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

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.

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.

1289. Both the vernacular versions of this verse were incorrect. The commentator explains that the grammar is rasatalam didrikshuh sa Yajna-pavakam pravishtah. Yajne duscharitam kinnu, samipavarti mudo janah i.e., fearing to see many other defects in the sacrifice which was being celebrated by an ignorant person.

1291. In verse 8, it is said that it was a descendant of Sukra, viz., the virtuous Parnada, who had become a deer and lived in those woods as the Brahmana's neighbour. Here it is said that it was the deity Dharma who had become so. The two statements may be reconciled supposing that Dharma first became the Rishi Parnada and then, as Parnada, was metamorphosed into a deer. Tasya nishkritim adhatta is explained by the commentator in a very far-fetched way. He takes these words to mean that Dharma, who had become a deer, provided at this juncture for his liberation from that metamorphosis. I think tasya has reference to the misled Brahmana.

1300. What is said in this verse is this: when a man wants an earthen jar, he works for creating one. When he has got one, he no longer finds himself in the same state of mind, his want having been satisfied. Similarly, with men desirous of heaven and earthly prosperity as the reward of virtue, the means is Pravritti or acts. This or these cease to operate with those who having acquired such virtue set themselves for the achievement of Emancipation, for with them the religion of Nivritti is all in all.

1305. Hunger is to be subdued by Yoga, i.e., by regulating the wind within the body. Doubt is to be dispelled by certainty; this implies that certain knowledge should be sought for by driving off doubt. The commentator thinks that this means that all sceptical conclusions should be dispelled by faith in the scriptures. By 'fear,' in this verse, is meant the source of fear, or the world. That is to be conquered by the conquest of the six, i.e., desire, wrath, covetousness, error, pride, and envy.

1306. What is laid down here is the same course of training that is indicated for Yoga. First, the senses are to be merged into the mind, then the mind is to be merged into the Understanding, then the Understanding is to be merged into the Soul or what is known as the Ego. This Ego is to be merged at last into the Supreme Soul. When the Ego is understood, it comes to be viewed as Brahma.

1308. Such restraint of speech, etc., or niyamah is yogah. Kamaoanyatha is kama-vaiparityena. The sense, the commentator adds, is that one should not desire 'yoga-siddhi,' for then, as has been repeatedly indicated in the previous Sections, the Yogin would fall into hell and succeed not in attaining to Emancipation, heaven itself being hell in comparison with the felicity of Emancipation. K.P. Singha quietly skips over the last line and the Burdwan translator offers a ridiculously incorrect version.

1309. Yebhyah means 'the materials from which.' (Srijati) has Paramatma for its nominative (understood). Kale is the time of creation as selected by the Supreme Soul in his own wisdom. Bhavaprachoditah is 'induced by the desire of becoming many, or led by the desire of existence as many or in infinite diversity.'

1310. Kala here is, perhaps, the embodiment of the abstract idea of life of living creatures. Impelled by the Understanding, Kala or life sets itself to the creation of other creatures. These last also are equally the result of the same five primal essences.

1311. The construction of the second line is this: etan shad abhinivrittan (sarveshu karyeshu anugatam) vettha; then ete yasya rasayah (karyani, tat asat). The sense of the last clause is that all this is the effect of those primal essences. All this, therefore, is of those essences. The latter are included in the word asat, or unreal, as distinguished from sat or real of substantial. The soul is sat, everything else is asat.

1312. In previous Sections it has been explained how when the Chit, which has pure knowledge for its attribute, becomes invested with Ignorance, it begins to attract the primal essences towards itself in consequence of the potencies of past acts and take birth in various shapes. (The idea of past acts is due to the infinite cycles of creation and destruction, the very first creation being inconceivable). The causes of creation are, therefore, the five primal essences, Jiva (or chit), the potencies of past acts, and Ignorance.

1314. The second line of 13 is very condensed. The meaning is this: the eye is the sense of vision. Vision or sight is its function. The object it apprehends is form. The eye has light for its cause, and form is an attribute of light. Hence the eye seizes or apprehends form. By the inference of reason, there is similitude, in respect of attribute or property, between the eye, vision, and form. The commentator explains this clearly Drashtri-darsanadrisya nam trayanamapi gunatamatyam upapannam. This is indicated with a little variation in the next verse. K.P. Singha skips over the line. The Burdwan translator gives an incorrect version.

1315. Manas is mind, Buddhi is Understanding, and Kshetrajna is the Soul. What, however, is Chitta is difficult to ascertain, unless it means vague or indefinite perception. In some systems of philosophy the Chitta is placed above the Understanding.

1317. The first line of 27 is grammatically connected with the last line of 26. The second line of 27 is very abstruse. The grammatical construction is this: tayorbhavayogamanam (sushuptau) pratyaksham (drishtam); (tadeva) nityam, ipsitam (cha). What is meant by this is that in ordinary men, the notions during wakefulness are not the notions they cherish during dreams: nor are their notions during dreams identifiable with those they entertain while wakeful. There is similarity but not identity. In eternal Sushupti, however, which is Emancipation, the notions of wakefulness pass into those of dream and those of dream pass into those of wakefulness, i.e., both (or, rather, the same, for there is then perfect identity between them) become directly apprehensible in Sushupti or Emancipation. Sushupti or Emancipation, therefore, is a state, in which there is neither the consciousness of wakefulness nor that of dream, but both run together, their differences disappearing totally.