1221. The commentator supposes that after sadhun the word kartum is understood. The line may also be taken as meaning,–‘If thou dost not succeed in rescuing the honest without slaying (the wicked).’ Bhuta bhavya is sacrifice. The prince speaks of exterminating the rogues by slaying them as animals in a sacrifice because of the declaration in the Srutis that those killed in sacrifices ascend to heaven, purged of all their sins. Such acts, therefore, seem to be merciful to the prince, compared to death by hanging or on the block.
1222. The world thus improves in conduct and morality through the king only behaving in a proper way. Cruel punishments are scarcely needed to reform the world.
1223. The period of human life decreases proportionately in every succeeding age, as also the strength of human beings. In awarding punishments, the king should be guided by these considerations.
1224. The word satya is used here for Emancipation. Mahaddahrmaphalam is true knowledge, so called because, of its superiority to heaven, etc. The way pointed out by Manu is, of course, the religion of harmlessness. In verse 35, there is an address to prince Satyavat. It seems, as I have pointed out, that verses 32 to 35 represent the words of the grandsire to whom the prince refers in verse 31.
1225. The redundant syllable is arsha.
1226. Both acts and knowledge have been pointed out in the Vedas. The Vedas, therefore, being authority for both, one or the other cannot be censured or applauded.
1227. Arsha means here Vedic injunctions declared through the mouths of inspired Rishis and compiled by Rishis. Viditatmanah is the Supreme Being himself. The object of the speaker is to show that no part of the Vedas can be censured, for every word in them is equally authoritative, all being God’s own.
1228. Deva-yanah is explained by the commentator as Devam atmanam janti ebhiriti, i.e., those by which the Soul is reached. The relative strength or weakness of the four modes of life hath been thus indicated. The Sannyasin attains to Moksha or Emancipation; the forest recluse to the region of Brahman; the house-holder attains to heaven (region of the deities presided over by Indra) and the Brahmacharin attains to the region of the Rishis.
1229. The commentator explains that having commenced with the assertion that men should sacrifice from desire of heaven, the speaker fears that the hearer may deny the very existence of heaven. Hence, he takes a surer ground for justifying slaughter, viz., the ground that is connected with the consideration of food. Living creatures must eat in order to live. The very support of life requires the slaughter of life. Slaughter, therefore, is justified by the highest necessity.
1230. i.e., there are the essential requisites of sacrifice.
1231. The seven domestic animals are cow, goat, man, horse, sheep, mule, and ass. The seven wild ones are lion, tiger, boar, buffalo, elephant, bear, and monkey.
1232. ‘Vichinwita is Vivechayet with alamvartham understood: atmanah is equivalent to jivat.
1233. All the products of the cow that are named here are not required in all sacrifices. Some are required in some, others in others. Those then that _are_ required, when coupled with Ritwijas and Dakshina, complete the respective sacrifices or uphold or sustain them.
1234. Samhritya means Ekikritya and not ‘destroying’ as the Burdwan translator wrongly takes it.
1235. The Burdwan translator, notwithstanding the clear language of both the text and commentary, wrongly connects the first line of verse 31 with the last line of 30, and makes nonsense of both verses.
1236. By taking the two lines of 32 with the last line of 30, the Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the passage.
1237. ‘Brahmanas’ here means that part of the Vedas which contains the ritual.
1238. Each constitutes the refuge of the other.
1239. There are many such expletives, such as hayi, havu, etc.
1240. For, as the commentator explains, one who has acquired an empire does not seek the dole of charity. In view of the high end that Renunciation is certain to bring, what need has a person of the domestic mode of life which leads to rewards that are insignificant compared to the other.
1241. Varhi is grass or straw. Oshadhi here implies paddy and other grain. Vahiranya adrija implies ‘other kinds of Oshadhi born on mountains,’ i.e., the Soma and other useful hill plants and shrubs. Teshamapi mulam garhastyam should be supplied after the first line. Domesticity is the root of these, because these are cultivated or collected by persons leading the domestic mode of life. The argument in the second line is this: Oschadhibhyah pranah, pranat vahihna kinchit drisyate, atah viswasyapi mulam garhastyam.
1242. Literally rendered, the words are,–‘Without doubt, Vedic mantras enter into persons of the regenerate classes in respect of acts whose effects are seen and acts whose effects instead of being seen depend upon the evidence of the scriptures.’ Practically, what is said here is that all the acts of a Brahmana are performed with the aid of Vedic mantras.
1243. Mantras are necessary in cremating a Brahmana’s dead body. Mantras are needed for assisting the dead spirit to attain to a brilliant form (either in the next world or in this if there be rebirth). These mantras are, of course, uttered in Sraddhas. After the dead spirit has been provided, with the aid of mantras, with a body, food and drink are offered to him with the aid of mantras. Kine and animals are given away by the representatives of the dead for enabling the dead ancestor to cross the Vaitarani (the river that flows between the two worlds) and for enabling him to become happy in heaven. The funeral cake, again, according to the ordinance, is sunk in water for making it easily attainable by him to whom it is offered. By becoming a human being one inherits three debts. By study he pays off his debt to the Rishis: by the performance of sacrifices he pays off his debt to the gods, and by begetting children he frees himself from the debt he owes to the Pitris. The argument then is this: when the Vedas, which are the words of Supreme Godhead, have laid down these mantras for the attainment of such objects in the next world, how can Emancipation, which involves an incorporeal existence transcending the very Karana (form) be possible? The very declarations of the Vedas in favour of acts are inconsistent with incorporeal existence or with the negation of existence with dual consciousness of knower and known.
1244. The mention of ‘Devan’ as the commentator points out–Rishis and also Pitris. The amrita here that these covet is, of course, the Sacrificial libation. ‘Brahma-sanjnitah’ implies ‘conversant with Brahma,’ for the Srutis say that ‘Brahmavid Brahmaiva bhavati.’
1245. The terseness of the original has not been removed in the translation. Enam is the universal Soul dwelling within this physical frame. It refers to the person who constitutes himself to be the soul of all creatures or one who is conversant with Brahma or has become Brahma itself. That soul is said to have a fourfold nature, viz., it is virat (all-embracing), sutra (fine as the finest thread and pervading everything), antaryamin (possessed of omniscience), and suddha (stainless). Its four mouths, by which are meant the four sources of enjoyment or pleasure, are the body, the senses, the mind, and the understanding. What the speaker wishes to point out by this is the Bhotkritwa (power of enjoyment) of the Soul. The Kartritwa (power of action) is then pointed out by the mention of the doors which are the two arms, the organ of speech, the stomach and the organ of the pleasure (generation). These last operate as doors for shutting or confining the soul within its chamber. They are the screens or avaranas that conceal its real nature. The very gods feel their force, being unable to transcend them or their demands. He who would transcend them and shine in his own stainless nature should seek to control or restrain them. Practically, it is Yoga that is recommended for enabling one to attain to the position of the universal Soul.
1246. ‘One who has cast off his upper garment’ is one who clothes himself very scantily only for the sake of decency and not for splendour.
