 The Divine-Word i.e., the Vedas. So great is the efficacy of devotion that one merely enquiring of it transcends him who conforms to the rites of the Vedas.
203 Only some one, i.e., very few. Few perfection, i.e., for knowledge of self. Thus all the commentators.
204 The last word of the first line of this sloka is param (higher) and not aparam with the initial a silent owing to the rules of Sandhi. Many of the Bengal texts have aparam, not excepting the latest one printed at Calcutta.
205 Kama which I have rendered desire is explained by Sreedhara as the wish for an unattained object; and raga as the longing or thirst for more. The second Kama is explained as desires of the class of love or lust.
206 Daivi is explained by Sankara as divine; by Sreedhara as marvellous.
207 The divine desires are about sons, fame, victory over enemies, etc., regulations, such as fasts etc.; their own nature, i.e., disposition as dependent on the acts of their past lives. Thus all the commentators.
208 The worshipper obtains his desires, thinking he gets them from the godhead he worships. It is however, that gives him those.
209 The divinities being perishable, myself imperishable. What these obtain is perishable. What my worshippers obtain is imperishable.
210 The ignorant, without knowledge of my transcendent essence take me to be no higher than that what is indicated in my human and other incarnate manifestations. Thus Sreedhara.
211 Adhyatman is explained as all that by which Brahman is to be attained. All actions mean the whole course of duties and practices leading to the knowledge of Brahman.
212 The three words occurring in this sloka and explained in the next section, forming as they do the subject of a question by Arjuna.
213 Bhava is production, and Udbhava is growth or development. Thus Sreedhara.
214 All the doors, i.e., the senses. Confining the mind within the heart, i.e., withdrawing the mind from all external objects. Murdhni is explained by Sreedhara to mean here “between the eyebrows.”
215 All these regions being destructible and liable to re-birth, those that live there are equally liable to death and re-birth.
216 The meaning, as explained by Sreedhara, is that such persons are said to know all, and not those whose knowledge is bounded by the course of the sun and the moon.
217 In this round of births and deaths, the creatures themselves are not free agents, being all the while subject to the influence of Karma, as explained by the commentators.
218 The commentators explain the word fire, the light, day, &c., as several godheads presiding over particular times.
219 The atmosphere occupies space without affecting it or its nature. So all things are in the Supreme Being without affecting him.
220 My nature, i.e., the unmanifest principle or primal essence.
221 Prakriti which I render “nature” is explained by the commentators as Karma, the influence of Karma or action being universal in setting the form of a particular entity at the time of its creation.
222 This reason, i.e., my supervision.
223 Sreedhara says that these are different modes of worship; “with reverence and ever devoted” grammatically refers to each of the three classes of worshippers indicated.
224 Performing the sacrifice of knowledge, i.e., believing Vasudeva to be everything. In many forms, i.e., as Brahman, Rudra, etc.
225 Mantra is the sacred verse or verses used for invoking godheads, and for other purposes.
226 Hence they have to come back, explains Sreedhara.
227 Prayatatmanas is explained as Suddhachittasya.
228 Iman lokan (this mortal world), Sreedhara says, may mean “this form of royal saint that thou hast.” This is far-fetched.
229 Telang renders Paramam ‘excellent’; Mr. John Davies, ‘all important’. The meaning is referring to the ‘Supreme Soul’.
230 Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain Sarvassas as “in every way”. i.e., as creator, as guide, &c.
231 Prajas offspring, including, as Sankara says, both mobile, and immobile, therefore, not mankind alone.
232 Bhava-samanwitas is explained by Sreedhara as “full of love”, which K. T. Telang accepts. Sankara explains it as “endued with penetration into the knowledge of the Supreme object.”
233 Tityam, ever, is connected with what follows and not what precedes. Thus Sreedhara. Mr. Davies connects it with Kathayantas.
234 K. T. Telang renders buddhi-yogam as knowledge; Mr. Davies, as mental devotion and Sankara, “devotion by special insight.”
235 To know thee fully is impossible. In what particular forms or manifestations, therefore, shall I think of thee? The word Bhava in the second line is rendered “entities” by K. T. Telang, and “form of being” by Mr. Davies.
236 Vistarasya evidently refers (as explained by all the commentators) to Vibhutinam. It is a question of grammar and not of doctrine that there can be any difference of opinion. Mr. Davies, however, renders it “of (my) greatness.” This is inaccurate.
237 The Adityas are the solar deities, twelve in number, corresponding to the twelve months of the year. The Maruts are the wind-gods, whose chief is Marichi.
238 The Rudras are a class of destructive gods, eleven in number. The Vasus are an inferior class of deities, eight in number. The lord of treasures is Kuvera.
239 The Japa-sacrifice is the sacrifice by meditation which is superior to all sacrifices.
240 Kamadhuk, the wish-giving cow called Surabhi. The cause of re-production, i.e., I am not the mere carnal passion, but that passion which procreates or is crowned with fruit.
241 In 28, Vasuki is called the chief of the Sarpas (serpents); in 29 Ananta is spoken of as the chief of the Nagas. The latter are Sarpas as well. Sreedhara says that the distinction lies in the fact of the Nagas being without poison. This is hardly correct.
242 Pavatam may also mean “of those that have motion.” Rama is Dasaratha’s son, the hero of Valmiki’s poem. Ganga is called Jahnavi because she was, after having been drunk up, let out by the ascetic Jahnu through his knee.
243 Mr. Davies renders Vedas ‘Pravadatam’ as “the speech of those that speak.” K. T. Telang renders it “the argument of controversialists.”
244 A, or rather the sound of A as in full, is the initial letter of the Sanskrit alphabet. Of compounds, the Dwanda, or the copulative compound, is enumerated first. In other respects again, the Dwanda is the best kind of compound for the words forming it are co-ordinate, without one being dependent on the other or others.
245 The Vrihat-saman is said to be the best, because it leads to emancipation at once. Thus Sankara. The Margasirsha is the month from the middle of February to the middle of March. Productive of flowers, i.e., the Spring.
246 Mr. Davies renders the last line of this verse as “I have established in continuance all this universe by one part myself.” This is both obscure and inaccurate.
247 Adhyatman, i.e., the relation between the Supreme and the individual soul. This my delusion, i.e., about my being the slayer.
248 Avyayam is that which has no decay. Ordinarily, it may be rendered “eternal.” Telang renders it “inexhaustible”. Elsewhere I have rendered it as “understanding.”
249 Ekastham, lit. “all in one”. i.e., collected together.
250 Devam is explained by Sreedhara as Dyotanatmakam i.e., endued with splendour. Mr. Davies renders it resplendent; but Telang renders it “deity.”
251 Pra-vibhaktam-anekadha (divided diversely) is an adjective of Jagat. See Sreedhara. Both Mr. Davies and Telang seem to take it as a predicate in contra-distinction to Ekastham. This is scarcely correct.
252 Verse 21 is read differently. For Twam Surasangha, some texts read twa-Asurasanghas. Then again for Stuvanti in the second line some read Vikshate.
253 Pravritti is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as Chesta, i.e., movements or acts. Mr. Davies is, I think, not correct in taking it to mean “evolved or developed form.”
254 Kala here is death. Mr. Davies renders it Time, following some other translators. Pravriddha is not (as Mr. Davies renders it) “old” or “very old,” but swelling or fully developed. Then again, Mr. Davies commits a ludicrous blunder in rendering Rite twam as “Except thee.” This is one of those idioms at which a foreigner is sure to stumble who has only the lexicons for his guide. What Krishna says is not that all would perish save Arjuna, but that without Arjuna (i.e., even if he did not fight) all would perish.
255 Nidhanam is either refuge or support or abode or receptacle. Mr. Davies incorrectly renders it “treasure-house.”
256 Sankara accepts the reading Gururgariyan, Sreedhara takes it as Gururgariyan. In either case the difference in meaning is not material.
257 Sankara connects Adhyayana with Veda and Yajna. This seems to be right explanation.
258 Ata urddham is ‘after this,’ or ‘hereafter on high’ as Mr. Davies renders it.
259 Although the limitation “for fruit” does not occur in the text, yet, it is evident, it should be understood. Krishna does not recommend the total abandonment of actions, but abandonment for their fruit. Mr. Davies renders arambha as “enterprise.”
260 The learned, i.e., they that are themselves acquainted with is Kshetra and what not. As explained by Krishna himself below, Kshetra is Matter, and Kshetrajna is Soul.
261 Dukha-dosha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as a Dwanda compound.
262 Vivikta is explained by the commentators as Suddha or Chittaprasadakara. There can be no doubt, however, that it is in opposition to Janasamsadi following. Hence I render it “lonely”.
263 The object of the knowledge of truth is the dispelling of ignorance and the acquisition of happiness.
264 Nor having eyes, etc., yet seeing, etc.; without attributes, yet having or enjoying all that the attributes give.
265 All modifications, i.e., of material forms; all qualities, i.e., pleasure, pain, etc. The word rendered “nature” is Prakriti (primal matter), and that rendered “spirit” is Purusha (the active principle). Vikarna and Gunan include all material forms and attributes of the soul.
266 Karya-karana-karttritwa is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara to mean “the capacity of working (residing) in the body and the senses.” K. T. Telang adopts this. Mr. Davies in his text has “in the activity of the organs of action.” In course of his philological notes, however, he gives the correct rendering. ‘Is said to be’ is explained by Sreedhara as referring to Kapila and others.
267 It is the embodied spirit only that can enjoy the qualities of Nature. Then again, the kind of connection it has with those qualities settles its birth in good or evil wombs.
268 Mr. Davies misunderstands the grammatical connection of the words in the second line of this verse. K. T. Telang, following Sreedhara, says, the word should be rendered “approver.”
269 What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines.
270 Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge.
271 Sarvatra in the second line is explained by Sreedhara as “in every body, superior and inferior.” Grammatically it may mean also, “in every part of the body.” Such a theory, however, of the seat of the soul would be contrary to all Hindu ideas.
272 Bhuta-Prakriti-moksha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as moksha or deliverance from the prakriti (nature) of bhutas’ or entities. It is true knowledge that effects such deliverance. Mr. Davies renders it “deliverance of beings from Nature.” This is evidently incorrect. “Beings” is not synonymous with self or soul.
273 Itas is explained by Sreedhara as “from the fetters of this body.”
274 Sreedhara makes mahat an adjective of yoni; Sankara makes it an adjective of Brahma. K. T. Telang follows Sankara.
275 Happiness and knowledge are attributes of the mind, not of the soul. Hence, when attached to the soul, they are as fetters from which the soul should be freed.
276 Deha samudbhava is explained by the commentators as having their “samudbhava or parinama in deha.” It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound.
277 Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects.
278 Pratishtha is explained by Sankara as “something on which another (here Brahma) stays or rests.” Sreedhara explains it as Pratima. Telang following Sreedhara, renders it “embodiment;” Mr. Davies, as “seat.” Amritasya and Avyayasya are taken separately by the commentators.
279 The ‘Aswattha’ is the sacred Indian fig tree, here emblematical of the course of worldly life. Its roots are above; those roots are the Supreme Being. Its branches are below, these being the inferior deities. Its leaves are the sacred hymns of the Vedas, i.e., as leaves keep the tree alive and even conduce to its fruits, so the Vedas support this tree and lead to salvation.
280 Upwards and downwards i.e., from the highest to the lowest of created things. Enlarged by the qualities, i.e., the qualities appearing as the body, the senses, etc. The sprouts are the objects of sense, being attached to the senses themselves as sprouts to branches. The roots extending downwards are the desires for diverse enjoyments. Thus Telang, following the commentators.
281 Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain.
282 “Atmani” in the first line is “in the body” as explained by Sreedhara and others: “in the understanding” as explained by Sankara. It seems, however, to be used in the general senses of “themselves”, without particular reference to either body or understanding. An Akritatman is one whose soul is not made or formed; generally, “a person of unsubdued passions.”
283 There can be no question that Soma here means the moon and not the Soma juice quaffed in sacrifices, or sap. It is the moon that supports, nourishes all herbs and numerous passages may be quoted from Hindu sacred literature to show this. Mr. Davies, therefore, clearly errs in rendering Soma as “the savoury juice.”
284 The four kinds of food are: that which is masticated, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.
285 Apohanam is loss or removal. It is a well-known word and its application here is very natural. I am memory and knowledge (to those that use them for virtuous acts). I am the loss of these faculties (to those that engage in unrighteous acts). Mr. Davies erroneously renders it as “The power of reason.”
286 Kutashtha is rendered by K. T. Telang as “the unconcerned one”, by Mr. Davies as “the lord on high.” I incline to the scholiasts who explain it as “the uniform or the unchangeable one.”
287 Sarvabhavena is explained by Sankara by Sarvatma-chintaya (thinking Me to be the soul of everything). Sreedhara explains it as Sarvaprakarena. Why may it not mean “with the whole soul” or “with excess of love.”
288 I adopt Sankara’s explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka. Sreedhara explains it differently.
289 Prabritti I render “inclination” and Nivritti as “disinclination.” The inclination is, as all the commentators explain, towards righteous actions, and the disinclination, consequently, is about all unrighteous actions. K. T. Telang renders these words as “action” and “inaction”. Mr. Davies, following the French version of Burnouf, takes them to mean “the creation and its end.”
290 Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.
291 ‘That’ evidently refers to sacrifice, penance, and gift, in the clause before. The commentators, however, suggest that it may, besides, refer to Brahma. I am myself not sure that it does not refer to Brahma.
292 What the author wishes to lay down in these verses is that the words OM, TAT, and SAT, have each their respective uses. When used as directed here, such use cures the defects of the respective actions to which they are applied, it being understood that all three denote Brahma.
