576. Upaskara means renunciation.
577. It is generally said that by procreating offspring, one gratifies the Pitris or pays off the debt one owes to one’s deceased ancestors. Here Bhrigu says that by that act one gratifies the Creator. The idea is the same that forms the root of the command laid on the Jews,–Go and multiply.
578. The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.
579. Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.
580. Niyama is explained by the commentator as a rite; upayoga as a vow about food; charyya as an act like visiting sacred waters; vihita is vidhana.
581. The Hindus had no poor laws. The injunctions of their scriptures have always sufficed to maintain the poor, particularly their religious mendicants. The mendicants themselves are restrained from disturbing the householders often. None again save the well-to-do were to be visited by the mendicants, so that men of scanty means might not be compelled to support the recluses.
582. The words used by Bharadwaja in the question are capable of being construed as an enquiry after the next world. Bhrigu also, in his answer, uses the word Paro lokah. The reference to Himavat, therefore, is explained by the commentator as metaphorical. The whole answer of Bhrigu, however, leaves little room for doubt that the sage speaks of a region on earth and not in the invisible world after death.
583. Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.
584. All knowledge there is certain.
585. i.e., to practise yoga. The Bengal reading is dharanam. The commentator goes or explaining all the verses as metaphorical. Considerable ingenuity is displayed by him, and he even cites the Srutis in support.
586. This at least is a verse that evidently refers to the other or the next world, and, therefore, lends colour to the supposition that throughout the whole passage, it is the next world and no fictitious region north of the Himalayas that is described. Some western scholars think that a verbal translation is all that is necessary. Such passages, however, are incapable of being so rendered. The translator must make his choice of, either taking the verses in a plain or a metaphorical sense. If he inclines towards the latter, he cannot possibly give a verbal version. The genius of the two tongues are quite different.
587. Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.
588. The Burdwan translator makes a mess of this verse 21 runs into 22 as explained by the commentator. K.P. Singha avoids the blunder, although in rendering the last line of 22 he becomes rather inaccurate.
589. The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.
590. This may be a general direction for washing one’s hand after eating; or, it may refer to the final Gandusha, i.e., the act of taking a little water in the right hand, raising it to the lips, and throwing it down, repeating a short formula.
591. The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.
592. It is difficult to understand what this verse means. Nilakantha proposes two different kinds of interpretation. What then is Sankusuka or Sanku cuka? The above version is offered tentatively. The commentator imagines that the true sense of the verse is that it declares such men to be unable to attain to Mahadayu which is Brahma and not long life.
593. Prishtamangsa is explained by the commentator as ‘the meat forming the remnant of a Sraddha offering.’ I do not see the necessity of discarding the obvious meaning.
594. in the sense of being moved or used. The commentator adds that the sacred thread also should be wound round the thumb, as the Grihyasutras declare.
595. In every instance, the person who receives should say–‘All-sufficient’ ‘Gratify to the fill’, and ‘Has fallen copiously’ or words to that effect. Krisara or Kricara is food made of rice and pease, or rice and sesame; probably what is now called Khichree.
596. The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.
597. It is not plain in what way the sinful acts come to the sinner. The Hindu idea, of course, is that the consequences of those deeds visit the doer without fail. This verse, however, seems to say that the recollection of those sins forces itself upon the sinner and makes him miserable in spite of himself.
598. The Hindu moralist, in this verse, declares the same high morality that Christ himself preached. Merit or sin, according to him, does not depend on the overt act alone. Both depend on the mind. Hence the injunction against even mentally harming others.
599. The sense seems to be that if one succeeds in ascertaining the ordinances about virtue or Piety, but if the mind be sinful, no associate can be of any help. The mind alone is the cause of virtue and piety.
600. Adhyatma is anything that depends on the mind. Here it is, as explained by the commentator, used for yoga-dharma as depending upon or as an attribute of the mind. Generally speaking, all speculations on the character of the mind and its relations with external objects are included in the word Adhyatma.
601. After Bhrigu’s discourse to Bharadwaja this question may seem to be a repetition. The commentator explains that it arises from the declaration of Bhishma that Righteousness is a property of the mind, and is, besides, the root of everything. (V 31, sec. 193, ante). Hence the enquiry about Adhyatma as also about the origin of all things.
602. The word rendering ‘perceptions’ is Vijnanani. ‘Cognitions’ would perhaps, be better.
603. Generally, in Hindu philosophy, particularly of the Vedanta school, a distinction is conceived between the mind, the understanding, and the soul. The mind is the seat or source of all feelings and emotions as also all our perceptions, or those which are called cognitions in the Kantian school, including Comparison which (in the Kantian school) is called the Vernuft or Reason. This last is called the Understanding or buddhi. The soul is regarded as something distinct from both the body and the mind. It is the Being to whom the body and the mind belong. It is represented as inactive, and as the all-seeing witness within the physical frame. It is a portion of the Supreme Soul.
604. Goodness includes all the higher moral qualities of man. Passion means love, affection, and other emotions that appertain to worldly objects. Darkness means anger, lust, and such other mischievous propensities.
605. I follow Nilakantha in his grammatical exposition of this verse. The meaning, however, is scarcely clear. The identity of the Understanding or intelligence with the senses and the mind may be allowed so far as the action of the three qualities in leading all of them to worldly attachments is concerned. But what is meant by the identity of the Understanding with all the objects it comprehends? Does Bhishma preach Idealism here? If nothing exists except as it exists in the Understanding, then, of course, with the extinction of the Understanding, all things would come to an end.
