291. ‘That’ evidently refers to sacrifice, penance, and gift, in the clause before. The commentators, however, suggest that it may, besides, refer to Brahma. I am myself not sure that it does not refer to Brahma.
292. ‘What the author wishes to lay down in these verses is that the words OM, TAT, and SAT, have each their respective uses. When used as directed here, such use cures the defects of the respective actions to which they are applied, it being understood that all three denote Brahma.
293. Sanyasa I render Renunciation. K. T. Telang does the same. Mr. Davies renders it “abstention.” So ‘Tyaga’ I render “abandonment.” Mr. Davies renders it “renunciation.” What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow.
294. Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood.
295. I have used “when” for “whatever” to make the sentence grammatical.
296. Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate. Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as “prosperous” and “unprosperous;” for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered “talented” which has not the sanction of good usage.
297. That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.
298. Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta. Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion.
299. The substratum is the body. The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor. The organs are those of perception etc. The efforts are the actions of the vital winds–Prana, etc. The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses. The deities have no place in Kapila’s system. Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila’s and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated. Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to “among” or “with these.” I think, however, it means, “are here”, i.e., are enumerated here, or, in this connection.
300. Hath no feeling of egoism, i.e., doth not regard himself as the doer, Sullied, i.e., by the taint of desire of fruit.
301. Mr. Davies, I think, is right in rendering Samgrahas as “complement.” K. T. Telang renders it as equivalent to “in brief.”
302. In the enunciation of qualities i.e., in the Sankhya system.
303. Full of affections, i.e., for children, etc., as Sreedhara.
304. Prakrita which I have rendered “without discernment” following Sreedhara, may be, as Mr. Davies renders it, but “malicious.”
305. Mr. Davies makes “unswerving” an adjective of ‘devotion.’ This is wrong, for Avyabhicharinya (unswerving) is a feminine instrumental, and must qualify Dhritya.
306. Atma-budhi-prasadajam. K. T. Telang, following an alternative explanation offered by Sankara, renders it “clear knowledge of the self.” Mr. Davies renders the “serenity of one’s own mind.” I follow Sreedhara.
307. Asamsayas is the reading that occurs in every text, and not Asamsayam. Mr. Davies, therefore, is incorrect in rendering it “doubtless” and making it an adverb qualifying “come to me.”
308. Bhuti is explained by Sreedhara as gradual abhivridhhi, i.e., growth or greatness. Niti is explained as Nyaya or justice.
309. Varayudham is according to Nilakantha, the excellent bow. Yena in verse 8 is equivalent to Yatra.
310. What Bhishma says is this: I am bound by the Kauravas and, therefore, I am not a free agent. Obliged I am to battle against you. Yet I am saying, “What do you ask of me?” as if I could really give you what you might ask. My words, therefore, are without meaning, or vain, like those of a eunuch. Klivavat is explained by Nilakantha as Kataravat. Even in that case, the sense would be the same.
311. The Bengal reading is evidently incorrect. The Bombay text reads Raja for Vacoa.
312. Nilakantha thinks that vigatakalmashas refers to Drona; the meaning he suggests is “Tell me with pure heart etc., etc.,” I think Nilakantha is not right.
313. The sense of the first line is that because I am bound by the Kauravas with their wealth, therefore, I am obliged to make this reservation in the matter of granting thee thy wishes. That reservation really nullifies my promise.
314. Paran is explained by Nilakantha as “superior” qualifying Ripun.
315. Vritosmi is the reading of the Bengal texts, better than Vaddhosmi of the Bombay edition, and bhristomi of the Burdwan text. Salya was not bound to the Kauravas like Bhishma or Drona or Kripa by pensions, but gratified by the reception granted to him by Duryodhana in secret, he, generously agreed to aid the latter even against his own sister’s sons and their step-brothers.
316. For Puskalan the Bombay text reads Pushkaran which means a kind of drum.
317. For rajan in the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 5th verse, the Bombay text reads hyasan which I adopt.
318. Maha samucchrave is explained by Nilakantha as Mahasamprahare.
319. Literally, “showing himself in an awful form.”
320. Subhadra’s son Abhimanyu.
