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

1680. It is difficult to say in what sense the word vaiseshikam is used here. There is a particular system of philosophy called Vaiseshika or Kanada; the system believed to have been originally promulgated by a Rishi of the name of Kanada. That system has close resemblance to the atomic theory of European philosophers. It has many points of striking resemblance with Kapila's system or Sankhya. Then, again, some of the original principles, as enunciated in the Sankhya system, are called by the name of Visesha.

1683. There is equal reason in taking up etc., implies that the bearing of the sceptre is only a mode of life like that of holders of the triple-stick. Both the king and the Sannyasin are free to acquire knowledge and both, therefore, may attain to Emancipation notwithstanding their respective emblems. In the emblems themselves there is no efficacy or disqualification.

1684. The object of this verse is to show that all persons, led by interest, become attached to particular things. The littleness or greatness of those things cannot aid or bar people's way to Emancipation. 'I may be a king, says Janaka, and thou mayst be a mendicant. Neither thy mendicancy nor my royalty can aid or obstruct our Emancipation. Both of us, by Knowledge, can achieve what we wish, notwithstanding our outward surroundings.'

1686. Yukte in the first line means in the Yogin. The Bombay reading Tridandanke is a mistake for Tridandakam. The Bombay text reads na muktasyasti gopana, meaning that 'there is no relief for one that has fallen down after having arisen in Yoga.' The Bengal text reads vimuktasya. I adopt the Bengal reading.

1687. What the king says is that he, the king, had made no assignation with the lady is consequence of which she could be justified in entering his body. The word Sannikarsha here means sanketa. Both the vernacular translators render this word wrongly.

1689. Saukshmyam, is literally minuteness. It means ambiguity here. I have rendered verse 81 very closely to give the reader an idea of the extreme terseness of these verses. For bringing out the meaning of the verse, the following illustration may serve. A sentence is composed containing some words each of which is employed in diverse senses, as the well-known verse of Parasara which has been interpreted to sanction the remarriage of Hindu widows. Here, the object indicated by the words used are varied. Definite knowledge of the meaning of each word is arrived at by means of distinctions, i.e., by distinguishing each meaning from every other. In such cases, the understanding before arriving at the definite meaning, rests in succession upon diverse points, now upon one, now upon another. Indeed, the true meaning is to be arrived at in such cases by a process of elimination. When such processes become necessary and or seizing the sense of any sentence, the fault is said to be the fault of minuteness or ambiguity.

1690. To take the same example; first take the well-known words of Parasara as really sanctioning the remarriage of widows. Several words in the verse would point to this meaning, several others would not. Weighing probabilities and reasons, let the meaning be tentatively adopted that second husbands are sanctioned by the Rishi for the Hindu widow. This is Sankhya.

1691. Having tentatively adopted the meaning the second husbands are sanctioned by the verse referred to, the conclusion should be either its acceptance or rejection. By seeing the incompatibility of the tentative meaning with other settled conclusions in respect of other texts or other writers, the tentative meaning is capable of being rejected, and the final conclusion arrived at, to the effect, that the second husband is to be taken only according to the Niyoga-vidhi and not by marriage.

1692. By prayojanam is meant the conduct one pursues for gratifying one's wish to acquire or avoid any object. Wish, in respect of either acquisition or avoidance, if ungratified, becomes a source of pain. The section or conduct that one adopts for removing that pain is called Prayojanam. In the Gautama-sutras it is said that yamarthamadhikritya pravartate, tat prayojanam. The two definitions are identical.

1693. By occurrence of these five characteristics together is meant that when these are properly attended to by a speaker or writer, only then can his sentence be said to be complete and intelligible. In Nyaya philosophy, the five requisites are Pratijna, Hetu, Udaharana, Upanaya, and Nigamana. In the Mimansa philosophy, the five requisites have been named differently. Vishaya, Samsaya, Purvapaksha, Uttara, and Nirnaya.

1696. What Sulabha says here is this: the great primal elements are the same whether they make up this body or that other body; and then it is the same Chit that pervades every combination of the great elements. The object of this observation is to show that Janaka should not have asked these questions about Sulabha, he and she being essentially the same person. To regard the two as different would indicate obscuration of vision.

1698. By the word Kala is meant the 16 principles beginning with Prana. What is intended to be said is that as long as the principle of Desire exists, rebirth becomes possible. The universe, therefore, rests on the principle of Desire or Vasana. The senses, etc. all arise from this principle of Vasana.

1699. By Vidhi is meant that righteousness and its reverse which constitute the seed of Desire. By Sukra is meant that which helps that seed to grow or put forth its rudiments. By Vala is meant the exertion that one makes for gratifying one's desire.

1700. The fact then of continual change of particles in the body was well-known to the Hindu sages. This discovery is not new of modern physiology. Elsewhere it has been shown that Harvey's great discovery about the circulation of the blood was not unknown to the Rishis.

1701. The instance mentioned for illustrating the change of corporal particles is certainly a very happy one. The flame of a burning lamp, though perfectly steady (as in a breezeless spot), is really the result of the successive combustion of particles of oil and the successive extinguishment of such combustion Both this and the previous verse have been rendered inaccurately by K.P. Singha.

1703. The seven ways are as follows: Righteousness and Wealth and Pleasure independently and distinct from one another count three, then the first and second, the first and third, and second and third, count three and lastly, all three existing together. In all acts, one or other of these seven may be found. The first and second exist in all acts whose result is the righteous acquisition of wealth; the first and third exist in the procreation of children in lawful wedlock; the second and third in ordinary acts of worldly men. Of acts in which all three combine, the rearing of children may be noticed, for it is at once a duty, a source of wealth, and a pleasure. K.P. Singha omits all reference to these seven ways, while the Burdwan translator, misunderstanding the gloss, makes utter nonsense of it.

1705. The commentator explains that the three others are Vriddhi, Kshaya, and Sthana, all of which arise from policy. Some of the seven limbs are inanimate, such as the treasury. But it is said that the treasury supports the ministers, and the ministers support the treasury.

1708. Upaya or means implies here the attitude of sitting (as in Yoga). Upanishad or method implies sravana and manana i.e., listening and thinking. Upasanga or practices imply the several limbs of Dhyana, etc. Nischaya or conclusion has reference to Brahma.

1713. Literally, the world is only a hold of action, implying that creatures, coming here, have to act: these actions lead to rewards and punishments, both here and hereafter. The way to Emancipation is, as has been often shown before, by exhausting the consequences of acts by enjoyment or sufferance and by abstaining from further acts by adopting the religion of Nivritti.

1714. Kulapatam is explained by the commentator as Mahanadipuram. In Naram etc, venumivodahritam (as in the Bombay text) or venumivoddhhatam (as in the Bengal text) is rather unintelligible unless it be taken in the sense in which I have taken it. K. P. Singha mistranslates Kulapatam, and the Burdwan translator misunderstands both Kulaparam and venumivoddhatam.