The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa, Volume 3...

1640. 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.

1646. 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).

1647. 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.

1650. 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.

1652. 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.

1655. 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.

1657. 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.

1658. 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.

1662. 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.

1663. 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.

1669. 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.

1670. 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.

1671. 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.

1672. 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.

1673. 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.

1674. 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.