The sanskrit epics, p.720
The Sanskrit Epics, page 720
548 This verse occurs in the Santi Parva. It is difficult to understand in what sense it is said that the track of the virtuous cannot be marked. Perhaps, it is intended that such men do not leave any history or record behind them, they having abstained from all kinds of action good or bad.
549 Manasa means ‘appertaining to the mind,’ or rather, the Will. Mahat literally means great.
550 Veda is here used in the sense of Knowledge and Power.
551 Sarvabhutatmakrit is explained by Nilakantha thus. He who is Sarvabhutatman is again bhutakrit. On the authority of the Srutis the commentator adds, — ye ete pancha akasadayodhatavo-dharana-karmanah sa eva Brahma.
552 The word Devah here is evidently used in the sense of luminous or shining ones and not in that of gods or deities.
553 The Rishis supposed that the pouring of water created the air instead only of displaying it.
554 All created things are called Bhutas, but the five principal elements, viz., fire, air, earth, water, and space, are especially called Bhutas or Mahabhutas.
555 This is certainly curious as showing that the ancient Hindus knew how to treat diseased plants and restore them to vigour.
556 K.P. Singha wrongly renders this verse. The Burdwan translator is right.
557 Both the Bengal and the Bombay texts read bhutani. The correct reading, however, appears to be bhutanam.
558 The word for duct is Srotas. It may also be rendered ‘channel.’ Very like the principal artery or aorta.
559 Notwithstanding much that is crude anatomy and crude physiology in these sections, it is evident, however, that certain glimpses of truth were perceived by the Rishis of ancient times. Verse 15 shows that the great discovery of Harvey in modern times was known in ancient India.
560 In works on yoga it is laid down that the main duct should be brought under the control of the will. The soul may then, by an act of volition, be withdrawn from the whole physical system into the convolutions of the brain in the head. The brain, in the language of yogins, is a lot us of a thousand leaves. If the soul be withdrawn into it, the living creature will then be liberated from the necessity of food and sleep, etc., and will live on from age to age, absorbed in contemplation of divinity and in perfect beatitude.
561 It is often said that in an advanced stage of yoga, one is enabled to behold one’s Soul, or, a sort of double existence is realised in consequence of which the Soul becomes an object of internal survey to the Soul itself. Very probably, writers on yoga employ this language in a figurative sense.
562 The commentator explains that the words expressive of hue or colour really mean attributes. What is intended to be said is that the Brahmanas had the attribute of Goodness (Sattwa); the second order had the attribute of Passion (Rajas); the third got a mixture of the two, i.e., both goodness and passion (Sattwa and Rajas); while the lowest order got the remaining attribute, viz., Darkness (Tamas).
563 The distinction here laid down seems to be this: the eternal creation is due to the yoga or mental action of the Primeval Deity. That creation which we behold is the result of the penances of those sages who were first created. Perhaps, what is intended to be said is that the principle of life, of life proceeding from life, and primal matter with space, etc., are all due to the fiat of God; while all visible and tangible objects, resulting from the action of those principles and from primal matter and space, are attributable to the ancient sages.
564 The word Ghrina may also mean aversion. Of course, here it would mean, if used in that sense, aversion for all unrighteous acts.
565 The first half of the first line of 6 is differently read in the Bombay edition. Both readings are noticed by Nilakantha. I have adhered to the Bengal reading, though the Bombay reading is clearer in sense. Visati is a transitive verb having Pratishtha or some such noun for its object. The literal meaning is he who acquires fame, etc.
566 Here the speaker describes the character of Karma-sannyasa (renunciation of acts). Samarambha generally means all kinds of acts. Here, however, only sacrifices and other scriptural rites are intended. I follow Nilakantha in rendering the second line, although the plain meaning would seem to be “who poureth everything in gift.”
567 The gross world is perceivable by the ordinary senses. Behind the gross world is a subtile one which the subtile senses i.e., the senses when sharpened by yoga, can perceive. With death, the gross body alone is dissolved, the subtile body or form, called the Linga-sarira, and made up of what is called the Tanmatras of the primal elements, remains. Even that retains all the characteristics of the world in an incipient form. The Linga-sarira also must be destroyed before absorption into Brahma can take place.
568 The felicity that is obtained in heaven is not everlasting, being limited in point of duration by the degree or measure of merit that is achieved here.
569 The Pauranic theory of both the solar and the lunar eclipse is that the Sun and the Moon are sought to be devoured by the Daitya, Rahu.
570 The sense seems to be that Vedas declare those fruits in order that men may strive for them when they lead to happiness.
571 Nearly the whole of this section is prose.
572 It is difficult to understand in what senses the word Dharma is used in the three successive questions here.
573 In the first line the correct reading is Brahmana and not Brahmarshi. The answer attributed to Bhrigu settles this.
574 A pupil should never solicit his preceptor for instruction. He should attend only when the preceptor calls him. To this day, the rule is rigidly observed in all schools throughout India. It should be added to the credit of those engaged in teaching that they very seldom neglect their pupils. The story is authentic of the grandfather of the great Baneswar Vidyalankar of Nuddea, himself as great a professor as Baneswar, of continuing to teach his pupils in the outer apartments even after receiving intelligence of his son’s death within the inner apartments of the family dwelling. The fact is, he was utterly absorbed in his work, that when his good lady, moved by his apparent heartlessness, came out to tax him he answered her, in thorough absence of mind, saying, ‘Well, do not be disturbed. If I do not weep for my son, I will do so for that grandchild in your arms.’ The pupils at last recalled him to the realities of the hour.
575 i.e., by picking up fallen grains from the field after the crop has been cut away and removed by the owner.
576 Upaskara means renunciation.
577 It is generally said that by procreating offspring, one gratifies the Pitris or pays off the debt one owes to one’s deceased ancestors. Here Bhrigu says that by that act one gratifies the Creator. The idea is the same that forms the root of the command laid on the Jews, — Go and multiply.
578 The end of these attributes is Moksha or Emancipation.
579 Sishta is explained by Nilakantha as one who has been properly instructed by wise Preceptors.
580 Niyama is explained by the commentator as a rite; upayoga as a vow about food; charyya as an act like visiting sacred waters; vihita is vidhana.
581 The Hindus had no poor laws. The injunctions of their scriptures have always sufficed to maintain the poor, particularly their religious mendicants. The mendicants themselves are restrained from disturbing the householders often. None again save the well-to-do were to be visited by the mendicants, so that men of scanty means might not be compelled to support the recluses.
582 The words used by Bharadwaja in the question are capable of being construed as an enquiry after the next world. Bhrigu also, in his answer, uses the word Paro lokah. The reference to Himavat, therefore, is explained by the commentator as metaphorical. The whole answer of Bhrigu, however, leaves little room for doubt that the sage speaks of a region on earth and not in the invisible world after death.
583 Nilakantha would read amritya for mritya. It is a forced correction for keeping up the metaphorical sense.
584 All knowledge there is certain.
585 i.e., to practise yoga. The Bengal reading is dharanam. The commentator goes for explaining all the verses as metaphorical. Considerable ingenuity is displayed by him, and he even cites the Srutis in support.
586 This at least is a verse that evidently refers to the other or the next world, and, therefore, lends colour to the supposition that throughout the whole passage, it is the next world and no fictitious region north of the Himalayas that is described. Some western scholars think that a verbal translation is all that is necessary. Such passages, however, are incapable of being so rendered. The translator must make his choice of, either taking the verses in a plain or a metaphorical sense. If he inclines towards the latter, he cannot possibly give a verbal version. The genius of the two tongues are quite different.
587 Pushkara in Rajputanah is supposed to be the spot where Brahman underwent his penances.
588 The Burdwan translator makes a mess of this verse 21 runs into 22 as explained by the commentator. K.P. Singha avoids the blunder, although in rendering the last line of 22 he becomes rather inaccurate.
589 The five limbs which should be washed before eating are the two feet, the two hands, and the face.
590 This may be a general direction for washing one’s hand after eating; or, it may refer to the final Gandusha, i.e., the act of taking a little water in the right hand, raising it to the lips, and throwing it down, repeating a short formula.
591 The Burdwan translator has misunderstood this verse completely.
592 It is difficult to understand what this verse means. Nilakantha proposes two different kinds of interpretation. What then is Sankusuka or Sanku cuka? The above version is offered tentatively. The commentator imagines that the true sense of the verse is that it declares such men to be unable to attain to Mahadayu which is Brahma and not long life.
593 Prishtamangsa is explained by the commentator as ‘the meat forming the remnant of a Sraddha offering.’ I do not see the necessity of discarding the obvious meaning.
594 in the sense of being moved or used. The commentator adds that the sacred thread also should be wound round the thumb, as the Grihyasutras declare.
595 In every instance, the person who receives should say— ‘All-sufficient,’ ‘Gratify to the fill’, and ‘Has fallen copiously’ or words to that effect. Krisara or Kricara is food made of rice and pease, or rice and sesame; probably what is now called Khichree.
596 The polite form of address is Bhavan. It is in the third person singular. The second person is avoided, being too direct.
597 It is not plain in what way the sinful acts come to the sinner. The Hindu idea, of course, is that the consequences of those deeds visit the doer without fail. This verse, however, seems to say that the recollection of those sins forces itself upon the sinner and makes him miserable in spite of himself.
598 The Hindu moralist, in this verse, declares the same high morality that Christ himself preached. Merit or sin, according to him, does not depend on the overt act alone. Both depend on the mind. Hence the injunction against even mentally harming others.
599 The sense seems to be that if one succeeds in ascertaining the ordinances about virtue or piety, but if the mind be sinful, no associate can be of any help. The mind alone is the cause of virtue and piety.
600 Adhyatma is anything that depends on the mind. Here it is, as explained by the commentator, used for yoga-dharma as depending upon or as an attribute of the mind. Generally speaking, all speculations on the character of the mind and its relations with external objects are included in the word Adhyatma.
601 After Bhrigu’s discourse to Bharadwaja this question may seem to be a repetition. The commentator explains that it arises from the declaration of Bhishma that Righteousness is a property of the mind, and is, besides, the root of everything. (V 31, sec. 193, ante). Hence the enquiry about Adhyatma as also about the origin of all things.
602 The word rendering ‘perceptions’ is Vijnanani. ‘Cognitions’ would perhaps, be better.
603 Generally, in Hindu philosophy, particularly of the Vedanta school, a distinction is conceived between the mind, the understanding, and the soul. The mind is the seat or source of all feelings and emotions as also all our perceptions, or those which are called cognitions in the Kantian school, including Comparison which (in the Kantian school) is called the Vernuft or Reason. This last is called the Understanding or buddhi. The soul is regarded as something distinct from both the body and the mind. It is the Being to whom the body and the mind belong. It is represented as inactive, and as the all-seeing witness within the physical frame. It is a portion of the Supreme Soul.
604 Goodness includes all the higher moral qualities of man. Passion means love, affection, and other emotions that appertain to worldly objects. Darkness means anger, lust, and such other mischievous propensities.
605 I follow Nilakantha in his grammatical exposition of this verse. The meaning, however, is scarcely clear. The identity of the Understanding or intelligence with the senses and the mind may be allowed so far as the action of the three qualities in leading all of them to worldly attachments is concerned. But what is meant by the identity of the Understanding with all the objects it comprehends? Does Bhishma preach Idealism here? If nothing exists except as it exists in the Understanding, then, of course, with the extinction of the Understanding, all things would come to an end.
606 Brown and other followers of Reid, whether they understood Reid or not, regarded all the perceptions as only particular modifications of the mind. They denied the objective existence of the world.
607 The commentator explains this verse thus, although as regards the second line he stretches it a little. If Nilakantha be right, K.P. Singha must be wrong. Generally, however, it is the known incapacity of the ocean to transgress its continents that supplies poets with illustrations. Here, however, possibly, the rarity of the phenomenon, viz., the ocean’s transgressing its continents, is used to illustrate the rare fact of the intelligence, succeeding by yoga power, in transcending the attributes of Rajas, Tamas and Sattwa.
608 on the other hand, directing one’s thoughts boldly to it, one should ascertain its cause and dispel that cause, which, as stated here, is Passion.
609 The first two words of the second line are those of verse 5. See I, Manu.
610 Kathanchit is explained by Nilakantha as ‘due to great ill-luck.’
611 I do not follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse.
612 The soul is said to be only a witness or spectator and not an actor. The Rishis understood by the soul the being to whom the mind, the senses, etc., all belong. Could the idea of the inactive and unsinning Soul have arisen from observation of the moral principle of Conscience which discriminates between right and wrong, and acts, therefore, as an impartial judge, or watches everything like an uninterested spectator? European moralists generally attribute two other functions to the Conscience, viz., impelling us to do the right and avoid the wrong, and approving when right is done and wrong avoided. But these functions may easily be attributed to some other principle. At any rate, when the question is one of nomenclature only, the last two functions may be taken away and the word Soul applied to indicate the Conscience as the faculty of discrimination only.
613 The qualities here referred to are those of Sattwa (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (darkness). What is meant by this verse is that such a person transcends the qualities instead of the qualities transcending him and his acts.
614 Nilakantha takes the third line as elliptical and is for supplying te labhante.
615 I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse. Anavisandhipurvakam is explained as nishkamam. Ubhayam is prachinamaihikam cha karmam. Apriyam is equivalent to vadham. The substance of priyam, etc., is thus given: Moksham prati tu karmanah karanatwam duranirastam.
616 Aturam is explained as pierced by lust, wrath, etc. Asuyate is equivalent to dhikkaroti. Janah is explained by the commentator as parikshakah but it would be better to take it as standing for people generally. Tasya is an instance of the genitive for the accusative. Tat refers to nindyam karma, sarvatah means sarvashu yonishu. Janayati Janena dadati. The object of the verse is to show that sinful acts produce fear both here and hereafter.
617 Loka is in the locative case, the final vowel indicating to the locative having been dropped for sandhi. Niravishan is an adverb, equivalent to samyak-abhinivesam kurvan. Tattadeva means “those and those” i.e., possessions, such as putradaradikam. Kusalan is sarasaravivekanipunan. Ubhayam is explained as karma-mukhin and sadyomuktim. Bhisma here points out the superiority of the latter kind of Emancipation over the former; hence Vedic acts or rites must yield to that yoga which drills the mind and the understanding and enables them to transcend all earthly influences.
618 The soul-state is the state of purity. One falls away from it in consequence of worldly attachments. One may recover it by yoga which aids one in liberating oneself from those attachments.
619 The three words used here are vichara, viveka, and vitarka. They are technical terms implying different stages of progress in yoga. The commentator explains them at length.
620 Everything that man has is the product of either exertion or destiny; of exertion, that is, as put forth in acts, and destiny as dependent on the acts of a past life or the will of the gods or pure chance. Yoga felicity is unattainable through either of these two means.
621 Sankhya is understood by the commentator as implying Vedanta-vichara.
622 This verse is a triplet. The commentator explains that Vedanta in the second line means Sankhya. I think, this is said because of the agreement between the Vedanta and the Sankhya in this respect notwithstanding their difference in other respects. The object of the verse is to say that according to the Sankhya, there is no necessity for silent recitation of mantras. Mental meditation, without the utterance of particular words, may lead to Brahma.
623 Both declare, as the commentator explains, that as long as one does not succeed in beholding one’s Soul, one may silently recite the Pranava or the original word Om. When, however, one succeeds in beholding one’s Soul, then may one give up such recitation.
