1079. Atikrantaguna-kshayam, i.e., one who has transcended disregards the very puissance that the destruction of the gunas is said to bring about.
1080. Karyyatam is Prakriti which alone is active, Purusha being inactive. Paramam karanam is, of course, Brahma uninvested with attributes.
1081. Dwandwani is governed by anushthitah. Mahat here is elaborate. The speaker, having first discussed the subject elaborately, intends to speak of it in brief in this Section.
1082. Panchasu is explained by the commentator as Panchatmakeshu. Hence, he properly points out that bhava and abhava and kala are included by the speaker within bhutas or primary elements. Bhava implies the four entities called karma, samanya, visesha and samavaya. By abhava is meant a negative state with respect to attributes not possessed by a thing. We cannot think of a thing without thinking of it as uninvested with certain attributes whatever other attributes it may possess.
1083. Enlarged, the constructions of the original becomes thus:
‘uttareshu (bhuteshu) (purvabhuta) gunah (santi).’
1084. Uttarah imply the three entities known by the names of Avidya (Ignorance), Kama (desire), and Karma (acts). This part of the verse is skipped over by the vernacular translators.
1085. i.e., the soul when invested with Avidya and desire becomes a living creature and engages in acts. It is through consequences then that are derived from acts that the infinite Soul (or Chit) becomes Jivatman.
1086. This is a very difficult verse and no wonder that both the vernacular versions are defective. K.P. Singha gives the substance, skipping over many of the words. The Burdwan translator, though citing largely from the gloss, misunderstands both verse and gloss completely. The grammatical construction is this: Ebhih sarvaih kalatmakaih bhavaih anwitam sarvam yah akalushiam pasyati (sah) samoham karma nanuvartate. Sarvam here refers to pranijatam or the entire assemblage of living creatures. Kalatmakaih bhavaih is punyapapadi samskaratmabhih. Bhavaih is taken by the commentator as equivalent to bhavanabhih. I prefer to take it in the sense of entity. He who looks upon these as akalusham, i.e., as unstained Chit (that is, he who has a knowledge of the Soul), becomes freed from samoham karma, i.e., succeeds in becoming nishkamah in consequence of his acquaintance with atmatattwa.
1087. ‘Conversant with the scriptures,’ i.e., Yogin; ‘acts laid down in the scriptures’ are the practices connected with Yoga. Saririnam, the commentator takes, implies the Soul as invested with a subtile body; of course, Saririn as distinguished from Sariram generally means the Soul or the owner of the Sariram without reference to the body. Hence, the word cannot be taken as referring to the Soul as uninvested with the lingasarira.
1088. I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Sahitah is nividah; drisyamanah is explained as ‘though unseen by the eye is yet realised through instruction and by the aid of reason.’
1089. Tapah is rasmi-mandalam. Prati-rupam is pratyupa-dhi. Sattwam is sattwapradhanalingam. The sense, in simple words, seems to be that the Yogin beholds within his own body and those of others the Souls or Chits residing there as invested in subtile forms.
1090. Both atmachintitam and karmajam rajas are governed by Jahatam. The first means all that is: ‘kalpitah in self’ i.e., the creations of the understanding or the mind, implying, of course, the objects of the senses or the external world. The second means kamadi vyasanam, i.e., the calamities constituted by desire, etc. Pradhanadwaidhamuktah is one who is freed from identity with Pradhana or the Universal cause; hence, the puissance that Yoga brings about. Such Yogins have their subtile forms under complete control under all conditions and at all times. They can enter at will into other forms. Sattwatma is linga-dehah.
1091. Satatam qualifies anwitah. Nityam qualifies charishnuh. Sadanityah is explained by the commentator as in reality terminable, though the words always etc., have been used. The plain meaning of the verse is that Yogins, in their linga body, rove everywhere, not excluding the most blissful regions in heaven itself.
1092. The meaning is this: like Yogins, ordinary men even have the linga-sariram. In dreams, the gross body is inactive. Only the subtile body acts and feels. The Burdwan translator misunderstands this verse completely.
1093. Atikramanti is understood at the end of the verse. Vajropamani is explained by the commentator as ‘so undying that they are not destroyed at even the universal destruction; hence, of course, the karana bodies.’ The karana bodies are the potentialities, existing in the tanmatra of the elemental substances, of forming diverse kinds of linga bodies in consequence of the acts of Jiva in previous periods of existence.
1094. Etat is: maduktam vakyam; yogam implies yogapradhanam. Samadhau samam has reference to ‘yogam.’ What are the speaker wishes to say in this verse is that dhyana is not laid down for Sannyasins alone but it is laid down for all others as well.
1095. Pradhanam is Avidya or Ignorance. Viniyoga is Viparinama. The particle anu always interpreted as ‘following’ the scriptures or some special branch of knowledge that treats of the subject spoken of.
1096. The correct reading is ayasaih meaning ‘made of iron,’ and not ‘ayasaih.’ K.P. Singha adheres to the incorrect reading. The chains of iron here are either the diverse longings cherished by worldly men, or, perhaps, the bodies with which men are invested.
1097. The dual genitive duhkhayoh is used because worldly sukha also is regarded as duhkha. ‘Tyajamannah’ is equivalent to ‘tyaktum ichccha.’ It is an instance of hetau sanach.
1098. Yena is explained as Stryadina hetuna. ‘Sah’ is: Stryadih: Samrohati is: Vardhayati. ‘Tam’ is: Vardhakam.
1099. ‘Uddhriyate’ is literally ‘tears up.’ The use of the word ‘asina’ suggests also ‘cutting.’ The root of the tree, of course, is Avidya or Ignorance.
1100. K.P. Singha wrongly translates the first line. The Burdwan translator quotes the gloss without understanding it. The first half of the first line, literally rendered, is ‘the senses are the mind-citizens,’ meaning, as the commentator rightly explains, that they are citizens under the lead of the mind. ‘Tadartham’ means ‘for the sake of the senses,’ i.e., ‘for cherishing them.’ Prakritih is mahati kriya pravrittih, Tadartham is kriyaphalam, i.e., happiness or misery. The meaning, in brief, is this: the body is a city. The understanding is its mistress. The mind is her principal servitor. The senses are the citizens under the lead of the mind. In order to cherish the senses the mind engages in acts productive of visible and invisible fruits i.e., sacrifices and gifts, and the acquisition of houses and gardens, etc. Those acts are liable to two faults, viz., Rajas and Tamas. The senses (both in this life and the succeeding ones) depend upon the fruits (happiness or misery) of those acts.
1101. The meaning is this: the senses, the mind, the understanding, etc., are all due to acts. These, therefore, are said to rest upon acts and draw their sustenance therefrom.
1102. I expand the first line of 14 for giving the meaning clearly.
1103. The sense is that the understanding, being stained or afflicted, the Soul also becomes stained or afflicted. Enam is atmanam. Vidhritam is ‘placed like an image upon a mirror.’
1104. Because the son had not yet obtained the light of full knowledge.
1105. It is curious to note how carelessly this verse is rendered in the Burdwan version. In the Bengal texts there is a misprint, viz., tatha for rasah. The Burdwan translator does not notice it, but gives just eight qualities instead of ten. Capacity to be congealed is to be inferred from cha. K.P. Singha is correct.
