The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (4 vols., libros 1–18) · 3 · 92

569. The Pauranic theory of both the solar and the lunar eclipse is that the Sun and the Moon are sought to be devoured by the Daitya, Rahu.

570. The sense seems to be that Vedas declare those fruits in order that men may strive for them when they lead to happiness.

571. Nearly the whole of this section is prose.

572. It is difficult to understand in what senses the word Dharma is used in the three successive questions here.

573. In the first line the correct reading is Brahmana and not Brahmarshi. The answer attributed to Bhrigu settles this.

574. A pupil should never solicit his preceptor for instruction. He should attend only when the preceptor calls him. To this day, the rule is rigidly observed in all schools throughout India. It should be added to the credit of those engaged in teaching that they very seldom neglect their pupils. The story is authentic of the grandfather of the great Baneswar Vidyalankar of Nuddea, himself as great a professor as Baneswar, of continuing to teach his pupils in the outer apartments even after receiving intelligence of his son's death within the inner apartments of the family dwelling. The fact is, he was utterly absorbed in his work, that when his good lady, moved by his apparent heartlessness, came out to tax him he answered her, in thorough absence of mind, saying, 'Well, do not be disturbed. If I do not weep for my son, I will do so for that grandchild in your arms.' The pupils at last recalled him to the realities of the hour.

575. i.e., by picking up fallen grains from the field after the crop has been cut away and removed by the owner.

576. Upaskara means renunciation.

577. It is generally said that by procreating offspring, one gratifies the Pitris or pays off the debt one owes to one's deceased ancestors. Here Bhrigu says that by that act one gratifies the Creator. The idea is the same that forms the root of the command laid on the Jews,—Go and multiply.

578. The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.

579. Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.

580. Niyama is explained by the commentator as a rite; upayoga as a vow about food; charyya as an act like visiting sacred waters; vihita is vidhana.

581. The Hindus had no poor laws. The injunctions of their scriptures have always sufficed to maintain the poor, particularly their religious mendicants. The mendicants themselves are restrained from disturbing the householders often. None again save the well-to-do were to be visited by the mendicants, so that men of scanty means might not be compelled to support the recluses.

582. The words used by Bharadwaja in the question are capable of being construed as an enquiry after the next world. Bhrigu also, in his answer, uses the word Paro lokah. The reference to Himavat, therefore, is explained by the commentator as metaphorical. The whole answer of Bhrigu, however, leaves little room for doubt that the sage speaks of a region on earth and not in the invisible world after death.

583. Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.

584. All knowledge there is certain.

585. i.e., to practise yoga. The Bengal reading is dharanam. The commentator goes for explaining all the verses as metaphorical. Considerable ingenuity is displayed by him, and he even cites the Srutis in support.

586. This at least is a verse that evidently refers to the other or the next world, and, therefore, lends colour to the supposition that throughout the whole passage, it is the next world and no fictitious region north of the Himalayas that is described. Some western scholars think that a verbal translation is all that is necessary. Such passages, however, are incapable of being so rendered. The translator must make his choice of, either taking the verses in a plain or a metaphorical sense. If he inclines towards the latter, he cannot possibly give a verbal version. The genius of the two tongues are quite different.

587. Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.

588. The Burdwan translator makes a mess of this verse 21 runs into 22 as explained by the commentator. K.P. Singha avoids the blunder, although in rendering the last line of 22 he becomes rather inaccurate.

589. The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.

590. This may be a general direction for washing one's hand after eating; or, it may refer to the final Gandusha, i.e., the act of taking a little water in the right hand, raising it to the lips, and throwing it down, repeating a short formula.

591. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.

592. It is difficult to understand what this verse means. Nilakantha proposes two different kinds of interpretation. What then is Sankusuka or Sanku cuka? The above version is offered tentatively. The commentator imagines that the true sense of the verse is that it declares such men to be unable to attain to Mahadayu which is Brahma and not long life.

593. Prishtamangsa is explained by the commentator as 'the meat forming the remnant of a Sraddha offering.' I do not see the necessity of discarding the obvious meaning.

594. in the sense of being moved or used. The commentator adds that the sacred thread also should be wound round the thumb, as the Grihyasutras declare.

595. In every instance, the person who receives should say—'All-sufficient,' 'Gratify to the fill', and 'Has fallen copiously' or words to that effect. Krisara or Kricara is food made of rice and pease, or rice and sesame; probably what is now called Khichree.

596. The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.

597. It is not plain in what way the sinful acts come to the sinner. The Hindu idea, of course, is that the consequences of those deeds visit the doer without fail. This verse, however, seems to say that the recollection of those sins forces itself upon the sinner and makes him miserable in spite of himself.

598. The Hindu moralist, in this verse, declares the same high morality that Christ himself preached. Merit or sin, according to him, does not depend on the overt act alone. Both depend on the mind. Hence the injunction against even mentally harming others.