1455. The sense is that we who avoid acts, are not dead; in fact, we live quite as others do; and those others, how unequally circumstanced! The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of the first line simple though it is.
1456. Ignorance lies at the root of sorrow. By casting off ignorance, we have avoided sorrow. Hence, neither religion or religious acts such as Sacrifices, etc., can do us any good or harm. As regards happiness and misery again, these two cannot agitate us at all, since we know their value, both being ephemeral in comparison with the period for which we are to exist.
1457. Hence, no one should indulge in pride, saying, ‘I am happy,’ nor yield to sorrow, saying, ‘I am miserable.’ Both happiness and misery are transitory. The man of wisdom should never suffer himself to be agitated by these transitory states of his mind.
1458. The first word is read either as bhavatmakam or bhavatmakam.
The first means samsararupam; the second, drisyatmakam.
1459. I am obliged to behold them because I am a living being having a body, but then I behold them as an unconcerned witness.
1460. The scriptures contain both kinds of instruction. There are declarations that are entirely in favour of Acts or observances. There are again declarations in favour of Knowledge. What the speaker asks is that the Rishi should discourse upon what the speaker should do, i.e., whether he should betake himself to the acquisition of Knowledge or to the doing of acts.
1461. i.e., Each Asrama speaks of particular observances and courses of conduct as beneficial. This, therefore, is a source of confusion to men of plain understandings. Is there no distinction then among duties or observances in respect of their beneficial character? This is the question propounded. The commentator thinks by the word asramas is meant the four principal faiths and _not_ the modes of life.
1462. I retain the word asrama in the English version as it is very doubtful in what sense it has been used in the original. The commentator explains that by four asramas are meant the four principal forms of creed prevalent at one time in India. The first is that there is no such thing as virtue or righteousness. This is ascribed to Sakya Simha or Buddha. The second is that righteousness consists in only the worship of trees, etc. The third is that only is righteousness which the Vedas have laid down. The fourth is that transcending righteousness and its reverse there is something for whose attainment one should strive. Yatha samkalpitah is explained by the commentator as yo yena sreyastena bhavitastasya tadeva sreyah.
1463. Gunoddesam is Gunakirtanam or the announcement of merits. What Narada says here is this: the asramas are four. The merits of each have been proclaimed by their respective founders. The principal merit each claims is that it leads to knowledge of Self. Now, the announcement is nanarupam; it is also prithak; and lastly, it is viprasthitam or contradictory, for, as the commentator points out, that which a particular asrama announces to be righteous is according to another unrighteous. Both the vernacular translators give incorrect versions.
1464. Te refers to asramas. Abhipretam is atma-tattwarupam. Yanti is equivalent to prapayanti.
1465. Mitranam is taken by the commentator to be equivalent to sarva-bhuta-labhayapadanam, i.e., they who have given the pledge of harmlessness to all creatures. By enemies is meant here the envious and harmful.
1466. In previous Sections the nature of Truth has been discussed. A formal truth may be as sinful as a lie, and a lie may be as meritorious as a Truth. Hence, the ascertainment of Truth is not easy.
1467. Atiyoga and Ayoga are well-known words which have no chance of being misunderstood in the way in which they have been misunderstood by both the vernacular translators. Indeed. K.P. Singha blunders ridiculously, while the Burdwan translator limits them to only the use of food, supposing the commentator’s concrete examples exhaust the meaning.
1468. i.e., where an intermingling takes place of the four orders of men, viz., where Varna-sankara occurs.
1469. Mere companionship with the righteous leads to righteous acts; while that with the sinful leads to acts of sinfulness.
1470. Anuvishayam is vishayam anu vartate, i.e., rasah or flavour. An eater of vighasa is a good or pious man. What is said here is that such men eat for only filling their stomachs and not because eating is source of enjoyment or gratification. Atmavishayan is Buddherviseshatovandhakan, i.e., rasa-viseshan.
1471. Agamayamanam is Agamam pramanajam jnanam atmana ichcchatam.
1472. Akasasthah is niralamvanah, i.e., men who have no foundations to stand upon. The Bombay text reads dosham, the Bengal texts, doshan; the sense remains unaltered. The Bombay reading is atmapujabhikama, while the Bengal reading is the same word in the plural form. I accept the singular form and take it as qualifying panditah.
1473. Some of the Bengal texts read khattam. The Bombay reading is khatwam. The commentator explains that khatwam samarudhah Tibra duhkha-grastah. Anusayi means purvakarmavasanavan. The sense seems to be this: the desires born of one’s past acts, i.e., acts of previous lives, adhere to the mind. Nothing can wipe them off, save Nivritti and Tattwajnanam or knowledge of truth. One should, therefore, practise the religion of Nivritti and seek to acquire knowledge of Truth.
1474. Both the vernacular translators quietly skip over the word pratyanantarah.
1475. i.e., where the people are virtuous and given to the performance of their duties.
1476. Kamesah is possessor of all objects of desire or enjoyment. The sense is this: where the king, casting off desire, wins prosperity for himself; i.e., though possessed of wealth, is not attached to wealth. The expression may also mean ‘master of desire,’ i.e., where the king casts off desire and masters his desires without allowing the latter to master him.
1477. Pratyupasthite is pritipatwena upasthite, i.e., hiyantanesati.
1478. I am not sure that I have understood aright the second line of this verse. It may also mean, ‘No one is able to enumerate all that is beneficial for the Soul in consequence of the wideness of subject.
1479. Vrittam has uddisya understood after it. The Bombay text reads pranihitatmanah; the Bengal reading is pranihitatmanah. If the Bengal reading be accepted, it would mean ‘whose soul is fixed or established on Yoga.’ Tapasa is explained by the commentator as swadharmena, in view of the question of Galava which Narada answers. The sense, however, would remain unaltered if it be taken as standing for Self-control or penances.
1480. Sampadam is explained by the commentator as upadesa-yogyata-sriyam.
1481. Some texts read sakyam; the reading sakyah also occurs. If the former be accepted, it must be taken as referring to tadawayam as the commentator explains. No alteration in sense occurs by adhering to the one reading or the other.
1482. In the second line some of the Bengal texts read lobheshu. The correct reading is lokeshu. Both the vernacular translators adhere to the wrong reading.
1483. Mokshartha is moksha-prayojanah.
