266. Karya-karana-karttritwa is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara to mean “the capacity of working (residing) in the body and the senses.” K. T. Telang adopts this. Mr. Davies in his text has “in the activity of the organs of action.” In course of his philological notes, however, he gives the correct rendering. ‘Is said to be’ is explained by Sreedhara. as referring to Kapila and others.
267. It is the embodied spirit only that can enjoy the qualities of Nature. Then again, the kind of connection it has with those qualities settles its birth in good or evil wombs.
268. Mr. Davies misunderstands the grammatical connection of the words in the second line of this verse. K. T. Telang, following Sreedhara, says, the word should be rendered “approver.”
269. What is heard, i.e., the Srutis or the sacred doctrines.
270. Destroying self by self is to be deprived of true knowledge.
271. Sarvatra in the second line is explained by Sreedhara as “in every body, superior and inferior.” Grammatically it may mean also, “in every part of the body.” Such a theory, however, of the seat of the soul would be contrary to all Hindu ideas.
272. Bhuta-Prakriti-moksha is explained by both Sankara and Sreedhara as moksha or deliverance from the prakriti (nature) of bhutas’ or entities. It is true knowledge that effects such deliverance. Mr. Davies renders it “deliverance of beings from Nature.” This is evidently incorrect. “Beings” is not synonymous with self or soul.
273. Itas is explained by Sreedhara as “from the fetters of this body.”
274. Sreedhara makes mahat an adjective of yoni; Sankara makes it an adjective of Brahma. K. T. Telang follows Sankara.
275. Happiness and knowledge are attributes of the mind, not of the soul. Hence, when attached to the soul, they are as fetters from which the soul should be freed.
276. Deha samudbhava is explained by the commentators as having their “samudbhava or parinama in deha.” It is an instance of the vahuvrihi compound.
277. Light, activity, and delusion are the three qualities as indicated by their effects.
278. Pratishtha is explained by Sankara as “something on which another (here Brahma) stays or rests.” Sreedhara explains it as Pratima. Telang following Sreedhara, renders it “embodiment;” Mr. Davies, as “seat.” Amritasya and Avyayasya are taken separately by the commentators.
279. The ‘Aswattha’ is the sacred Indian fig tree, here emblematical of the course of worldly life. Its roots are above; those roots are the Supreme Being. Its branches are below, these being the inferior deities. Its leaves are the sacred hymns of the Vedas, i.e., as leaves keep the tree alive and even conduce to its fruits, so the Vedas support this tree and lead to salvation.
280. Upwards and downwards i.e., from the highest to the lowest of created things. Enlarged by the qualities, i.e., the qualities appearing as the body, the senses, etc. The sprouts are the objects of sense, being attached to the senses themselves as sprouts to branches. The roots extending downwards are the desires for diverse enjoyments. Thus Telang, following the commentators.
281. Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain.
282. “Atmani” in the first line is “in the body” as explained by Sreedhara and others: “in the understanding” as explained by Sankara. It seems, however, to be used in the general senses of “themselves”, without particular reference to either body or understanding. An Akritatman is one whose soul is not made or formed; generally, “a person of unsubdued passions.”
283. There can be no question that Soma here means the moon and not the Soma juice quaffed in sacrifices, or sap. It is the moon that supports, nourishes all herbs and numerous passages may be quoted from Hindu sacred literature to show this. Mr. Davies, therefore, clearly errs in rendering Soma as “the savoury juice.”
284. The four kinds of food are: that which is masticated, that which is sucked, that which is licked, and that which is drunk.
285. Apohanam is loss or removal. It is a well-known word and its application here is very natural. I am memory and knowledge (to those that use them for virtuous acts). I am the loss of these faculties (to those that engage in unrighteous acts). Mr. Davies erroneously renders it as “The power of reason.”
286. Kutashtha is rendered by K. T. Telang as “the unconcerned one”, by Mr. Davies as “the lord on high.” I incline to the scholiasts who explain it as “the uniform or the unchangeable one.”
287. Sarvabhavena is explained by Sankara by Sarvatma-chintaya (thinking Me to be the soul of everything). Sreedhara explains it as Sarvaprakarena. Why may it not mean “with the whole soul” or “with excess of love.”
288. I adopt Sankara’s explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka, Sreedhara explains it differently.
289. Prabritti I render “inclination” and Nivritti as “disinclination.” The inclination is, as all the commentators explain, towards righteous actions, and the disinclination,–consequently, is about all unrighteous actions. K. T. Telang renders these words as “action” and “inaction”. Mr. Davies, following the French version of Burnouf, takes them to mean “the creation and its end.”
290. Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.