The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa (4 vols., libros 1–18) · 3 · 115

1259. These and men like these are pointed out as persons deserving of gifts.

1260. i.e., in Brahma as possessed of attributes and as freed from attributes.

1261. Matra is explained as miyante vishya anya i.e., the understanding. What is meant by guile in the practice of righteousness may be exemplified as follows. Individual grains of barley may be given away instead of clothes by one unable to obtain clothes for gift. But one giving away barley grains when perfectly able to give away clothes would be guilty of guile.

1262. The scriptures frequently lay down ordinances in the alternative. The absolute or substantive provisions are for the able. Those in the alternative are for them that are unable.

1263. What is meant by the sacrifices, etc., of such men being identical with infinite Brahma is that these men were identical with Brahma and whatever they did was Brahma. They had no consciousness of self, or they did nothing for self. They were the Soul of the universe.

1264. What is said here in effect is that at first there was only one course of duties, called sadachara or good conduct, for all men. In progress of time men became unable to obey all its dictates in their entirety. It then became necessary to distribute those duties into four subdivisions corresponding with the four modes of life.

1265. Both K.P. Singha and the Burdwan translator have completely misunderstood verse 23 and the first line of 24, which, as the commentator explains, should be construed together. The construction is Tam (sadacharam) santah grihebhyah nishkramya eva (sannyasam kritwaiva) vidhivatprapya paramam gatim gachcchanti. Anye santo vanamasritah tam vidhivat prapya, etc. Similarly, Grihameva bhisamsritya anye santah, etc. Jato-anye, etc. Thus, all the four modes, commencing with the last, are spoken of.

1266. It is impossible for any one to read the Burdwan version of such verses without pitying the Pandit responsible for its accuracy. Without understanding the commentary in the least, the words of the great commentator have been reproduced in the Burdwan version in a strange order, rejecting some of the connecting links without any excuse, and making the Collocation utterly unintelligible. K.P. Singha gives the substance very briefly without endeavouring to translate the words. And yet the verse presents almost no difficulty. The last line of 29 and the first line of 30 make one sentence. Chaturthopanishaddharmah is explained by the commentator as implying paramatma-vishayini vidya, tadartham dharmah. There are four states of consciousness: 1st, wakefulness; 2nd, dream; 3rd, dreamless slumber (sushupti); and 4th, Turiya, which is reached by Samadhi (abstraction of Yoga-meditation), and in which Brahma becomes realisable. What is said in these two lines is simply this: the duties (dharmah), relating to the Chaturthopanishat or, the Knowledge of Paramatman, are sadharanah or common to all the four orders of men and modes of life. Those duties, of course, are sama, dama, uparama, titiksha, sraddha, samadhi. What is said in the last line of 30 is that Brahmanas of pure hearts and restrained souls always succeed (by the help of those duties) in acquiring or attaining to that Turiya or consciousness of Brahma.

1267. Apavargamiti is explained by the commentator as apavargaprada vidya or Brahmasakshatkararupa vrittiryasmin iti. Nityin is avasyakah. Yatidharmah is a life of Renunciation. What is meant by sanatanah is sampradayagatah.

1268. Sadharana is opposed to kevala. Yathavalam implies yathavaira-gyam, Gachcchatam Gachcchatam means purushamatrasyavanigvya-dhadeh. The Burdwan translator misses the sense altogether and K.P. Singha quietly passes over the entire second line of this triplet. Durvala means he who is wanting in vairagya.

1269. The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that even if there be equality in respect of the end that is attained in next life, there is more of real felicity in a life of Renunciation than in a life of enjoyment. The Burdwan translator misses the sense entirely.

1270. The Burdwan translator gives a very erroneous version of this verse.

1271. For by Knowledge Emancipation is obtained.

1272. Vatarechaka is bhastra or a bellows. What is implied is, perhaps, that such a man breathes or lives in vain.

1273. Nasti is explained by the commentator as the past and the future. Nishtha is swarupam. Literally, what is said is that everything is the Vedas, or the Vedas are everything. This is, perhaps, only an exaggerated mode of saying that the Vedas deal with everything.

1274. The sense seems to be that while they that are ignorant regard the universe to be as existent and durable as the thunder or adamant, the man of knowledge regards it to be truly non-existent though it puts forth the appearance of existence.

1275. I have endeavoured to give a literal version of verse 45. It is difficult, however, to seize the meaning from such versions. The word used in the first line is Tyaga implying Renunciation. The commentator correctly explains that this is that complete Renunciation which takes place in Samadhi or the perfect abstraction of Yoga. Samaptam is samyak aptam (bhavati). This samyak is Brahma. Similarly, santosha is not ordinary contentment but Brahmananda or the Supreme felicity of one who has attained to Brahma. The meaning, then, is this: in the complete abstraction of Yoga (i.e., Samadhi) is Brahma. This all the Vedas teach. In Emancipation again is the Supreme felicity of Brahma. Apavargah is not annihilation but Emancipation, which is existence in Brahma without the dual consciousness of knower and known.

1276. I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the adjectives in the text.

1277. The grammatical construction of this verse is very difficult to catch. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. Tehjah, kshama, santih,—these are anamayam subham, i.e., nirdukhasya sukhasyapraptau hetuh. Tatha, separates these from what follows. Abidham Vyoma Santanam, and dhruvam are governed by gamyate, Etaih sarvaih refers to Tejah and the two others. Abidham is explained as akittrimam; vyoma as jagatkaranam. The Burdwan translator gives a correct version, although his punctuation is incorrect. He errs, however, in not taking anamayam subham as one and the same. K.P. Singha errs in connecting anamayam with what follows tatha.

1278. Nishkriti is literally escape. There is escape for those referred to; of course, the escape is to be sought by expiation. There is none for an ingrate, for ingratitude is inexpiable.

1279. Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.

1280. The Brahman evidently refers to the indifference of Kundadhara towards him. He had thought that Kundadhara would, in return for his adorations, grant him wealth. Disappointed in this, he says, when Kundadhara does not mind my adorations, who else will? I had, therefore, better give up all desire for wealth and retire into the woods. The passage, however, seems to be inconsistent with the Brahmana's indifference to the fine fabrics of cloth lying around him.

1281. Persons who have won ascetic success utter a wish and it is immediately fulfilled. 'I give thee this,' and forthwith what is given in words appears bodily, ready to be taken and appropriated. The words of such persons do not follow their meanings, but meanings follow their words.

1282. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of this verse. He forgets his grammar so completely as to take etaih as qualifying lokah.

1283. The verse is not difficult; the commentator, again, is very clear. The Burdwan translator, however, while citing the very words of the commentary, totally misunderstands them and makes utter nonsense of them. Ekarthanam is explained as Ekam chitiasuddhih Iswarapritirva tadarthanam madhya. The question asked is dharmartham yo yajnah samahitah (viniyuktah) tadeva vruhi and not that Yajna which sukhartham (bhavati).

1284. One that subsists upon grains of corn picked up from the fields after the reapers have abandoned them is called a person leading the unchha mode of life. The Burdwan translator commits the ridiculous error of taking unchhavrittih as the name of the Brahmana. The commentator supposes that Yajna here implies Vishnu, as expounded in the Srutis.

1285. Syamaka is a variety of paddy called Panicum frumentaceum. 'Suryaparni' is otherwise called 'Mashaparni' (Ayurvedhartha chandrika). It is identified with Tiramus labialis, syn.—Glycine deblis. 'Suvarchala' is a name applied to various plants. Here, very probably, 'Brahmisaka,' or Herpestes Monnjera (syn.—Gratiola Monniera, Linn) is intended.

1286. i.e., he never slaughtered living animals for offering them in sacrifices because of his inability to procure them. He, therefore, substituted vegetable products for those animals. His sacrifices, intended to take him to heaven, were really cruel in intention.

1287. Following the Bombay text I read the last line of 8 as Sukrasya punarajatih Parnadonamadharmavit, or Sukrasya punarjnabhih, etc.; ajatih is a 'descendant.' If ajnabhih be taken as the reading it would mean 'at the repeated commands of Sukra.' The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit seems to be vicious. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect; K.P. Singha supplying something of his own will for making sense of what, he writes, and the Burdwan translator writing nonsense as usual.

1288. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan translator is correct.