943. The second line of this verse corresponds with the second line of verse 87 of Chapter II of Manusmriti.
944. They are seen and not seen is an idiomatic expression for ‘becoming invisible.’
945. i.e., kine do not yield copious and sweet milk; the soil ceases to be fertile; water ceases to be sweet; and the medicinal and edible herbs lose their virtues of healing as also their flavour.
946. The commentator thinks that Swadharmasthah is connected with asramah in the first line. I prefer the more obvious construction.
947. Varshati means pushnati. Angani means the observances necessary for the practice of Yoga as also all kinds of rites and vows. The Vedas cause these to grow, and they, in their turn, aid all students of the Vedas in achieving their purposes.
948. Prabhavah is uttpattih, or origin; sthanam is poshanam. Both the Vernacular translators skip over the last word, thinking that prabhavasthanam, is one word. The commentator notices them as separate. In the beginning of the second line, yatra is understood, Swabhavena, is explained by the commentator as Brahmabhavena, natu vikritena rupena. I think the explanation is correct, and have adopted it accordingly in the text.
949. Yatha in the first line of verse means, as the commentator explains, yat prakarakam.
950. The commentator points out that by these four words the four modes of life are indicated.
951. The commentator explains that this means that amongst embodied creatures they that are ignorant take those great entities which are really non-ego for either the ego or its Possessions.
952. The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that the Yoga view of the Soul being only the enjoyer but not the actor, is not correct. On the other hand, the Sankhya view of the Soul being neither the enjoyer nor the actor, is true. The deities, remaining in the several senses, act and enjoy. It is through ignorance that the Soul ascribes to itself their enjoyments and their actions.
953. I render Bhutatma by knowledge, following the commentator who uses the words buddhyupadhirjivah for explaining it.
954. Niyama and Visarga are explained by the commentator as ‘destruction’ and ‘creation.’ I prefer to take them as meaning ‘guiding or restraining,’ and ’employing.’ Practically, the explanations are identical.
955. What is meant by the objects of the senses residing within the bodies of living creatures is that (as the commentator explains) their concepts exist in ‘the cavity of the heart’ (probably, mind) so that when necessary or called for, they appear (before the mind’s eye). Swabhava is explained as ‘attributes’ like heat and cold, etc.
956. This is a very difficult verse. I have rendered it, following Nilakantha’s gloss. In verse the speaker lays down what entities dwell in the body. In the rest he expounds the nature of Sattwa which the commentator takes to mean buddhi or knowledge. He begins with the statement that Sattwasya asrayah nasti. This does not mean that the knowledge has no refuge, for that would be absurd, but it means that the asraya of the knowledge, i.e., that in which the knowledge dwells, viz., the body, does not exist, the true doctrine being that the body has no real existence but that it exists like to its image in a dream. The body being non-existent, what then is the real refuge of the knowledge? The speaker answers it by saying Gunah, implying that primeval Prakriti characterised by the three attributes is that real refuge. Then it is said that Chetana (by which is implied the Soul here) is not the refuge of the knowledge for the Soul is dissociated from everything and incapable of transformation of any kind. The question is then mentally started,–May not the Gunas be the qualities of the knowledge (instead of being, as said above, its refuge)? For dispelling this doubt, it is stated that Sattwa is the product of Tejas (Desire). The Gunas are _not_ the product of Tejas. Hence the Gunas, which have a different origin cannot be the properties of Sattwa. The Gunas exist independently of Desire. Thus the knowledge, which has Desire for its originating cause, rests on the Gunas or has them for its refuge. In this verse, therefore, the nature of the body, the knowledge, and the Gunas, is expounded. The grammatical construction of the first line is exceedingly terse.
957. Such men behold Brahma in all things. Abhijanah is explained by the commentator as sishyakuladih. This seems to be the true meaning of the word here.
958. In rendering this word tatam (where it occurs in the Gita), it has been shown that to take it as equivalent to ‘spread’ is incorrect. In such connections, it is evident that it means ‘pervaded!
959. If I have understood the gloss aright, this is what the first line of 21 means. Vedatma is explained as Vedic sound, i.e., the instructions inculcated in the Vedas. The word atma in the second clause means simply oneself or a person or individual. The sense then is this. The Vedas teach that all is one’s soul. The extent to which one succeeds in realising this is the measure of one’s attainment of Brahma. If one can realise it fully, one attains to Brahma fully. If partially, one’s attainment of Brahma also is partial.
960. The track of such a person, it is said, is as invisible as the skies. The commentator explains that the very gods become stupefied in respect of the object which such a man seeks, the object, of course, being Brahma.
961. That, of course, in which Time is cooked, is Brahma.
962. By this the speaker says that Brahma is not to be found in any particular spot however holy.
963. Because Brahma is infinite.
964. ‘Niyatah’ is explained by the commentator as achanchalah, and vasi as without the fault of upadhi. ‘Hansati, i.e., gachechati ite,’ hence gatimati.
965. The sense is that the Soul residing within the body is identical with the Supreme Soul, and men of wisdom only know it.
966. The construction is Hansoktancha yat aksharam tat (eva) kutastham aksharam, meaning that there is no difference between Jivatman and Paramatman. Both are identical.
967. Sattwena is explained as ‘by intelligence or the knowledge.’
968. The construction, as explained by the commentator, is Brahma tejomayam sukram; yasya sukrasya sarvam idam tasyapi Brahma rasah. The last word means sarah.
969. Both the Vernacular translators have skipped over this line. The meaning is this: Brahma opened his eyes for becoming many, as the Srutis declare, and thereupon he became many. This, as the commentator explains, Ikshana-kartritvena sarvatmakatwam gatam, or by a glance Brahma became the Soul of all things mobile and immobile.
970. The commentator explains that Brahmanah padam means prakritim. He thinks, therefore, that the last clause of the second line means ‘should seek to subdue prakriti which is the layasthanam of mahattattwa.’ I prefer the obvious sense of the words.
971. Parimitam Kalam is explained by the commentator as equivalent to six months as the srutis declare.
972. These two verses set forth the Yoga ideal. By the practice of Yoga all these are capable of being acquired or attained. But then the Yogin who suffers himself to be led away by those valuable possessions is said to fall in hell, for the enjoyment of this kind is nothing but hell compared to the high object for which Yogins should strive. Pramoha, Brahma, and Avarta, are technical terms. Equality with the wind means speed of motion, power to disappear at will, and capacity to move through the skies.
