The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (4 vols., libros 1–18) · 3 · 126

1589. In the second line of 72, dustaram janma means janma-yuktam dustaram.

1590. 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.

1591. 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 Perhaps, what is intended by it is that they become withdrawn from external objects and even the impressions of all external things.

1592. Perhaps, this means the pleasures of heaven.

1593. i.e., they who have identified themselves with Brahma.

1594. 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.

1595. 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.

1596. 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.

1597. 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.

1598. Iha is sapne Anisah is nasti isah or pravartaah yasya.

1599. For the Soul, in dreams, sees and hears and touches and smells etc., precisely as it does while awake.

1600. 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.

1601. 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.

1602. 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.

1603. 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.

1604. 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.

1605. 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.

1606. i.e., it is everything.

1607. That Narayana who does all this is the embodiment of the Sankhya system.

1608. The commentator explains the compound Adhyatmagatinischayam differently.

1609. Both the vernacular translator render this verse wrongly.

1610. 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.

1611. In the creation of Mahan or Prajapati or Virat, and of Consciousness, the element of Tamas or ignorance predominates.

1612. 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.

1613. From Akshara or the Indestructible is Hiranyagarbha. From Hiranyagarbha is Mahan or Virat and Consciousness. From the last are the subtile elements.

1614. 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.

1615. 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.

1616. The soul weaves a cocoon with attributes (or, acts which result from attributes), and though free deprives himself of freedom.

1617. Made of Chit and Not-Chit combined.

1618. 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.