670. Exists in its own nature, i.e., unaffected by attributes and qualities and accidents.
671. Some of the Bengal texts read sumahan and subuddhih in the second line. Of course, this is incorrect. The true reading is samanah and sabuddhih, meaning ‘with mind and with understanding.’ In the Bombay edition occurs a misprint, viz., sumanah for samanah. Nilakantha cites the correct readings.
672. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word Linga as used in both 14 and 15. K.P. Singha also wrongly renders that word as it occurs in 15. The commentator rightly explains that Linga has no reference to Linga-sarira or the invisible body composed of the tanmatra of the primal elements, but simply means the gross body. In 14, he says, Lingat sthuladehat, Lingam tadeva dehantaram. In 15, anena Lingena Savibhutena. Adristhah means alakshitah. A little care would have removed such blunders.
673. The commentator cites the Gita which furnishes a parallel passage, viz., Indriyani paranyahurindriyebhyah param manah, etc.
674. This verse seems to show that the Rishis had knowledge of spectacles, and probably also, of microscopes. The instrument that shewed minute objects must have been well known, otherwise some mention would have been made of it by name. The commentator calls it upanetra.
675. By death on sleep.
676. Yugapat means simultaneous: atulyakalam means differing in point of time in respect of occurrence: kritsnam qualifies indriyartham; Vidwan means Sakshi; and ekah, independent and distinct. What is intended to be said here is that when the soul, in a dream, musters together the occurrences and objects of different times and places, when, in fact, congruity in respect of both time and place does not apply to it, it must be regarded to have an existence that is distinct and independent of the senses and the body.
677. The object of this is to show that the Soul has only knowledge of the pleasures and pains arising in consequence of Sattwa and Rajas and Tamas and in connection with the three states of the understanding due to the same three attributes. The Soul, however, though knowing them, does not enjoy or suffer them. He is only the silent and inactive Witness of everything.
678. The object of the simile is to show that as wind is a separate entity although existing with the fire in a piece of wood, so the Soul, though existing with the senses is distinct from them.
679. The Bengal texts read indriyanam which I adopt. The Bombay edition reads indriyendriyam, meaning the sense of the senses, in the same way as the Srutis declare that is the Prana of Prana, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, etc., Sravanena darsanam tatha kritam is ‘apprehended by the ear,’ i.e., as rendered above, ‘apprehended through the aid of the Srutis.’
680. The commentator uses the illustration of a tree. Before birth the tree was not; and after destruction, it is not; only in the interim, it is. Its formlessness or nothingness is manifest from these two states, for it has been said that which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future cannot be regarded as existing in the present. Tadgatah is explained by the commentator as udayastamanagatah or taddarsinah.
681. Both the vernacular translators render the second line incorrectly. The first line is elliptical, and would be complete by supplying asannam pasyanti. The paraphrase of the second line is Pratyayannam Jneyam Jnanabhisamhitam(prati)ninisante. Jneyam is explained by the commentator as prapancham. Jnanabhisamhitam means that which is known by the name of Knowledge, i.e., Brahma, which has many similar names some of which the commentator quotes such as Satyam (truth), Jananam (knowledge), Anantam (infinite), Vijnanam (true knowledge), Anandam (joy or happiness).
682. Tamas is another name for Rahu. The first line, therefore, refers to the manner in which an eclipse occurs. There is no absolute necessity, however, for taking it as an allusion to the eclipse. The meaning may be more general. Every day, during the lighted fortnight, the moon gains in appearance, as, indeed, every day, during the dark fortnight, it loses in appearance. It may, therefore, be said that darkness approaches it or leaves it for eating it away or discovering it more and more. The actual process of covering and discovering cannot be noticed. This circumstance may be taken as furnishing the simile. In verse 21, similarly, tamas is capable of a wider meaning. In 22, the word Rahu is used. It should be explained, however, that Rahu is no imaginary monster as the Puranas describe but the descending node of the moon, i.e., a portion of space in and about the lunar orbit.
683. This is a very difficult verse and the distinction involved in it are difficult to catch. Of course, I follow the commentator in rendering it. What is said here is that in a dream, Vyakta (manifest body) lies inactive, while the Chetanam (the subtile form) walks forth. In the state called Sushupti (deep slumber which is like death) the indriyasamyuktam (the subtile form) is abandoned, and Jnanam (the Understanding), detached from the former, remains. After this manner, abhava (non-existence, i.e., Emancipation) results from destruction of bhavah or existence as subject to its known conditions of dependence on time, manner of apprehension, etc., for Emancipation is absorption into the Supreme Soul which is independent of all the said conditions. The commentator explains that these observations become necessary to show that Emancipation is possible. In the previous section the speaker drew repeated illustrations for showing that the soul, to be manifest, depended on the body. The hearer is, therefore, cautioned against the impression that the soul’s dependence on the body is of such an indissoluble kind that it is incapable of detachment from the body, which of course, is necessary for Emancipation or absorption into the Supreme Soul.
684. Caswasasya is an instance of Bhavapradhananirdesa, i.e., of a reference to the principal attribute connected by it.
685. Indriaih rupyante or nirupyante, hence Indriyarupani.
686. The objects to be abandoned are those which the senses apprehend and those which belong to primordial matter. Those last, as distinguished from the former, are, of course, all the linga or subtile forms or existents which are made up of the tanmatras of the grosser elements.
687. Or, regains his real nature.
688. I adopt the Bombay reading aptavan instead of the Bengal reading atmavit. Pravrittam Dharmam, as explained previously, is that Dharma or practice in which there is pravritti and not nivritti or abstention.
689. The sense is this: by abstaining from the objects of the senses one may conquer one’s desire for them. But one does not succeed by that method alone in totally freeing oneself from the very principle of desire. It is not till one succeeds in beholding one’s soul that one’s principle of desire itself becomes suppressed.
690. The separate existence of an objective world is denied in the first clause here. All objects of the senses are said here to have only a subjective existence; hence the possibility of their being withdrawn into the mind. The latest definition of matter, in European philosophy, is that it is a permanent possibility of sensations.
691. Te is explained by the commentator as Brahmabhigatah. K.P. Singha wrongly renders the last foot of the second line. The Burdwan version is correct.
692. Te in the first line is equal to tava.
693. I follow the commentator in so far as he is intelligible. It is evident that the words Jnanam and Jneyam are used in the original not consistently throughout.
