१२

‘O sinless one, the whole law for the four castes has been expounded by you; instruct us now in regard to the actual fruition of actions.’—(1)

आद्यो ऽर्धः श्लोकः शास्त्रार्थ-परिसमाप्ति-दर्शनेनाधिकाकाङ्क्षा-निवृत्त्यर्थः । कृत्स्नग्रहणं संमानार्थम्¹ - एतावन्तः स्मार्ता धर्मा यस्मिन् शास्त्रे रहस्यपर्यन्त उपदिष्टाश् च ।

शिष्य-मुखेनाचार्यस्यैव कृत्स्न-कारिता शास्त्रस्य प्रतिपाद्यते +++(कथाप्रसङ्गात्)+++, न +++(दृढं)+++ विवक्षिता । नात्र शिष्याचार्यं वस्तुतः प्रतिपत्तव्यम् । ग्रन्थकार एवेमं ग्रन्थम् एवं विभजति ।+++(5)+++

धर्मशब्दश् च कर्तव्यतावचनो विधिप्रतिषेधसमूहम् अनुवदति । तेन कर्मफलसंबन्धो ऽनुक्त इति इत ऊर्ध्वं प्रतिपाद्यते । कृत्स्नो धर्म उक्तस् त्वया । विधिप्रतिषेधापेक्षया वचनम् उपपन्नं भवति ।

• कस्य पुनः कर्मणः फलसंबन्धो जिज्ञास्यते येनोच्यते कर्मणां फलनिर्वृत्तिं शंसेति । यावता यावन्ति² तावन् नित्यानि शास्त्रनोदितत्वाद् एव क्रियन्ते न तेषां फलम् अभिसंधेयम् । न हि तानि फलार्थानि । यान्य् अनित्यानि³ तत्रापि प्रतिकर्म प्रायशः फलान्य् उक्तान्य् एव “वारिदस् तृप्तिम् आप्नोति” (म्ध् ४.२३०), “स्वर्गम् आयुश्⁴ च” (आप्ध् १.५.१५) इत्यादीनि च । यत्रापि नोक्तम् इव मन्येत तत्रापि स्वर्गादि साधितम् एव । यानि जातकर्मादीनि संस्कारकर्माणि तानि संस्कार्यविशेषोक्तस्य क्रियाफलेनैव फलवन्ति नादृष्टम् आकांक्षन्ति । यान्य् अपि नैमित्तिकानि द्रव्यशुद्ध्यादीनि चाण्डालस्पर्शनस्नानादीनि तान्य् अपि दृष्टप्रयोजनान्य् एव । शुद्धये हि तानि⁵ क्रियन्ते, अशुद्धैर् व्यवहारप्रतिषेधात् । प्रायश्चित्तानि चानन्तरम् उक्तप्रयोजनान्य् एव । अतो न विद्मः कस्य वास्य कर्मणः फलम् अभिजिज्ञास्यते ।

• प्रतिषेधानाम् । “शरीरजैः कर्मदोषैः” (म्ध् १२.९) इत्यादिना⁶ तेषाम् एव वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । तथाप्रतिषेधानुष्ठानम् अपि शास्त्रचोदितम् एव ।

• ननु⁷ तत्र फलार्थित्वे हि न सर्वविषयो ऽधिकारः स्यात् । अर्थिता वाधिक्रियेत ।

• उच्यते । नैवात्र तादृशं फलम् अभिधीयते यत् काम्यते । अनिष्टफलदर्शनम् अत्र क्रियते । नैव तत् काम्यते । नैव च कश्चिद् अनिष्टप्राप्तिम् इच्छति । अतः सर्वविषयतासिद्धिः । यद् अप्य् उच्यते “शास्त्रं चोदितं⁸ प्रतिषेधानुष्ठानं क्रियते,” अत्यल्पम् इदम् उच्यते । एवं तत्रानुष्ठानम्⁹ इति । सर्वम् एव शास्त्रनोदितं क्रियते ।

• किं तु तच् छास्त्रं फलार्थिनः कस्यचित् कर्तव्यतां स्थापयति । कस्यचिद् अन्तरेण फलं नैमित्तिकत्वेन । इह तु यावज्जीवम् इव निमित्तश्रुतेर् अभावात् किमर्थं प्रतिषिद्धं न क्रियत इति ।

• उपेक्षायां¹⁰ प्रत्यवायश् च दृश्यते- “जिघांसया ब्राह्मणस्य नरकं प्रतिपद्यते” (म्ध् ११.२०५) इति ।

• ननु च यत् प्रतिषिद्धं ब्राह्मणवधादि न तच् छास्त्रचोदितम् । शास्त्रनोदितस्य हि शास्त्रीयेण फलेन संबन्धो युक्तः, यथा “स्वर्गकामो यजेत” इति । शास्त्रतो हि यागस्य कर्तव्यताप्रतिपत्तिर् नान्यतः । इह तु द्वेषादिना लौकिकी प्रवृत्तिर् अशास्त्रीया । न चाशास्त्रीयस्य शास्त्रीयेण फलेन संबन्धो न्याय्यः । यद् अप्य् उक्तम् “उपेक्षायां प्रत्यवायः प्रदर्शितः” इति, किमित्य् अत्राकांक्षा¹¹ । यावता द्विषन्तं प्रति वर्तमानस्य¹² न कर्तव्यम्" इति शास्त्रतो ऽवगतिर् जायते, तावता वाक्यार्थसमाप्तिः । किम् अत्र पदम् अस्ति यदाकांक्षीत¹³ ।

• एतद् विविच्यमानं महान्तं ग्रन्थविस्तारम् आक्षिपति । संक्षेपस् त्व् अयम् । “न हिंस्याद् भूतानि” इति प्रतिषेधविधेः प्रतिषेधो भावार्थः । कर्तृकरण इति च श्रूयते¹⁴ । तत्र विधेस्¹⁵ तावन् नियोज्यविषयाकांक्षा¹⁶ । तत्र नियोज्यस्येयम् अवगतिर् भवति- “न¹⁷ मयैतत् कर्तव्यम्” । नार्थस् तत्र नियुक्तः, पुरुषनियोगरूपत्वाद् विधेः । स चात्र नियोज्यो लौकिक्या द्वेषलक्षणया प्रवृत्त्यार्थेन प्रवर्तमानहिंसास्वभावोपदेशेन समर्पितः । यः स्वेच्छया हनने प्रवर्तते स हन्याद् इति । न चैतेन युज्यते स ह्य् अत्र विधेर् विषयः । न चेति शून्येषु भावार्थस्यान्यतः प्राप्तत्वात् पुरुषोपलक्षणत्वात् स्वेन विषयत्वेन विधेः संबन्धः । यश् चासौ नियोज्यः स न तीर्थत्वेन नियोज्यभावम् आत्मनः प्रतिपद्यते । यावत् तद्विषयस्य प्रतिषिध्यमानस्य नानिष्टफलताम् अध्यवस्यति । तथा हि लोके व्युत्पत्तिः । “सभ्यायाङ्गुलिर् देया” इति वदन् प्रतिषिद्धे तदतिक्रमणे¹⁸ तदनुष्ठीयमानम् अनर्थहेतुतया प्रतिपन्नम् । न च¹⁹ लौकिकीं व्युत्पत्तिम् अवमृज्य हेत्वन्तरम् उपन्यासम् अर्हति । तत्राश्रुताप्य्²⁰ अनिष्टफलता प्रतिषेधसामर्थ्यात् कल्पयितुं युक्ता, किं पुनर् यत्र श्रूयत एव । न हि श्रुतस्योत्सर्गो न्याय्यः । न चात्र वादमात्रोपलक्षकत्वं नरकादिफलं श्रुतियुक्तम् उक्तेन न्यायेन फलापेक्षान्वयः सकाशात् ।

• किं चार्थवादा विधिविशेषा भवन्ति । न चेह कश्चिद् विधिः श्रुतः प्रकृतो वा, कर्मफलसंबन्धस्यैव प्राधान्येन प्रतिपादयिष्यमाणत्वात् । न ह्य् अत्र कर्माणि विधीयन्ते । अतश् च तेषां फलसंबन्ध उच्यते । न चैतावता भवन्ति वाक्यशतान्य् अनर्थकानि । भवन्तु अर्हन्तु स्मृतिकारणं तावद् एतद् दर्शनम् । न ह्य् अन्यथैतानि वाक्यानि व्याख्यातुं शक्यन्ते । अविधिशेष इह नास्ति ।

• गुणवादेनैतद् व्याख्यानं शास्त्रकाराणाम् अपि भ्रान्तिर् इति चेत् ।

• न । नैवंवादिन आत्मनः प्रकर्षतो महर्षीन् अवजानते ।

• अघं पापम् । अनघेति संबोधनम् निष्कल्मषतया स्तुत्यर्थम् । शंसेति वाग्यतो वर्तते ॥ १२.१ ॥

The first half of the verse indicating the end of the subject-matter of the ordinances, serves the purpose of shutting out any further desire on the part of the listeners.

‘Whole’— This epithet is meant to be commendatory; the sense being that ‘these ordinances have set forth all the Smārta duties along with the esoteric explanations.’

The fact of the Teacher having completed his task is described through the mouth of the pupil; but no stress is meant to be laid upon it.

In reality however the assertions set forth here do not emanate from the Teacher and Pupil at all; the author of the book himself has divided these into two parts (of question and answer).

The term ‘Dharma’ denoting what ought to be done, here stands for the whole compilation of Injunctions and Prohibitions. And it is through this that the connection between actions and their results, even though not referred to before, is now set forth.

The assertion—‘The whole law has been expounded by you’—becomes explicable only when taken as referring to Injunctions and Prohibitions.

“The result of what action is asked about—when it is said—‘Instruct us now in regard to the function of actions’? For those actions that are compulsory are done simply because they have been enjoined by the Scriptures, and the agent does not have any reward in view at all; those that are not compulsory, in connection with nearly every one of them distinct rewards have been spoken of;—e.g., in such declarations as ‘one who makes a gift of water obtains satisfaction, as also heaven and longevity’;—and even those in connection with which it might be thought that no rewards have been spoken of,—there also it has been proved that Heaven is their reward;—as regards the Gestatory and other Sacramental Rites, these have their reward in the peculiar character that they bestow upon the persons for whom they are performed; and as such do not stand in need of any transcendental results;—the Occasional Acts, such as the purifying of substances and the like, or the bathing on touching a Caṇḍāla and so forth,—these also lead to results that are quite perceptible; they are done for the purpose of purifying things, because the use of impure things has been forbidden;—lastly, as regards Expiatory Rites the purpose served by them has been just described. Thus we fail to see those actions whose results are -sought to be known.”

The result sought to be known is that of those that are forbidden; as it is those that are spoken of below, as ‘the sinfulness of acts committed through the body, etc., etc.’ (Verse 9). And in a way the obeying of prohibitions also is something enjoined by the scriptures.

“If those acts also were laid down for the purpose of rewards, they would not be incumbent on all men; as they would be performed by only such men as happen to have a desire for the particular reward.”

Our answer to this is as follows:—Here no such results are going to be described as are desired by men; as what are set forth here are the undesirable results; and certainly these are not desired; no man ever wishes to obtain what is undesirable; and it is in this manner that the results mentioned come to bear upon all men.

What we have said regarding the obeying of prohibitions being an act done in accordance with scriptural injunctions, does not go far enough; the fact of the matter is that everything is done in accordance with scriptural injunctions.

“But the acts that the scriptural injunctions set forth are done for the sake of men desiring the results of those acts;—or in some cases, the acts are occasional ones, laid down without reference to any results in the case in question (of prohibitions) however, inasmuch as we do not find any expressions indicative of the fact that they shall he obeyed ‘throughout life,’ wherefore would the forbidden act not he done?”

It is found that if one ignores the prohibitions he incurs sin. For instance, it has been declared that ‘by entertaining a desire to kill a Brāhmaṇa, one goes to hell.’

“The act that is forbidden,—such as the killing of a Brāhmaṇa and the like,—is certainly not one that is enjoined by the scripture. It is only an act enjoined by the scripture that can have any connection with results mentioned in the scriptures; as we find in the case of such declarations as—‘one desiring heaven should perform sacrifices’; where the fact that sacrifices should be performed is one that can he got at only from the scriptures, and not from any other source. In the ease in question on the other hand, men are prompted to do the prohibited acts by hatred and such other worldly unscriptural motives; and what is itself unscriptural cannot have any connection with a result that is scriptural. It has been asserted that texts have indicated that the ignoring of prohibitions is conducive to sin. But what would be the need for such an indication?

Since all that we learn from the scriptural prohibition is that it says to the man moved by hatred to do some forbidden act (like the killing, for instance)—‘this should not be done’; and there the comprehension of the sentence is complete; what word is left there uncomprehended which would need the said indication?”

If we were to pursue this enquiry further, it would prolong our work unduly. The fact of the matter in brief is this:—what the prohibitive injunction ‘one shall not kill’ signifies is a prohibition. Now there does arise in the mind of the person to whom this injunction is addressed a desire to know what it all means; and the idea that he derives from it is—‘such and such a course of action shall not be adopted by me’; and it is not the object (act) that is urged by the Injunction; since by their very nature injunctions are meant to urge agents, and the agent in the case in question would be indicated by the presence of the worldly motive of hatred, which is what would be in keeping with the nature of the act of killing. The man who undertakes to kill by his own will would not stand in need of being urged by an injunction; and it is such a person to whom the prohibitive injunction is addressed. In a case where the action is indicated by other sources, any injunction that bears upon it may be taken as indicating the agent concerned; and in cases where no desire for any result is concerned, the person who is urged by the injunction does not comprehend the fact of bis being the person urged, until he understands that what is prohibited leads to an undesirable result: In fact such is the way in which ordinary men understand things. When a certain act is found to be forbidden by the Veda, if a man does it, it is understood that it would lead to undesirable results. And in matters like the present nothing can be put forward except what happens in the course of ordinary worldly experience. And even if the fact of a certain act leading to undesirable results, is not directly mentioned, it will be only right to assume this fact, on the basis of the very nature of prohibitions; to say nothing of cases where the said fact is directly mentioned? For there can be no justification of rejecting what, is directly mentioned. The mention of such results as ‘hell’ and the like cannot be regarded as purely declamatory, so long as it is capable of being taken as setting forth the results of acts spoken of. Further, declamatory assertions also are only complements to injunction. In the case in question, however, there is no injunction mentioned either directly or indirectly; because the fact principally sought to be set forth is the connection between the act and the result. In the present discourse no acts are enjoined; all that is propounded is the relation of certain acts to certain results; and the hundreds of assertions contained here cannot be meaningless. If they were really meaningless, we would have admitted it to be so; but such is not the way of writers on Smṛtis. Nor can the passages in question be explained in any other way save in the one indicated above; specially as there is no injunction to which they could be complements (and hence be taken as Declamatory Declarations).

It might be argued that such figurative explanation would be wrong, even on the part of writers on scriptures.

But it is not so; those who talk thus show utter disregard for the Great Sages.

‘Agha’ is sin; ‘anagha,’ ‘sinless one,’ is in the Case of Address; denoting freedom from sin, which is meant to be a praise of the teacher.

‘Instruct’ denotes speaking.—(l)

**(verses 12.1-4)
**

These verses are quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692), which adds the following notes:—‘Trividhasya’, the three kinds, highest, middling, and lowest,—‘tryadhiṣṭhānasya’ which has three substrata, in the shape of mind, speech and body,—‘daśalakṣaṇayuktasya’, the ten distinguishing features of ‘paradravyābhidhyāna’ and the rest going to be described below (verses 5-7);—of this ‘dehin’ know the mind to be the ‘instigator’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścittā 41a);—and verse (3) only in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 12).

ननु चातुर्वर्णस्य वचनाद् इहाश्रमधर्मव्युदास इति । न व्युदासः, जातेर् अविनाशाद् अनपायाच् चाश्रमधर्मा अपि वर्णधर्मा एव । तथा च कृत्वोक्तम्- “भगवान् सर्ववर्णानां यथावद् अनुपूर्वशः” इत्य् एवमादि । अस्य प्रतिवचनम् “वर्णधर्मान् निबोधत” इति । कृत्स्नवचनं चात्र प्रायश्चित्ताभिधानापेक्षम् । येनास्मिन् सत्य् अस्य धर्मशास्त्रस्य समस्तपुरुषार्थसाधकत्वं भवति । वाक्यत्रये चादृष्ट्पुरुषार्थसमाप्तिः । यथा- इदं कर्तव्यम्, इदम् अकर्तव्यम्, मोहाद् अकुसलकर्मनिमित्ते च कदाचित् प्रतिषेधशास्त्रव्यतिक्रमे सतीदं प्रायश्चित्तम् अनुष्टेयम् इति । अत्र दृष्टार्था पुरुषार्थसमाप्तिः, आयुर्वेदवत् । अतो युक्तम् इदम् आह प्रायश्चित्ताभिधानापेक्षं कृत्स्नग्रहणम्, न तु यत् पूर्वम् उक्तम् “एष वो ऽभिहितो धर्मो ब्राह्मणस्य चतुर्विधः” इत्य् एवमादि । “कर्मणां फलनिर्वृत्तिम्” इति चैतत् प्रायश्चित्ते ऽननुष्ठिते इयम् इति प्रकरणसामर्थ्यात् अकुशलधर्मापेक्षं प्रधानतो विज्ञेयम् । एवं च सतीदं महतो ऽनर्थलक्षणस्याधर्मविपाकस्य नरकादिस्थानेषु यातनाप्रदर्शनं प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानशेषतया कल्पिष्यते । लघूपायसाध्यत्वाद् धर्मक्षयस्य प्रायश्चित्तोपदेशः पुरुषार्थकारी संपद्यते । एवं च तदुपन्यासपर एवायं श्लोको वेदितव्यः ॥ १२.१ ॥

001 ‘O sinless One, the whole sacred law, (applicable) to the four castes, has been declared by thee; communicate to us (now), according to the truth, the ultimate retribution for (their) deeds.’

The righteous Bhṛgu, sprung for Manu, said to the Great Sages—‘Listen to the truth regarding the relation of Actions.’—(2)

पृष्टप्रतिवचनम् एतत् । यद् अहं पृष्टः शृणु तत् । कर्मणो योगम् इति संबन्धः । स च प्रकृतत्वात् फलेनैव विज्ञेयः ॥ १२.२ ॥

This is the answer to the question of the sages.

‘Listen to what you have asked.’

‘Karma-yoga’—The compound is to be explained as the ‘yoga,’ ‘relation,’ of ‘karma,’ ‘actions’; and from the context it is clear that it is the ‘relation’ to results that is meant’—(2)

**(verses 12.1-4)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.1].

प्रतिज्ञाश्लोकः । कर्मशब्दश् च साधारणो ऽपि सन्न् अयम् अधर्मार्थप्रधानः प्रकरणाद् विज्ञेयः । तथा चोक्तं पुरस्ताद् इति ॥ १२.२ ॥

002 To the great sages (who addressed him thus) righteous Bhrigu, sprung from Manu, answered, ‘Hear the decision concerning this whole connexion with actions.’

Actions proceeding from mind, speech and body are conducive to good and bad results; and the conditions of men, due to actions, are high, low and middling.—(3)

शुभस्य निर्देशो दृष्टान्ततया, मनोवाग्व्यापारविध्यर्थो वा मनसो वाचो देहाच् च संभवति कर्म²¹ । कर्मशब्दो न चेज्यायाम् एव कायपरिस्पन्दे वर्तते । किं तर्हि, क्रियामात्रे²² योगध्यानवचनात्मके ऽपि । फलशब्दः प्रत्येकम् अभिसंबध्यते । शुभफलम्²³ अशुभफलं च । नैवं विज्ञेयं कायव्यापारसाधनाद् एव²⁴ कर्मानुष्ठानाच् छुभाशुभफलप्राप्तिः । अपि तु मनोवाक्कायसंभवाद् अप्य् एवम् एव । तस्माद् अपि त्रिविधात् कर्मणस् तु विधीयते फलप्राप्तिः ॥ १२.३ ॥

The ‘good’ results are mentioned only by way of an example; or as laying down the functions of the mind and speech.

Actions proceed from mind, speech and body. The term ‘Karma,’ ‘action,’ here does not stand only for that movement of the body which is involved in the performance of sacrifices; it stands for all kinds of action, even those of the nature of contemplation, meditation, speaking and the like.

The term ‘phala,’ ‘result,’ is to be construed with each of the two terms of the compound (‘śubha’ and ‘aśubha’); so that what the compound means is ‘conducive to good results’ and ‘conducive to bad results.’

This should not be understood to mean that good and bad results are obtained only from the performance of such actions as are accomplished by bodily operations, in fact the same thing happens in the case of actions springing from mind and speech also; since results have been described as proceeding from all the three kinds of actions.—(3)

**(verses 12.1-4)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.1].

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 998).—‘Whatever act, good or bad, a man does, in whatever circumstances, of that he obtains the reward under the same circumstances. In the body he suffers the consequences of his bodily acts; in speech, those of his verbal acts; and in his mind, those of his mental acts.’

मनोवाग्देहकारणं च संकल्पोक्तिक्रियारूपं कर्मद्विप्रकारं कुशलाकुशलतया भिन्नानां गतीनां निमित्तम् । एवं च सति शुभग्रहणाद् अत्र धर्मनिर्देशो ऽपि प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणशेष एव प्रणाडिकया विज्ञेयः ॥ १२.३ ॥

003 Action, which springs from the mind, from speech, and from the body, produces either good or evil results; by action are caused the (various) conditions of men, the highest, the middling, and the lowest.

Know the mind to be the instigator of all this that is connected with the body, and which is of three kinds, has three substrata and is endowed with ten distinct characteristics.—(4)

• अत आह अर्थस्यास्य मनो विद्यात् प्रवर्तकम् । मनसो हि व्यापाराः सर्वे²⁵ दर्शनादयः । न च त्रिष्व् असत्सु भौतिको व्यापारः । तथा हि प्रथमं तावन् मनसायम् अर्थं संपश्यत्य् अयम् ईदृश एव तस्य²⁶ वस्तुनः सुखं दुःखं वास्य कारणं²⁷ तत आयत्ते “कथम् एतन् मनः संपद्यते” । ततो ऽध्यवस्यति “संपादयाम्य् अतो नेदम्” इति । तत्र उदरे क्रियाप्रधाने कायपरिस्पन्दरूपवाग्व्यवहारश् च । अतः सर्वस्य मनः प्रवर्तकं प्रेषापूर्वकारिणः

• अबुद्धिपूर्वं तु नावश्यं सद्दर्शनादयः पूर्वभाविरूपस्य ताद्रूप्येण ग्रहणम् — यथा मद्ये वर्णसादृश्यात्²⁸ पानकबुद्ध्या प्रवृत्तिः, संतमासंभवात्²⁹ तया परस्त्रीषु, अन्यत् तु दैवोपनिपतितम्, यथा सुप्तस्य हस्तसंचारपार्श्वपरिवर्तनादिना मशकादिप्राणिवधः — तत्रापि कर्तृत्वम् उपपादितं प्रायश्चित्तेषु प्रवृत्तिहेतुः ।

• त्रिविधस्य,³⁰ वाङ्मनःकायसाधनभेदेन । त्र्यधिष्ठानस्य, उत्तमाधममध्यमगतिभेदेन । दशलक्षणयुक्तस्य मनः कायकर्मणोः प्रत्येकं त्रैविध्यं वाङ्मयं चतुर्विधम् । एतानि दशलक्षणानि । तान्य् उपरिष्टाद् वक्ष्यति ॥ १२.४ ॥

Objection—“All actions, good or bad, laid down in such passages as—‘he shall punish the guilty,’ ‘he shall not injure,’ are accomplished by the operation of the body. For instance, (a) the act of giving, which consists in the withdrawing of one’s ownership over a thing and bringing about that of another, is laid down as ‘to be done with the right hand’ and so forth (which involves a bodily action); (b) the act of sacrificing, consisting of the entire procedure ending with the Final Bath, is one that is accomplished by bodily operations; (c) similarly all such acts as desisting from striking others with a stick and so forth are such as are due to bodily operations. What then is that action which springs from the Mind?”

It is in answer to this that the text says—‘Know the Mind to be the instigator of all this.’—Seeing and all such acts are functions of the Mind; as in the absence of Mind, no purely physical action is possible For instance, in the case of every act, the agent first of all conceives of the thing concerned as being of a certain nature and as bringing about pleasure or pain, or leading to something on which pleasure or pain is dependent, and then comes to the determination ‘I shall have this’ or ‘I shall not have it’; and it is only the action to which this determination leads where the functioning of the body or of speech comes in. Thus it is that in the case of ail intentional actions, the Mind is the ‘instigator.’ As for unintentional actions, the said process is not always perceptible; for instance, when wine is drunk under the misapprehension that it is some, other drink, or when one approaches another woman, mistaking her for one’s own wife, or in cases of such chance-actions as the killing of mosquitoes and other insects by the throwing about of the hand, turning on one’s sides during sleep and so forth; though in all these cases also the responsibility for doing it rests on the agent, which renders him liable to expiation.

‘Which is of three kinds’;—as brought about by speech, mind and body.

‘Three substrata’;—in accordance with the ‘high,’ ‘low’ and ‘middling’ conditions of the agent.

‘Endowed with ten distinct characteristics’;—the functions of the mind and the body being of three kinds each [making up six] and those of speech are of four kinds,—thus making up the ‘ten.’ These are going to be described in the next few verses.—(4)

**(verses 12.1-4)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.1].

त्रिविधस्योत्तममध्यमजघन्यस्य, त्र्यधिष्ठानस्य कायवाङ्मनोनिमित्तस्य, मनः प्रवर्तकम् । येन नासंकल्पितं मनसा पुरुषः शक्नोति वक्तुं कर्तुं वा ॥ १२.४ ॥

004 Know that the mind is the instigator here below, even to that (action) which is connected with the body, (and) which is of three kinds, has three locations, and falls under ten heads.

Coveting the wealth or others, scheming in one’s mind about what is undesirable, adhering to a wrong notion,—these are the three forms of ‘mental action.’—(5)

अभिध्यानं नाम परद्रव्यविषयेर्ष्याबुद्ध्या परद्रव्याभिभवानुचिन्तनम्- “कियद् अश्वगोधनं कियद् वाजाविकम् इति च विभवो ऽश्वाः धिग्दैवं कस्माद् अस्येयती समृद्धिः, अथ च कथं नामैतस्यापहरेयम्, अथ वा साधुर् भवति यद्य् एतस्यैतन् न भवति” ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुर् एतद् धनं समभिभवति ।

• अनिष्टचिन्तनं परस्येत्य् अभिसंबध्नन्ति । परवधोपायचिन्तनम्- “यदि म्रियते,” “तन् ममास्तु” इति वा ।

• ननु च परद्रव्याभिध्यानम्³¹ एवोक्तम् । अनेनैव सिद्धे तद् अनर्थकम् ।

• सामान्यशब्दो ह्य् अयम् । यद् अनिष्ठम् अनभिप्रेतं परस्य तन् न चिन्तनीयम् । धननाशो ऽपि परस्य नैवेष्टः । एतद्भयाच् च किंचन परस्येत्य् एतन् न व्याहरन्ति । अनिष्टं च यत् प्रतिषिद्धं तद् व्याचक्षते ।

• अस्मिन्न् अपि पक्षे परद्रव्याभिध्यानं प्राधान्यार्थम् एव ।

• एवं वितथाभिनिवेशो ऽपि । पूर्वपक्षार्थस्य सिद्धान्तत्वेन ग्रहणम्, विज्ञानवादः, वेदाप्रामाण्यम्,³² अनात्मताग्रह इत्येवमादि ।

• अन्ये तु नित्यनिरामिषद्वेषम् आहुः ।

• इयं च त्रिविधाकुशला मानसी प्रवृत्तिः । अतो ऽन्या कुशला । अस्पृहा परद्रव्येषु, दया सर्वसत्त्वेषु, श्रद्धा धर्माद्यस्तित्वादिषु । तथा च भगवान् व्यासः ।

• अनभिध्या परस्वेषु सर्वसत्त्वेषु सौहृदम् ।

• धर्मिणां फलम् अस्तीति त्रिविधं मनसा स्मरेत् ॥ १२.५ ॥

‘Coveting’—What is meant is that through jealousy for the wealth of other men, one may be constantly thinking of some adversity befalling their fortune—‘Oh, how many horses and cows! How many sheep and goats! What excellent horses! Woe to men! How is it that he has attained such prosperity! In what way may I wrest it all from him! It would be grand if all this wealth of his were destroyed!’

‘Scheming about what is undesirable.’— Some people construe this also with the phrase ‘of others’; and take it to mean ‘the planning of the death of others with the view that all his wealth will come to him.’

“The ‘coveting of the wealth of others’ has also been explained to mean this same thing; so that the idea having been already provided by this phrase, the former would be entirely superfluous.”

The second phrase is a wider term. It is not right to ‘scheme about’ what is undesirable, for others; and loss of wealth is a particular form of ‘what is undesirable.’

It is in view of this difficulty that some people do not construe this second phrase with the phrase ‘of others’; and they explain ‘undesirable’ as standing for forbidden.

According to this view also, ‘the coveting of the wealth of others’ (which is also forbidden) would have to be taken as mentioned separately, only for the purpose of indicating its importance.

Similarly with the phrase ‘adhering to a wrong notion’; e.g., (a) when the prima facie argument is regarded as the Final Conclusion, (b) the philosophy of Idealism, (c) the view that the Veda is not trustworthy, (d) insistence on the view that there is no such thing as the Soul, and so forth.

Others explain this to mean constant opposition to the renouncing of meat-eating.

These three constitute the evil type of ‘mental activity’; apart from these are those of the good type; e.g., ‘not coveting what belongs to another,’ ‘kindness to all creatures,’ ‘faith in the reality of morality and such things.’ Says the revered Vyāsa—‘Non-coveting of the property of others, sympathy for all beings, and the idea that righteous deeds always bring their reward,—one should constantly think in his mind of these three items.’—(5)

‘Vitathābhiniveśaḥ’.—‘Adherence to false doctrines’ (Medhātithi);—‘constant deep hatred’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692);—in Aparārka (p. 997);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a);—in Hemādri (Kāla p. 632);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

परद्रव्यापहारबुद्धिः । अन्यस् त्व् आह- ममाप्य् एतत् स्याद् इत्य् एतत् परद्रव्याभिध्यानम् । तच् चैतत् परिपेलवन् । मनसानिष्टं नाम प्राणिनां जिघांसा । वितथाभिनिवेशो धर्माध्यस्तित्वादिषु । तथा च व्यासः-

005 Coveting the property of others, thinking in one’s heart of what is undesirable, and adherence to false (doctrines), are the three kinds of (sinful) mental action.

Abusing, lying, calumniating all men, and idle prattling,—are the pour kinds of ‘verbal action.’—(6)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

‘Abusing’—uttering of words causing pain to others.

‘Calumniating’—detracting from the merits of others, on account of jealousy.

‘Idle prattling’ and^(‘)telling an untruth.’—(6)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692);—in Aparārka (p. 998);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 632);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

Yājñavalkya (3.134).—‘The man who is a liar, or a backbiter, or harsh in speech, or talks irrelevantly, is born among animals and birds.’

सत्यानृतविपरीतोद्देशादि तथाख्यः । एतद्विपरीतास् तु शुभाः प्रियं सत्यं हितं स्वाध्यायश् चेति ॥ १२.६ ॥

006 Abusing (others, speaking) untruth, detracting from the merits of all men, and talking idly, shall be the four kinds of (evil) verbal action.

Taking what has not been given, unsanctioned killing, and intercourse with the wives of others—these have been declared to be three kinds of ‘bodily action.’—(7)

शास्त्रीयाप्राधान्यतयास्य +अदत्तानाम् असद्भ्य उपादानं दुष्टं चैव । तथा कुमार्यादिपरदारादाव् अपि । विपरीतधर्मादानं परित्राणम् इन्द्रियसंयमश् च । इदं मनोवाग्देहभेदेन दशविधम् । प्रवृत्तिकुशलाकुशलविभागेन विंशतिप्रकाराः ॥ १२.७ ॥

Accepting from unworthy people of what has not been given, and what is itself an impure thing.

^(‘)Wives of others’—includes unmarried maidens also.

As against these there are—accepting proper gifts in the proper manner, protecting others and controlling of the organs.

Thus has Action proceeding from Mind, Speech and Body, been described as being of^(‘)ten kinds’; and according as each of these is either ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ we have twenty kinds.—(7)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692); in Aparārka (p. 998), which adds that the ten kinds of sinful acts, proceeding from the mind, speech and body, when committed intentionally and repeatedly, should be understood to be what leads to the map being born in such bodies as those of the Cāṇḍāla and the like; but of, the same kinds of acts, when done unintentionally, the results are different;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a);—in Hemādri (Kāla, p. 632);—and in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 88).

Yājñavalkya (8.135).—‘The man, who is addicted to taking what has not been given to him, or associates with the wives of other men, or kills animals in a way not sanctioned by the scriptures, is born among trees.’

अयम् अधर्मः यो धर्माख्यतो (?) विपरीत्[ओ दत्ता]दानं परित्राणम् इन्द्रियसंयमश् चेति । इयं मनोगाग्देहसाधना दशविधा प्रवृत्तिः । कुशलाकुशलविभागेन तु विंशतिप्रकारः । तथा चोभयथा प्रदर्शितेति ॥ १२.७ ॥

007 Taking what has not been given, injuring (creatures) without the sanction of the law, and holding criminal intercourse with another man’s wife, are declared to be the three kinds of (wicked) bodily action.

The good and the evil resulting from ‘mental acts,’ one experiences through the Mind alone; those of ‘verbal acts,’ through speech; and those of ‘bodily acts,’ through the body.—(8)

• वयं तु ब्रूमो यत् त्रिविधं मानसम् उक्तं ततो मनोदुःखाप्तिः । एवम् उत्तरयोर् अपि ॥ १२.८ ॥

Some people explain this to mean that when by his act, a man causes mental pain to others, he himself experiences, in return, mental pain.

Our opinion is that one experiences mental suffering as the result of all the three kinds of ‘mental acts.’

Similarly in the case of the other two (Verbal and Bodily acts) also.—(8)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692);—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 12).

Hārīta (Aparārka, p. 998).—‘In the body, he suffers the consequences of his bodily acts; in his speech, those of his vocal acts; and in the mind, those of his mental acts.’

परस्य मनस्तापजनको मानसम् एव कुःखं प्राप्नोति । एवं वागपचारे मौक्यगद्गदादिनिमित्तं दुःखम् । काये ऽपि चैषैव योजना । साधनानुरूप्येणैवम् अनिष्टफलप्रदर्शनं तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् उत्तरार्थं वा ॥ १२.८ ॥

008 (A man) obtains (the result of) a good or evil mental (act) in his mind, (that of) a verbal (act) in his speech, (that of) a bodily (act) in his body.

Through sinful acts due to the Body, man becomes inanimate; through those of Speech, a bird or a beast; and through those of Mind, he is born in the lowest caste.—(9)

भूयस्त्वाभिप्रायम् एतत् । प्रायेणैतासां जातीनाम् एतानि यथाविभागं निमित्तानि । न त्व् अयं नियमः । तथा महापातकिनां तिर्यक् पर्यटन्तीति वक्ष्यतीति (च्ड़्। म्ध् १२.५५ड़्) । पक्षिमृगग्रहणं तिर्यग्जातिमात्रप्रदर्शनार्थम् । मनोवाक्कायकर्मणाम् उत्तरोत्तरस्य गुरुत्वप्रदर्शनार्थपरम्³³ ॥ १२.९ ॥

What the verse describes is what happens in a large number of cases; the sense being that in most cases whenever men are reborn in the species mentioned, it is due to causes herein specified. Bat it is not always so; as it is going to be asserted later on (55 et. seq.) that those who commit the ‘heinous offences’ are born among the lower animals and so forth.

‘Birds’ and ‘beasts’ stand here for all kinds of lower animals.

What the verse is really meant to indicate is that, among sins due to Mind, Speech and Body, the succeeding ones are graver than the preceding ones.—(9)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 692);—in Smṛtitattva (p. 480);—in Mitākṣarā (3.68), in support of the view that mental acts lead to the soul being born in particular kinds of bodies;—and in Prāyaścittaviveka (p. 6).

Yājñavalkya (3.131).—‘Just as in the body of man, there are endless tendencies, so are its forms also, in the various species of animals.’

Yājñavalkya (3.134-135).—(See above, under 6 and 7.)

शास्त्रन्यायविरोधे नेदं हेतुफलसंबन्धप्रदर्शनम्, किं तर्हि त्रिसाधनस्याधर्मस्यानन्तरश्लोकोक्तस्य गुरुलघुत्वप्रदर्शनम् । विसेषतो गुरोर् अधर्मस्य परिहारार्थण्ं ज्ञेयम् । प्रायस्चित्तशेषं वा प्रकरणात् । मृगग्रहणं च सर्वतिर्यग्जातिप्रदर्शनार्थम् ॥ १२.९ ॥

009 In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste.

Control over Speech, control over the Mind and control over the Body,—the man in whose heart these are firmly fixed is called ‘the man of triple control.’—(10)

दमनं दण्डः । वाचो दण्डः पारुष्याप्रवृत्तिः । एवम् उत्तरयोर् अपि । यस्यैते दण्डा बुद्धौ निहिता “नैतन् मया कर्तव्यम्” इति यो न स्खलति स त्रिदण्डीत्य् उच्यते । न त्व् अनार्यो गुरुकाष्ठदण्डं धारयति ॥ १२.१० ॥

‘Control’—keeping in check; and ‘control of speech’ means desisting from abusing others; and so with the other two.

‘The man in whose heart these three are firmly fixed’;—he who has made up his mind that he would never commit such an act, and who never fails in this resolve:—such a man is called ‘the man of triple control’; and not one who carries heavy wooden sticks (daṇḍas).—(10)

This verse is quoted in Nirṇayasindhu (p. 454);—in Aparārka (p. 951);—in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 553);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 374);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 70a).

त्र्यधिष्ठाना एव दण्डास् त्रयः ॥ १२.१० ॥

010 That man is called a (true) tridandin in whose mind these three, the control over his speech (vagdanda), the control over his thoughts (manodanda), and the control over his body (kayadanda), are firmly fixed.

The man who keeps this ‘triple control’ in regard to all creatures, and rightly subdues desire and anger, thereby attains success.—(11)

त्रयाणां दण्डानां समाहारस् त्रिदण्डम् । पात्रादिदर्शनाद् अस्त्रियां भाषणात् (च्ड़्। पान् २.४.१७) । बुद्धौ निक्षिप्य बुद्धौ कृत्वा । सर्वभूतेष्व् अघातकत्वं चावस्थितं त्रिदण्डं वा निहितम् । कामक्रोधयोः संयमः सु साधुः । ततः सिद्धिं मोक्षाख्यां गच्छति प्राप्नोति । आध्यात्मिकत्वोपन्यास उपक्रमो ऽयम् । कस्य पुनर् एषा सिद्धिः कस्य वामुत्र³⁴ विकारकर्मफलानां भोक्तृत्वम् । भस्मान्तं शरीरम् । न च ततो ऽयम् उपलभामहे । तेन सर्वेषु³⁵ धर्माधर्मेष्व् अधिकारिपुरुषं प्रदर्शयितुकामः प्रारभते ॥ १२.११ ॥

‘Tridaṇḍam’ is an aggregate of the three controls; the feminine form of which is precluded by reason of the term ‘daṇḍa’ occurring in the ‘pātrādi’ group [and hence falling under the exception to the Vartika on Pānini, 2.4.17].

He who ‘keeps’—fixes up—‘this triple control’—in his heart,—‘in regard to all creatures’— not harming any, by any of the three kinds of action’—and ‘rightly’—properly—‘subdues desire awl anger,’—‘thereby attains’—obtains—‘success’—in the form of Liberation.

This verse serves as introductory to the treatment of the philosophy of the Self; leading up, as it does, to such questions as—‘to whom does this success belong?’ ‘who is the real experiencer of the results of actions?—since the body is found to end in ashes, and we do not see anything else of the man.’ It is thus that the text proceeds to describe the person who is the actual performer of all acts, righteous and unrighteous.—(11)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Ācāra, p. 553).

त्रिदण्डम् एतं निक्षिप्य स्वात्मन्य् उपसंहृत्य सर्वभूतेष्व् अवस्थितम् उपघातहेतुत्वेन मानवः सिद्धिं निगच्छतीति विवक्षितम् इति । इदं त्रिदण्डोपसंहरस्य करणं दर्सयति । कामक्रोधसंयमपूर्वकस् त्रिदण्ड्ōपसंहारः क्र्तो भवति । तदुपसंहाराच् च ततो ऽनन्तरं सिद्धिं निगच्छतीत्य् अयम् अस्य फलनिर्देसः । मानवग्रहणाच् च पुरुषधर्मत्वं त्रिदण्डोपसंहारस्य दर्शयति । इदानीं कामक्रोधसंयमेन यस्य त्रिदण्डोपसंहारात् सिद्धिः, तं सर्वधर्माधिकारपुरुषं प्रदर्शयितुकाम इदम् आह ॥ १२.११ ॥

011 That man who keeps this threefold control (over himself) with respect to all created beings and wholly subdues desire and wrath, thereby assuredly gains complete success.

He who is the impeller of this body, him they call the ‘Kṣetrajña,’ ‘the Conscious Being’; while he who does the acts is called by the learned, the ‘Bhūtātman,’ ‘the Material Entity.’—(12)

अस्य शरीरस्य क्रियापरिस्पन्दात्मिकां³⁶ क्रियां स्वयं प्रवर्तयिता । प्रयत्नवशेनास्य कर्तृत्वम् । स क्षेत्रज्ञः । अस्यात्मन इति समानाधिकरणे षष्ठी । आत्मशब्दस्य शरीरे वृत्तिः,³⁷ तस्यापि आत्मार्थत्वात् । यः करोति पानादिलक्षणं³⁸ तज्जन्यो यः शरीराख्यः कर्ता स भूतात्मोच्यते पृथिव्यादिभूतसंघातः, जघन्यत्वात् । भूतविकार आत्मा भूतात्मा । तथा चोक्तम् “द्वाव् आत्मानाव् अन्तरात्मना शरीरात्मना” ॥ १२.१२ ॥

‘Of this body, he who is the impeller,’—to all such actions as moving and the like, and who is the ‘doer’ of these acts, through his efforts,—‘is the Conscious Being.’

‘Asya,’ ‘this’ and ‘ātmanaḥ,’ ‘body,’ are in apposition to one another.

The term ‘ātman’ here denotes the body,—this denotation being based on the fact that the body subserves the purposes of the Ātman, Self.

‘He who does the act’—of drinking and the like,—and who is the product of these acts,—in the shape of the Body—becomes the ‘doer’ of acts,—is called the ‘material entity’—an aggregate of earth and other material substances, and belonging to an inferior category. This has been thus declared in an old text—‘There are two selves—the Inner Soul and the Body.’—(12)

‘Kṣetrajña’.—Nandana is misrepresented by Buhler; he also takes the word in the sense of the jīvātmā.

‘Bhūtātmā’.—The body (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kūlluka and Rāghavānanda);—‘The soul in the form of the material substances and other non-sentient things’ (Nārāyaṇa);—‘the sense-organs, and the rest’ (Nandana, who is again misrepresented by Buhler).

Maitryupaniṣad (3.3).

अस्य शरीरस्य क्रियायां प्रवर्तयिता क्षेत्रज्ञः । शरीरे चात्मशब्दो गौणः, आत्मार्थत्वात् । शिरह्पाण्यादिलक्षणस् तु भूतसंघातो ऽन्नरसमयः शरीराख्यः कर्ता भूतात्मा स उच्यते, भूतकार्यत्वात् ॥ १२.१२ ॥

012 Him who impels this (corporeal) Self to action, they call the Kshetragna (the knower of the field); but him who does the acts, the wise name the Bhutatman (the Self consisting of the elements).

An inner ‘self,’ called ‘Jīva,’ ‘Soul,’ is different,—generated along with all embodied beings, through which one experiences pleasure and fain during the several births.—(13)

किं पुनर् अयं जीवो नाम यावता क्षेत्रज्ञम् एव जीवं मन्यन्ते । द्वौ चात्रोपलभ्येते- शरीरम् अहंप्रत्ययविज्ञेयश् चान्तरात्मा । ततो ऽन्यः कश्चिज् जीवो नाम ।

• केचित् तावद् आहुः महदादिभूतसूक्ष्मपरिवेष्टितं³⁹ लिङ्गं यत् पठ्यते “संसरति निरुपभोगं भावैर् अधिवासितं⁴⁰ लिङ्गम्” (साम्क् ४०) इति । येनेतिकरणत्वं च वेदनं प्रति तस्योपपद्यते । तद् धि स्थूलभूतानाम् आश्रयः, तस्यैव शरीराख्यबाह्यभूताश्रयत्वात् । शरीरे च सत्य् आत्मनः सुखदुःखभोक्तृत्वम् । अतो येनेति करणविभक्त्योच्यते ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते- अन्तःकरणं मनोबुद्ध्यहंकाररूपं जीवः । तस्य चान्तःकरणसंज्ञत्वाद् युक्त एव करणविभक्त्या निर्देशः ।

• अन्तरात्मशब्दश् च तादर्थ्याद् युक्त एव । सहजशब्दश् च⁴¹ आ मोक्षप्राप्तेर् आ प्रलयाच् च तदवियोगेन⁴² ॥ १२.१३ ॥

“What is this that is called ‘Jīva’ or ‘Soul?’ People regard the ‘Conscious Being’ (Kṣetrajña) as the ‘Jīva.’ Only two beings are generally recognised—the Body and the Inner Soul known as the ‘I’ the ‘Jīva’ spoken of here is apparently different from these two.”

Some people explain that what is called ‘Jīva,’ ‘Soul,’ here, is the Subtle Body made up of the ‘Great Principle’ (Mahat of the Sāṅkhyas) and the rudimentary elements, which has been described as the Subtle Body, ‘migrating, without experiencing, and invested with impressions’ (Sāṅkhya-kārikā). The term ‘yena,’ ‘through which,’ speaks of this as if it were the ‘instrument’ of the act of experiencing; and this can apply only to the said Subtle Body; as it serves as the substratum of the grosser material substances, being as it is, the substratum of the material body itself. It is only when the Body is there that the Self can feel pleasure and pain; and this is what is expressed by the instrumental ending in ‘yena,’ ‘through which.’

Others however think that it is the ‘Internal Organ,’ consisting of Intelligence, (Buddhi), Mind (Manas) and I-notion (Ahaṅkāra), that is spoken of here as ‘Jīva.’ And since this is an ‘Internal organ,’ it is only right that it should be spoken of by means of the Instrumental ending.

That this should be called the ‘inner self’ is also quite right, since it subserves the purposes of the Self.

‘Generated along with.’—This means that it remains attached to the Self till Final Liberation, and is never separated from him till Final Dissolution.—(13)

‘Jīvasaṃjñaḥ’.—Nandana is again misrepresented by Buhler; his words are ‘Jīvāt saṃjñā jñānam yasya,’ which means ‘that which derives consciousness from the Jīva,’ and not ‘who fully knows the Jīvas,’ as Buhler puts it.

येनेति तृतीयया कारणोपदेशात् मन इदं विज्ञेयम् अन्तःकरणत्वात् । जीवशब्देनेति । आत्मग्रहणं चामोक्षप्राप्तेर् आ प्रलयाच् च तदवियोगो यस्मात् । एवं च तस्य कारणनिर्देशो येन वेदयते क्षेत्रज्ञः सुखदुःखम् इति । बुद्धिर् इत्य् अपरे । श्रोत्रादिप्राणादिसमूहो लिङ्गाख्य इत्य् अन्ये । अन्तःकरणपक्षे च क्षेत्रज्ञस्योपलब्धौ कारणम् इदं निर्दिश्यत इत्य् अविप्रतिपत्तिः ॥ १२.१३ ॥

013 Another internal Self that is generated with all embodied (Kshetragnas) is called Giva, through which (the Kshetragna) becomes sensible of all pleasure and pain in (successive) births.

Both of these, the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Conscious Being,’ united with the material substances, subsist in Him who resides in all things, pervading them all.—(14)

उच्चावचेषु बहुविधेषु नानारूपेषु भूतेषु सर्वेषु यः स्थितो व्याप्य तानि भूतानि । तिष्ठतः संश्रयतः । अतश् च सर्वकर्मकर्तृत्वम्, तिष्ठतेर् अनेकार्थत्वात् ।

• को ऽसाव् उच्चावचेषु भूतेषु व्याप्य स्थितः ।

‘Manifold’— of various kinds and forms.

‘Things’— all entities.

‘Who resides, pervading’— all those things.

‘In him these two subsist’— The term ‘sthitaḥ’ is taken as a transitive verb, the root ‘sthā’ being capable of several denotations.

“Who is ho who resides pervading the manifold things?”

The Supremo Self, who is beyond the animate and inanimate world, of the nature of Highest Bliss, who is going to be described later on.

‘United to material substances’—i.e., the five substances.

‘The Great Principle’— described under [Verse 13], as that ‘through which he experiences pleasures and pains.’

‘The Conscious Being’— described in [Verse 12].

These two are said to ‘subsist’ in the Supreme Self, because the entire Universe subsists in It; every effect subsists in its cause; and it is on the basis of this that these two are said to ‘subsist’ in the Supreme Self. Says the revered Vyāsa—‘In this world there are two Puruṣas, the Perishable and the Imperishable; the Perishable one consists of all material substances, and the unchangeable entity is culled ‘Imperishable,’—Here the term ‘perishable’ stands for the entire phenomenal world; and ‘imperishable’ for the Original Cause, which is also spoken of as ‘Unchanging,’ as in its causal form, it does not perish even at Universal Dissolution. Or ‘perishable’ may stand for the Body, and ‘imperishable’ for the ‘Conscious Being’ (Kṣetrajna); the latter being called ‘Unchangeable,’ because till Final Liberation is attained, he retains his character of being the doer (of acts) and experiencer (of results). (Vyāsa goes on)—‘The Highest Puruṣa is different from these two, and is called the Supreme Self, who, being the infallible Lord, who pervades and sustains the three worlds’ (Bhagavadgītā, 15.16.17).—14

‘Vyāpya.’—‘Pervade,’ (Govindarāja),—‘rest on’ (Kullūka);—‘Conceal through illusion’ (Nārāyaṇa).

महच्छब्देन तद् एवान्तःकरणं गृह्यते लिङ्गादिशब्दपर्यायः । क्षेत्रज्ञस् तु कामाधिकारपुरुषः सुखदुःखोपभोक्ता । उच्चावचेषु भूतेष्व् औत्तराधर्येण व्यवस्थितेष्व् इत्य् अर्थः । बहुलपर्यायो वायम् उच्चावचसब्दः । बहुष्व् इत्य् अर्थः, स्थितं तं परमात्मानं चेतनाचेतनव्यतिरिक्तम् उपरिष्टाद् वक्ष्यमाणम् । व्याप्य तिष्ठतः संश्रय इत्य् अर्थः । तथा च व्यासः-

014 These two, the Great One and the Kshetragna, who are closely united with the elements, pervade him who resides in the multiform created beings.

From his body emanate innumerable forms, which constantly energise all kinds of beings.—(15)

मूर्तिशब्देन यावत् किंचिद् भौतिकं कार्यकारणम् इति शक्तिश् च तद् उच्यते । तद् एतत् सर्वं तस्य परमात्मनः शरीरात् प्रादुर् भवति । स्वभाव एव तस्य शरीरम् । शिलापुत्रकस्य शरीरम् इतिवद् भेदेन व्यपदेशः । असंख्या अनन्ताः । समुद्राद् इवोर्मयः । निष्पतन्ति प्रादुर् भवन्तीत्य् उक्तम् । ताभिः प्रादुर्भूताभिर् इदं जगच् चेष्टते सक्रियं भवतीत्य् अर्थः । शरीरेन्द्रियविज्ञानैर् विना चेष्टाया अभावाच् चेष्टयन्तीत्य् उच्यते ।

• अन्ये तु शरीरतः प्रधानं च परमात्मनः शरीरं तदधीनप्रवृत्तित्वात्, नात्र भूतानि⁴³ ॥ १२.१५ ॥

The term ‘form’ stands for all material products; all these emanate from the ‘body’ of the Supreme Self;—this body consisting of his essence alone; and the mention of the two (the Self and His body) as distinct being analogous to the expression ‘the body of the stone-image’ [where also the body is nothing different from the image itself.

‘Innumerable’—endless.

‘Emanate’—issue forth.

This emanation being like that of the waves from the ocean.

It is by these forms, as they become emanated, that this world becomes energised,—i.e., set into activity. The world is spoken of as becoming ‘energised’ by these forms, because, as a matter of fact, there is no ‘activity’ without the body, the organs and the sensations.

Others explain that the ‘body’ of the Supreme Self is Primordial Matter, not the material substances; and all activity is dependent upon this latter.—(15)

‘Śarīrataḥ’—‘From the supreme soul’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa);—‘from the body of qualified Brahman’ (Rāghavānanda),—‘from the Root Evolvent which is the body of the supreme soul’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi).

उच्चावचानि भूतानि सततं [याः असङ्ख्या मूर्तीश् चेष्टयन्ति ताः] तस्य परमात्मनो निष्पतन्ति शरीरतः प्रधानाद् इत्य् उक्तम् । मूर्तयः कार्यकारणानि क्षेत्रज्ञस्य भोगसाधनानि । औपनिषदास् तु परमात्मानम् एव शरीरशब्देनाहुः ॥ १२.१५ ॥

015 From his body innumerable forms go forth, which constantly impel the multiform creatures to action.

In the case of misbehaved persons, there is produced out of five constituents, another strong body, for the suffering of torments, after death.—(16)

पञ्चभ्यो भूतेभ्यो ऽन्यच् छरीरं प्रेत्योत्पद्यते । एतद् उक्तं भवति । शुक्रशोणितम् अन्तरेणैव पाञ्चभौतिकं शरीरम् उत्पद्यते । दुष्कृतीनां च पाञ्चभौतिकं शरीरं पुण्यक्र्ताम् तु तैजसाकाशमात्राणि⁴⁴ भवन्ति । यथोक्तम् “वायुभूतः खमूर्तिमान्” (म्ध् २.८२) इति । यातना पीडातिशयः । तद्अर्थीयम्,⁴⁵ यद्⁴⁶ अतिदृढम् अलौकिकदुःखसहिष्णुः ॥ १२.१६ ॥

Out of the five material substances another body is produced.

The meaning is that a material body is produced, without the process involved in the mixture of semen and ovule. In fact, it is only in the case of ‘misbehaved men’ that this body is made up of material substances; in the case of righteous men it is made up of pure light and consists of mere Ākāśa; as is declared in the passage—‘Consisting of air, with a body of pure Ākāśa, etc.’

‘Torment’—great suffering.

‘Strong’—powerful enough to suffer super-physical torment.—(16)

पञ्चभ्यो भूतमात्राभ्यः स्थूलं यातनाक्षमं नरकादिष्व् अन्यच् छरीरम् उपपद्यते । कुतो ऽन्यत् । सूक्ष्माल् लिङ्गात् ॥ १२.१६ ॥

016 Another strong body, formed of particles (of the) five (elements and) destined to suffer the torments (in hell), is produced after death (in the case) of wicked men.

After they have suffered, through this body, the torments inflicted by yama, those constituents become dissolved into each of those same material elements.—(17)

यमो नाम देवताविशेषो दुष्कृतिनां निग्रहादिकृत् । तद्दृष्टा यातना अस्य । ता अनुभूय तेन⁴⁷ पाञ्चभौतिकेन शरीरेण । तानि शरीराणि पुनः प्रलीयन्ते तासु सूक्ष्मासु भूतमात्रासु ॥ १२.१७ ॥

‘Yama’ is the name of a particular deity, who inflicts punishments upon sinners,—which are spoken of here as ‘torments.’

After the man has ‘experienced’ these torments, through the said body of five constituent material substances,—those bodies become dissolved into the said subtle particles of those substances.—(17)

“Kullūka and Nandana assume that the subject of both clauses is ‘duṣkṛtino jīvāḥ”.—Buhler.

“According to Nandana the meaning of the verse is—‘The individual souls, having suffered by means of that body the torments of Yama, are dissolved, on the termination of those sufferings in those very five elements according to the proportion of their works’.”—Buhler.

017 When (the evil-doers) by means of that body have suffered there the torments imposed by Yama, (its constituent parts) are united, each according to its class, with those very elements (from which they were taken).

Having suffered the evils produced by attachment to sensual objects, and conducive to misery, he, having his sins destroyed, approaches those same two glorious ones.—(18)

विषयसङ्गात् प्रतिषिद्धविषयोपसेवनात् प्रतिषिद्धान् ततः सङ्गाच् च ये जाता दोषाः पापनिर्मिताः । नरकाद् दुःखान्य् अनुभूय तेन च दुःखोपभोगेन व्यपेतकल्मषो ऽपहतपाप्मा चेति । ताव् एवोभौ महौजसौ ।

• काव् उभौ । महान् क्षेत्रज्ञश्⁴⁸ च तौ प्रकृतौ । अनन्तरश्लोकेन च क्षेत्रज्ञ एवानुभाविता सुखदुःखयोः । स इति च तस्यैव परामर्शो ऽतः क्षेत्रज्ञम् अभ्येतीति प्राप्तम् । तच् च विरुद्धम् । स एव प्राप्यः प्रापकश् च ।

• सत्यम्, औपचारिको भेदो ऽभिप्रेतः । अभ्येतीत्य् अयम् अर्थः एतावन्मात्रशेषो भवति । यद् उत क्षेत्रज्ञतया प्राणादिसंघातात्मकेन महान् इति व्यपदिष्टेन फलेषु तावन्मात्रः परिशिष्यते । लिङ्गजीवश् च क्षेत्रज्ञः ।

‘Attachment to sensual objects’—being addicted to such things as are forbidden. From this arise ‘evils’—the results of sins;—having experienced the hellish torments, which constitute these ‘evils’—the men have their ‘sins destroyed’—guilt removed,—by that experience,—‘approaches those two Glorious Ones.’

“Which two? In fact the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Conscious Being,’ which form the subject-matter of the present context; but from the next verse it appears that it is the Conscious Being who experiences pleasures and pains; so that the term ‘he’ of the text must stand for that being. And thus the meaning comes to be that ‘this Conscious Being approaches the same Being,’ which is absurd: the ‘approached’ and the ‘approacher’ being the same.”

True; but the difference intended is an assumed one. In fact, what is meant by ‘approaching’ is that ‘the said Being is all that remains of the man’; the sense being that as the ‘Conscious Being,’ he was invested with the aggregate of the ‘life-breath and other accessories, called the ‘Great Principle,’ but after having experienced the results of his misdeeds, he becomes divested of it, and remains in the form of the pure ‘Conscious Being,’—who has his abode in the Subtle Body only.

Others explain the ‘two Glorious Ones’ as standing for the Great Principle and the Supreme Self.

‘Conducive to misery.’—It is only after the sins have been destroyed that one experiences pleasure; so long as adverse sins are there, even in the slightest degree, there can be no pleasure; just as when there is slightest indigestion, there is no pleasure in eating anything.—(18)

महत् परमात्मानौ ॥ १२.१७–१८ ॥

018 He, having suffered for his faults, which are produced by attachment to sensual objects, and which result in misery, approaches, free from stains, those two mighty ones.

Those two together carefully look into his merit and demerit, invested with which both, he obtains happiness or unhappiness, here and after death.—(19)

ननु च यदि तौ महान् क्षेत्रज्ञश् च संबध्येते ततस् तस्य पश्यत इति तस्येति कः संबध्यते ।

• जीव इति केचित् ।

• उक्तं च “स एव क्षेत्रज्ञः स एव जीवः” इति ।

• अथ लिङ्गम् ।

• ननु च महच्छब्देन तद् एवोक्तम् ।

• अथान्तःकरणं महद्बुद्ध्यादि

• तत्रापि कः संबन्धो लिङ्गस्य धर्माधर्माभ्याम् । तद् धि सूक्ष्मं भूतरूपम् एव । यथोक्तम् “तेषाम् इदं तु सप्तानाम्” इत्य् अत्रान्तरे ।

• अतो मन्यामहे यद् एवान्यैर् व्याख्यातम् अस्ति पूर्वश्लोके⁴⁹ “ताव् एवोभौ” (म्ध् १२.१८) इति “महत्परमात्मानौ” बुध्येते इति, तद् एव युक्तं⁵⁰ पश्यामः । तयोर् हि दृष्टान्त उपपद्यते । महतः करणस्य सतः⁵¹ कर्तृत्वोपचारात्, काष्ठानि पचन्तीति यथा ।** तस्येति** च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य परामर्शभेदोपपत्तिः ।

• परमात्मनश् च क्षेत्रज्ञाश्रययोर् धर्माधर्मयोर् दृष्टान्तवचनं सर्वस्य सुखदुःखोपबोगस्य तदधीनताख्यापनार्थम् । यथोक्तम्,

• ईश्वरप्रेरितो गच्छेत् स्वर्गं वाश्वरभ्रम् एव वा । (म्ध् ३.३१.२७)

प्रेरणा च धर्माधर्मनियमितेच्छैव ।

• ननु च धर्माधर्मयोर् इच्छां प्रति नियन्तृत्व ऐश्वर्यं हीयते ।

• तथा शारीरके दर्शितम्, यथेह राजा सेवानुरूपं ददाति न च तस्येश्वरत्वम् अपैति । अतो महत्परमात्मानौ पश्यत इति व्यपदिश्यते ।

• तस्येति क्षेत्रज्ञज्ञानम् । तद् अप्य् अयुक्तम्, उत्तरग्रन्थविरोधात् । याम्यां⁵²** प्राप्नोति संपृक्त** इति । न हि परमात्मना कस्यचित् संपर्कः संबन्ध उच्यते । न च परमात्मना कश्चित् संबन्धो ऽपि ।

• एवं तर्ह्य् अत्र⁵³ याभ्याम् इति नैवं महत्परमात्मानौ संबध्येते । किं तर्हि, धर्मः पापं च, तयोर् अपि प्रकृतत्वात् । तौ धर्मं पश्यतस् तस्य पापं चेति ।

• यदि महच्छब्देनान्तःकरणम् उच्यते, सुतराम् अनुपपत्तिः । न हि परमात्मनो द्रष्टृत्वे करणापेक्षा⁵⁴ । अधिकरणम् एव हि बोधिपरमात्मस्वरूपम् “अभ्येति ताव् एव चोभौ” (म्ध् १२.१८) इति । कीदृशम् एतद् अभिगमनम् । यदि तद्भावापत्तिः सा नैव कल्मषव्यपायमात्रसाध्या । अथ तत्प्राप्तिप्रवणता, सापि⁵⁵ नैव प्रलीनेषु भूतेष्व् अशरीरस्य भवति ।

• तस्मात् तौ धर्मं पश्यतस् तस्य, तस्यैवात्मन इति पूर्ववन् नेयम् ॥ १२.१९ ॥

“If the ‘two’ be meant to be the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Conscious Being,’ then, for whom does the term ‘his’ stand?”

Some people hold that this latter term stands for the ‘Soul’ (Jīva).

But it has already been said that the ‘Soul’ is the same as the ‘Conscious Being.’

Another view is that ‘his’ stands for the Subtle Body. But this also is the same as the ‘Great Principle.’

The third view is that it stands for the Internal Organ, consisting of the ‘Intelligence’ (Buddhi) and the rest.

But in this case, it will have to be explained what connection there is between this Internal Organ and ‘Merit—Demerit.’ For the said organ is nothing more than a subtle form of Matter; as was made clear under 1.19.

For all these reasons what we think is that the right explanation is to take the term ‘two’ as standing for the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Supreme Self,’ in accordance with the explanation provided by some people of the term ‘two’ (in Verse 18); as it is only for these two that the act of ‘looking into’ is possible;—the ‘Great Principle,’ which is really an instrument (of perception) being figuratively spoken of as the nominative agent; just as in the case of such expressions as ‘Fuels are cooking.’ And the term ‘his’ would, in this case, refer to the ‘Conscious Being,’ as apart from the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Supreme Self.’

And when the ‘Supreme Self’ is spoken of as ‘looking into’ the ‘merit and demerit’ belonging to the ‘Conscious Being,’ what is meant is that all experiencing of pleasure and pain is under the control of that Supreme Being. This is what has been asserted in the following passage:—‘Impelled by the Supreme Lord one may go either to Heaven or to the bottomless pit’;—where ‘impelling’ can stand only for ‘wish as regulated by the merit and demerit of the man.’

“But if the man’s merit and demerit were to regulate the wish of God, then this would deprive God of his very character of the Supreme Lord.”

This has been explained in the Śārīraka that the ease of God a warding happiness and unhappiness in accordance with the merit and demerit of the man stands on the same footing as the King bestowing his rewards in accordance with the nature of the services rendered by each man,—which fact does not deprive him of his kingly power. This is what is meant by the ‘Great Principle’ and the ‘Supreme Self’ ‘looking into’ the merit and demerit—of the ‘Conscious Being.’

“This cannot be right; as it would be inconsistent with what follows—‘invested with which he obtains, etc.’ Because no one is ever spoken of as ‘invested’—connected—with the Supreme Self. In fact, there can be no sort of connection with the Supreme Self.”

It is for this reason that the phrase ‘with which both’ of the text should he taken as referring, not to the ‘Great Principle’ and the Supreme Self, but to Merit and Demerit; and these latter also form the subject-matter of the context (and as such can be referred to by the pronoun in question) as is clear from the sentence—‘they look into his merit and demerit.’

If the term ‘Great Principle,’ (‘mahat’), be taken as standing for the Internal Organ, then there would certainly be an incongruity, as the Supreme Self does not stand in need of an Instrument for his perceptions.

“Under Verse 18, however, the Supreme Self, which is of the nature of true Consciousness, has been spoken of as being approached;—now what sort o f approaching would this be? If it meant becoming one with him, then this could not be brought about merely by the destruction of sins. If, on the other hand, it meant capability of reaching him, then this could not be possible for one who has become deprived of his body by the dissolution of the constituent material particles.”

It is for this reason that in the sentence ‘the two look into his merit and demerit,’ the term ‘his’ must be taken, as shown above, as standing for the Self (personal).—(19)

‘Paśyataḥ.’—‘Examine’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka);—‘by their presence, cause to be performed’ (Raghavānanda).

तौ च तत्कृतां धर्मगतिं दृष्ट्वा ॥ १२.१९ ॥

019 Those two together examine without tiring the merit and the guilt of that (individual soul), united with which it obtains bliss or misery both in this world and the next.

If he practises virtue for the most part, and vice only in a small degree, then, invested with those same material substances, he obtains happiness in heaven.—(20)

प्रायशो बाहुल्येन तैर् एव भूतैर् महदादिभिर् महाभूतपर्यन्तैः स्वर्गे सुखम् आप्नोति ॥ १२.२० ॥

‘For the most part’—to a very great degree.

‘Those same material substances’—i.e., those beginning with the Great Principle and ending with the Great Elemental Substances.

He obtains happiness in heaven.—(20)

020 If (the soul) chiefly practises virtue and vice to a small degree, it obtains bliss in heaven, clothed with those very elements.

If on the other hand he practises vice for the most part, and virtue only in a small degree,—then, becoming deserted by those substances, he suffers the torments inflicted by Yama.—(21)

• उच्यते । न भौतिकं सरीरं नाप्य् अशरीरस्य यातनाः । किं तर्हि, अत्यन्तविलक्षणे ते मानुषसरीरे ऽतो ऽन्यान्य् एतानि मृदुस्निग्धसुकुमारशरीरारम्भकाण्य् अत्यन्तविलक्षणानि⁵⁶ ।

• दुःखाभिघातनिष्कृत्या परित्यक्त उच्यते । यानि शरीराणि स्वर्गभोग्यानि⁵⁷ तैः परित्यक्तः ॥ १२.२१ ॥

“It has been said under 10 that the body of misbehaved persons is made out of five constituents; how is it that here the man is said to be ‘deserted’ by the substances?”

Our answer is that the man has no material body,—and yet there can be no ‘torments’ for one devoid of a body; so that the bodies of men here referred to are of an entirely distinct kind; and when the man is described as ‘deserted by the substances,’ the substances meant are those of peculiar character, such as are productive of exceptionally soft and smooth and delicate bodies; and ‘deserted’ means that he has expiated for his sins by the pain suffered; and what he is deserted by are those bodies with which people become invested in Heaven.—(21)

अधर्मभूयस्त्वात् ।

021 But if it chiefly cleaves to vice and to virtue in a small degree, it suffers, deserted by the elements, the torments inflicted by Yama.

That personality, having suffered those torments inflicted by Yama, and thereby freed from sin, again enters into those very material substances, each in due proportion.—(22)

प्राग्व्याख्यातो ऽयम् । एतच् चास्यश्लोकचतुष्टयस्य⁵⁸ तात्पर्यम् । यदि भूयान् अधर्मस् तदा याम्यो यातनाः, न तु स्वल्पे ऽधर्मे, अस्मिन्न् एव लोके ऽसुखानुभवेन⁵⁹ स्वर्गावाप्तिः ॥ १२.२२ ॥

The sense of this has been already explained before.

The purport of these four verses is as follows:—It is only when there is a large amount of vice, that these torments are inflicted by Yama,—and not when there is a small amount of vice (and a larger amount of virtue); in which latter case heavenly happiness is experienced in this world itself.—(22)

पुनर् अस्य कर्मजस्य शरीरस्य प्रतिपत्त्यर्थं ता एव पञ्चभूतमात्रा अब्येति । येन न ताभिर् विना पुरुषस्योपभोगः संभवति ॥ १२.२२ ॥

022 The individual soul, having endured those torments of Yama, again enters, free from taint, those very five elements, each in due proportion.

Having recognised, in his own mind, the conditions of the Personality, due to Virtue and Vice, one should fix his heart upon Virtue.—(23)

स्वल्पार्थो ऽयम् । धर्मतो ऽधर्मत इति नञः प्रश्लेषः, धर्माधर्मनिमित्तात् । जीवस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्यात्मनः । स्वेनैव चेतसा शास्त्रप्रामान्यात् तदनुभवेत्⁶⁰ । कृत्स्नशास्त्रार्थफलोपसंहारः ॥ १२.२३ ॥

There is very little in this verse.

In the phrase ‘dharmatodharmataḥ,’ an ‘a’ is to be taken as understood (after the first ‘dharmataḥ’).

The conditions of the Conscious Entity, Soul, are due to Virtue and Vice.

‘In his own mind’—through the help of the scriptures. This verse sums up the contents of the entire ordinances.—

एतां दृष्ट्वास्य जीवस्य गतिं स्वेनैव चेतसा ।

शास्त्रसंस्कृतेनेत्य् अर्थः ।

धर्मतो ऽधर्मतश् चैव धर्मे दद्यात् सदा मनः ॥ १२.२३ ॥

एतच् च प्रकरणं प्रायश्चित्त[शेषतय्]आ विज्ञेयम् । अथ वा कृत्स्नशास्त्रशेषतयैव विज्ञेयम् । यस्माद् अत्रेष्टानिष्टफलप्रदर्शनम् अधर्मपरिहाराय धर्मस्वीकरणाय चार्थात् संभवति ॥ १२.२३ ॥

023 Let (man), having recognised even by means of his intellect these transitions of the individual soul (which depend) on merit and demerit, always fix his heart on (the acquisition of) merit.

Know Sattva, Rajas and Tamas to be the three qualities of the Self, by means of which the Great One completely pervades all these beings.—(24)

धर्माधर्मयोः कर्मकाण्डोपयोगि यत् तद् उक्तम् । इदानीं विद्याकाण्डम् आरिप्सते । तत्र द्वैताश्रयम् इव तावद् अङ्गार्थं प्रक्रियते । सत्वादयस् त्रयो गुणा आत्मनः । नात्रात्मा जीवः । किं तर्हि, महान् एव । आत्मशब्दः स्वभाववचनो न प्रत्यक्त्ववचनः । निर्गुणो हि पुरुषः । +++(5)+++

• अथ वा भोग्यतया भोक्तुर् एवात्मनः संबन्धित्वेन व्यपदिश्यते ।

• महान् इति च प्रधानम् एवोच्यते, प्रत्यासत्तेः+++(=निकटतायाः)+++ । आद्या हि विक्रियोद्भूतिः प्रधानस्य महद्-आख्या । यथा जीवन्त्यौ जीवतौ⁶¹ प्रमावस्था-वाप्य-भवान्⁶² विकारान् अवस्थितः, प्रकृतित्वात् सर्व-विकाराणाम् इदम् उच्यते ॥ १२.२४ ॥

All that appertains to the Action-side of human activity has been expounded; what appertains to the Knowledge-side of it. is now set forth. And what is now stated, at the outset, deals with the subordinate factors, and hence appears to savour of Dualism.

Sattva and the rest are the three qualities of the ‘Self.’ The term ‘Self’ here stands, not for the Soul, but for the Great Principle. In fact, the term ‘Self’ denotes one’s nature, and not necessarily the inner side of things. And then the Soul by its very nature, is devoid of qualities.

Or what is mentioned here refers to the Soul that undergoes experiences,—the qualities being the object of experience.

‘Great One’—This stands for Primordial matter itself,—this being what happens to be in closest proximity to the Great Principle, which is the first to evolve out of Primordial Matter. It is so called (the ‘Great One’) because it is the source of all Emanations.—(24)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 487);—find in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, 40b.)

Yājñavalkya (3.182).—‘Sattva, Rajas and Tamas have been declared to be the attributes of Ātman; when obsessed by Rajas and Tamas, it is made to revolve like a wheel.’

सत्त्वादीनाम् आत्मगुणत्वं वक्ष्यति । सत्त्वं ज्ञानं तमो ऽज्ञानम् इत्य् एवमादि । ज्ञानादयस् च पुरुषधर्मा यतः सत्त्वादीनाम् आत्मगुणत्वम् उच्यते, अधिकृतधर्माधर्मापेक्षया । अपरे त्व् आहुः — सत्त्वादीनाम् अनात्मगुणानाम् अपि तद् अर्थत्वाद् आत्मगुणम् इदम् उच्यते, प्रधानं चेहात्मशब्देनोच्यते ॥ १२.२४ ॥

024 Know Goodness (sattva), Activity (ragas), and Darkness (tamas) to be the three qualities of the Self, with which the Great One always completely pervades all existences.

Whichsoever of these qualities wholly predominates in a body, it makes the owner of that body abound in that quality.—(25)

यद्य् अपि सर्वं त्रिगुणं तथापि यो यदा गुणः साकल्येन कार्त्स्न्येन अतिरिच्यते आधिक्यं प्राप्नोति पूर्वकर्मातिशयवशात्, स तदा पुरुषस्य गुणान्तरम् अभिभवति । अतः शरीरी तद्गुणप्रायो भवति । तदीयम् एव धर्मम् आदर्शयति, गुणान्तरं जहातीव ॥ १२.२५ ॥

Though every entity is possessed of the three qualities, yet if any one of these should happen to ‘wholly’—entirely—‘predominate’—exceed others—in a body, on account of the influence of his past deeds, that quality suppresses every other quality of that person; hence, the owner of that body comes to ‘abound in that quality’; that is, in his character, he shows signs of that quality and abandons in the other qualities.—(25)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 487);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, 40b.)

पूर्वकर्मास्रयवशात् कस्यचित् कदाचिद् अत्रातिरेको भवति ॥ १२.२५ ॥

025 When one of these qualities wholly predominates in a body, then it makes the embodied (soul) eminently distinguished for that quality.

‘Sattva’ has been declared to be Knowledge, ‘Tamas,’ to be Ignorance, and ‘Rajas,’ to be Love and Hate;—such is the nature of these, all-pervading and interpenetrating all beings.—(26)

सामान्यम् एतद् एषां लक्षणं व्यापि सर्वप्राणिषु । ज्ञानं वेदकम् । अज्ञानं मोहः, न यथा मदमूर्च्छाद्यवस्थास्व् अचैतन्यम् एव⁶³ । उभयरूपता रजः । राग-द्वेष-शब्देनोभय-धर्म-योग उच्यते । नापि सम्यग्-ज्ञान-वशानाम् अतिशयेन क्रोधो, न चातिप्रमादः⁶⁴ । तत् तद् रजः । वपुः स्वभावः । अनुच्छेदाद् बीजवासनाया आ ब्रह्म-प्राप्ति-स्थितत्वात्⁶⁵ ॥ १२.२६ ॥

Such in general is the character of these, pervading over all living beings.

‘Knowledge’—cognition.

‘Ajñana,’ ‘Ignorance’—stands for Delusion; not for the unconsciousness caused by intoxication, swoon or such other causes.

‘Rajas’ has a two-fold character; the two terms ‘rajas’ and ‘tamas,’ being indicative of two distinct characteristics.

Those who are influenced by knowledge and wisdom are never affected by too much anger, nor are they ever careless.

‘Vapuḥ,’ ‘nature’—character.—This is all-pervading, because the seed of impressions is never destroyed, lasting as it does till one has attained Brahman—(26)

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 487);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda, (Prāyaścitta 40b.)

सत्त्वादीनाम् इदं लक्षणं सर्वप्राणिषु ॥ १२.२६ ॥

026 Goodness is declared (to have the form of) knowledge, Darkness (of) ignorance, Activity (of) love and hatred; such is the nature of these (three) which is (all-) pervading and clings to everything created.

Whenever one perceives in himself something full of bliss, calm and pure,—he should know it to be ‘Sattva.’—(27)

प्रीतिसंयुक्तं संवेदनं शुद्धाभं शुद्धम् इवाभाति रजस्तमोभ्याम् अकलुषितं मद-मान-राग-द्वेष-लोभ-मोह-भय-शोक-मात्सर्य-दोष-रहितम् । एवं सर्वम् । एषा चावस्था +++(पाठकेन)+++ स्वसंवेद्यैकस्यां⁶⁶ वेलायां भवेत् ॥ १२.२७ ॥

‘Full of bliss’—a feeling of happiness.

‘Śuddhābham’—that which appears pure, not tainted by ‘Rajas’ and ‘Tamas,’ and hence free from passions, vanity, love, hatred, covetousness, delusion, fear, grief and jealousy. This condition is one that should be realised by the man himself, at some time or the other.—(27)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 999), which has the following notes:—‘Prīti’ is sukha, happiness; what brings about this happiness is ‘prītisaṃyuktam’;—śuddhābham, the source of faultless knowledge,—this is ‘Sattva.’

**(verses 12.27-29)
**

Mahābhārata (12.194.31-33;—219.29-31).—(Same as Manu.)

कर्मप्रवृत्त्येयं समासतः सत्त्ववृत्तिर् आत्मसंवेद्योच्यते ॥ १२.२७ ॥

027 When (man) experiences in his soul a (feeling) full of bliss, a deep calm, as it were, and a pure light, then let him know (that it is) among those three (the quality called) Goodness.

What is mixed with pain and brings unhappiness to the Soul,—know that to be ‘Rajas,’ imperceptible and constantly attracting embodied beings.—(28)

दुःखेन समायुक्तं संभिन्नं शुद्धं प्रीति-रूपं न भवत्य् अत उच्यते अप्रीतिकरं दुःखानुविद्धतया प्रीत्या न युक्तम् । अप्रतिपम् अप्रत्यक्षं पारमार्थिकम् । एतद् रजसो रूपं हर्तृविषयेषु⁶⁷ प्रवर्तकं स्पृहा-जनकम् इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १२.२८ ॥

‘Mixed with pain’—interspersed with pain; and not pure, hence described as ‘bringing unhappiness,’—being mixed up with pain, it does not make men happy.

‘Apratīpam’—imperceptible, though real.

This is the form of ‘Rajas’—‘constantly attracting men towards sensual objects, arousing in their mind a longing for these.—(28)

**(verses 12.27-29)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.27].

अत्रापि पूर्ववद् अर्थसमायोजना ॥ १२.२८ ॥

028 What is mixed with pain and does not give satisfaction to the soul one may know (to be the quality of) Activity, which is difficult to conquer, and which ever draws embodied (souls towards sensual objects).

What is mixed with stupefaction, undiscernible, of the nature of sensual objects, incapable of being reasoned about and uncognisable,—one should recognise as ‘Tamas.’—(29)

मोहो वैचित्यं युक्तायुक्तविवेकाभावः । विषय आत्मा स्वभावो यस्य ।

• ननु चायम् अविषयो ऽन्तरात्मत्वाद् एव । तत् कथं विषयस्वभाव्ः ।

• मोहविषयानुरागात् बुद्धिर् इव एवम् उच्यते । विषयाद् वातीव बुद्धिस् तदात्मिका संपद्यत इति संख्यात्रैगुण्यं न त्व् अन्तर्बहिःसत्त्वानाम् अविशब्दम् ।

• अप्रतर्क्यं तदनुमानगोचरम् । अविज्ञेयम् अन्तर्बहिःकरणानाम् अगोचर इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १२.२९ ॥

‘Stupefaction’— absent-mindedness, incapability to discriminate between right and wrong.

‘Of the nature of sensual objects’—that which has the character of sensual objects.

“The guṇa of Tamas is not an object, being something internal; how, then, can it have the character of the object?

This is so described, on account of Delusion being the cause of attachment to objects. That which creates a longing for a thing is said to be of the nature of that thing.

‘Incapable of being reasoned about’—beyond Inference. ‘Unknowable’—beyond the reach of external as well as internal organs.—(29)

**(verses 12.27-29)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.27].

तमोवृत्तिर् अपि पूर्ववद् विज्ञेया ॥ १२.२९ ॥

029 What is coupled with delusion, what has the character of an undiscernible mass, what cannot be fathomed by reasoning, what cannot be fully known, one must consider (as the quality of) Darkness.

I am now going to fully describe the results,—good, middling and bad—proceeding from these three qualities.—(30)

त्रयाणाम् एषाम् आसेव्यमानानां यत् फलम् उत्पद्यत उत्तमाधममध्यमं तद्वक्तव्यतया प्रतिज्ञायते । यस्मिन् गुण उद्रिक्ते यः पुरुषस्य स्वभावो भवति स उच्यत इति प्रतिज्ञा ॥ १२.३० ॥

‘These three’—when they are duly practised, there proceed certain results,—which are either good, bad or middling:—and this is what is now promised as the subject to be dealt with; the exact form of the promise being—‘I am now going to describe that character which the man acquires as the result of the predominance of a particular quality.’—(30)

प्रतिज्ञाश्लोकः ॥ १२.३० ॥

030 I will, moreover, fully describe the results which arise from these three qualities, the excellent ones, the middling ones, and the lowest.

Vedic study, austerity, knowledge, purity, control over the organs, practice of virtue and meditation on the Soul,—are the characteristics of the quality of ‘Sattva.’—(31)

तत्संबन्धगुणलक्षणम्⁶⁸ इत्य् एवं वक्तव्यतया प्रतिज्ञायते । सात्विकम् इति कथंचिद् योजयितव्यम् । गुणो लक्ष्यते येन तद् गुणलक्षणम् । तत् कस्येति । सात्विकम् इति संबन्धः । प्रयोजनं समुदाय-संबन्ध्यवयवा अपि दृश्यन्ते । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति । सत्त्वस्य⁶⁹ गुणस्यैतल् लक्षणम् ।

यथा देवदत्तस्य गुरुकुलम् । गुरुर् उपसर्जनी-भूतो ऽपि देवदत्त-पदेन संबध्यते, तद्-वद् एतत् द्रष्टव्यम् । पदार्था व्याख्याताः ॥ १२.३१ ॥

‘The characteristics of the quality’ is the declaration of the subject of treatment.

The term ‘sāttvikam’ is to be construed with difficulty as follows:—‘Guṇalakṣaṇam’ is that by which the quality is characterised; and the question arising ‘of what quality?’—the answer is supplied by the term ‘sāttvikam,’ ‘of sattva.’—When need arises, even the part of a compound becomes construed by itself, with another word; and the meaning thus comes to be that—‘this is the characteristic of the quality of ‘Sattva.’ This phrase should be understood to stand on the same footing as the phrase ‘devadattasya gurukulam,’ where the term ‘guru’ though forming the subordinate factor of the compound ‘gurukulam,’ is construed with the term ‘devadattasya.’

The meaning of the words has been already explained.—(31)

Yājñavalkya (3.136).—‘Knowing the Self, pure, self-controlled, devoted to austerities, with senses under control, acting righteously, and cognisant with the Veda, a man abounds in the attribute of Sattva and is born among celestial beings.’

[(See 83, below.)]

031 The study of the Vedas, austerity, (the pursuit of) knowledge, purity, control over the organs, the performance of meritorious acts and meditation on the Soul, (are) the marks of the quality of Goodness.

Proneness to undertake work, impatience, commission of improper acts, constant addiction to sensual objects are the characteristics of the quality of ‘Rajas.’—(32)

कर्मणां काम्यानां दृष्टार्थानाम् अदृष्टार्थानां चारम्भे रतिर् वृथारम्भश् च । एतत् राजसं लक्षणम् । अधैर्यम् अल्पे ऽप्य् उपघातहेतौ चेतसो ऽसमाश्वासः । दैन्यग्रहणम् उत्साहत्यागः । असत्कार्यं लोकशास्त्रविरुद्धम्, तस्य परिग्रह आचरणम् । विषये सङ्गो ऽजस्रं पुनः पुनः प्रवृत्तिः ॥ १२.३२ ॥

Proneness to take up, unnecessarily, the performance of acts, conducive to perceptible and imperceptible results.

These are the characteristics of the quality of ‘Rajas.’

‘Impatience’—loss of mental equanimity at even slight disturbing causes.

If we read ‘dainya’ (for ‘-dhairya’), it should he understood to mean loss of ambition, humiliation.

‘Commission of improper acts’— the performance of such acts as are forbidden by the scriptures.

‘Addiction to sensual objects’—being repeatedly attracted by objects of sensual pleasure.—(32)

‘Adhairyam’—‘Impatience’ (Medhātithi);—‘Want of contented disposition’ (Nārāyaṇa).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

Maitryupaniṣad (3.5).

Yājñavalkya (3.137-138).—‘Addicted to bad acts, impatient, active, attached to objects of sense, a man abounds in the attribute of Rajas, and is re-born among men. Lethargic, cruel in bis acts, covetous, heretic, addicted to begging, careless, of bad character, a man abounds in the attribute of Tamas, and is born among animals.’

032 Delighting in undertakings, want of firmness, commission of sinful acts, and continual indulgence in sensual pleasures, (are) the marks of the quality of Activity.

Avarice, drowsiness, irresolution, cruelty, disbelief, bad character, habit of begging, and inattentiveness are the characteristics of the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(33)

धनादिषु रागो लोभः । क्रौर्यं स्वल्पे ऽपराधे वैरानुबन्धः । नास्तिक्यं प्रमादता । भिन्नवृत्तिता शीलभ्रंशः । चग्रहणेन⁷⁰ शिष्टविगर्हणा । याचिष्णुता याचकत्वं तच्छीलता । प्रमादो ऽनवधानं धर्मादिष्व् अपायपरिहारेष्व्⁷¹ अनादरः । स्वप्नो ऽधृतिर् इति नञ्प्रश्लेषः ॥ १२.३३ ॥

‘Avarice’—longing for possessing riches and other things.

‘Cruelty’—taking offence at even a slight fault.

‘Disbelief’—recklessness.

‘Bad character’—loss of character.

The particle ‘ca’ implies ‘disrespect for elders.’

‘Habit of begging’—being addicted to soliciting favours.

‘Inattentiveness’—carelessness; want of attention to the performance of duties and to the avoidance of failure.

Between ‘svapno’ and ‘dhṛtiḥ,’ an ‘a’ is understood.—(33)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

सत्त्वादीनां त्रिभिः श्लोकैः फलोदयो ऽयम् उच्यते ॥ १२.३१–३३ ॥

033 Covetousness, sleepiness, pusillanimity, cruelty, atheism, leading an evil life, a habit of soliciting favours, and inattentiveness, are the marks of the quality of Darkness.

This should be understood to be in brief the characteristic of these three qualities in order, as they appear at the three times.—(34)

त्रिषु कालेषु साम्योपचयापचयेषु वोत्तमाधममध्यमेषु च फलोदयेषु । इदम् इति वक्ष्यमाणस्य निर्देशः ॥ १२.३४ ॥

‘At the three times.’—This refers either (a) to the three conditions of equilibrium, increase and decrease, or (b) the high, low and middling character of the results.

‘This’—refers to what follows.—(34)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

034 Know, moreover, the following to be a brief description of the three qualities, each in its order, as they appear in the three (times, the present, past, and future).

When, having done, or doing, or going to do a certain act, a man happen to feel ashamed,—every such act should be understood by the learned to be characterised by the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(35)

यद् उक्तं “त्रिषु” (म्ध् १२.३४) इति कालनिर्देशस् तद् दर्शयति- कृत्वा कुर्वन् करिष्यन्न् इति च । कदाचित् त्रिष्व् अपि कालेषु कदाचिद् अन्यतरस्मिन् । “किम् अर्थम् अहम् एवम् अकरवं कथं शिष्टानाम् अग्रतो भवामि” इति लज्जा चेतसि परिखेदः ॥ १२.३५ ॥

‘Having done, or doing, or going to do.’—This indicates what has been spoken of as the ‘three times’; the said feeling may appear in some cases, at all the three points of time, while in others only at one or other of them; and it appears in the form of regret—‘Why did I do such an act? How can I appear before gentlemen?’—(35)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

035 When a (man), having done, doing, or being about to do any act, feels ashamed, the learned may know that all (such acts bear) the mark of the quality of Darkness.

When, by a certain act, the man desires great fame in this world, and does not mind failure—this should be understood to partake of the quality of ‘Rajas.’—(36)

“लोके साधुवादो ममैवं स्यात्” इति बुद्ध्या यद् याग-तपो-धर्माणाम्⁷² आचरणं - तच् च ख्यापनार्थम् । यथा तीर्थ-काकेभ्यो⁷³ दानं, राजनि स्पर्धया जल्पः, शूद्रेभ्यः शास्त्र-व्याख्यानम्+++(5)+++ । पुष्कलाम् इत्य् अनेनानुषङ्गित्वात् ख्यातेः सहायताम् आह ।

धर्मार्थं प्रवर्तमानस्य यदि जनाः प्रकाशयन्ति तादृशो धर्मो न दोषाय । तद् उक्तं “यथेक्षुहेतोः” इति । यथा महाभारताख्याने कृष्णद्वैपायनेनोक्तम्-

यथेक्षुसक्तो युधि+++(→त्वरया?)+++ कर्षको ऽस्ति तृणानि वल्लीर् अपि संचिनोति⁷⁴ ।+++(5)+++
तथा नरो धर्मपथेन संचरन्
यशश् च कामांश् च वसूनि चाश्नुते ॥

असम्पत्तौ च कर्मफलानाम् । न शोचति न दुःखम् अस्ति । अथ वा कर्मणाम् असंपत्तौ ॥ १२.३६ ॥

The motive being—‘by doing this act I shall obtain praise in the world,’—if one performs sacrifices, austerities or other righteous acts; as also such acts for winning fame as giving gifts to the beggars at sacred places, bragging against the king, expounding the scriptures before Śūdras, and so forth.

‘Great.’—This implies that what is objectionable is the doing of the act with the sole motive of obtaining fame; there is nothing wrong if the fame comes, only by the way; if, for instance, people talk of the man’s righteous deeds, when these are done only through righteousness (and not for any other purpose), such fame does not vitiate the moral quality of the act; as has been declared to be the case with the man in picking up ‘sugar cane,’ as described by Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana in the story of the Mahāhhārata—‘When a man is gathering sugarcane, he gathers, along with it, also grasses and creepers; and in the same manner, the man, when treading the path of righteousness, also obtains fame, happiness and wealth.’

‘Failure’—of the results to appear;—‘he does not mind’—feels no sorrow; or ‘failure’ may mean the non-completion of the act.—(36)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

036 But, when (a man) desires (to gain) by an act much fame in this world and feels no sorrow on failing, know that it (bears the mark of the quality of) Activity.

When, however, the act is one which he wishes to understand in all its details, by doing which he does not feel ashamed, and by which his heart feels satisfied,—it is characterised by the quality of ‘Sattva.’—(37)

विस्पष्टो ऽयम् ॥ १२.३७ ॥

This is quite clear.—(37)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

चतुर्भिः श्लोकैर् अर्थनिर्मलत्वायायं गुणलक्षणः पूर्व[श्लोकार्थः पुनर्] उच्यते । तल्लक्षणम् एवेदं चापरम् अनेन प्रकारेणान्यथोच्यते ॥ १२.३४–३७ ॥

037 But that (bears) the mark of the quality of Goodness which with his whole (heart) he desires to know, which he is not ashamed to perform, and at which his soul rejoices.

Pleasure is the distinguishing feature of ‘Tamas,’ ‘Wealth’ is described to be that of ‘Rajas,’ and ‘Spiritual Merit’ is the distinguishing feature of ‘Sattva,’—each succeeding one of these being superior to the preceding.—(38)

• उच्यते । मोहरूपं तमो ऽत्र संवेदनम् अस्ति ।

• तद् अपि सत्त्वस्यैव लक्षणम्, “सत्यं ज्ञानम्” (म्ध् १२.२६) इत्य् उक्तत्वात् ।

• उच्यते । नात्र भोक्तृभोग्यभावावस्थाभिप्रेता । किं तर्हि, विषयगतस्पृहातिशयः । न च तस्याम् अवस्थायां सुखोत्पत्तिः । अव्यक्तविषयत्वं च विद्यते । कामप्रधानस्य युक्तायुक्तविवेकशून्यत्वाद् अस्त्य् एव मोहरूपता । ईदृशश् चात्र कामो ऽभिप्रेतः । न यद् ऋतौ शास्त्रार्थतया स्वदारेषु गमनौत्सुक्यम् ॥ १२.३८ ॥

“There is happiness in pleasure also; so what has been described as the characteristic of ‘Sattva’ (under Verso 27, above)—‘when one feels bliss, etc., etc.,’ would apply to this also; how then can it be the distinguishing feature of ‘Tamas,’ which is of the nature of ‘stupefaction,’ while in Pleasure, there is keen consciousness, which also is a characteristic of ‘Sattva,’ since it has been declared above that ‘Sattva is knowledge, etc.’? (26).”

The answer to the above is as follows:—What is set forth in the present verse is not the condition of the Agent or of the object of experience; what is meant is an excessive longing for a certain end; and certainly at the time of the longing, there is no happiness, since the object longed for is not there.

Thus then, whenever a man has an excessive craving for Pleasure, he becomes deprived of the power to discriminate between right and wrong, and is really in a state of stupefaction. It is this sort of craving that is meant by the term ‘pleasure,’—and such desire as for the company of one’s wife during her ‘season.’—(38)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

गुणाना[म् एव] ।

038 The craving after sensual pleasures is declared to be the mark of Darkness, (the pursuit of) wealth (the mark) of Activity, (the desire to gain) spiritual merit the mark of Goodness; each later) named quality is) better than the preceding one.

I am now going to describe, briefly, in due order, those migratory states into which one falls through each quality from among these.—(39)

एषां गुणानां मध्ये येन गुणेन यान् संसारान् पुरुषः प्रतिपद्यते । संसारशब्दो गतिवचनः । यानि जन्मानि प्राप्नोतीत्य् अर्थः । तद् उत्तरत्र वक्ष्यत इति प्रतिज्ञाश्लोकः ॥ १२.३९ ॥

‘From among these.’—qualities;—by what quality what migratory states’ are fallen into by man;—‘migratory states’ standing for states of existence;—i.e., the births that he takes,—is going to be described in the following verses.

This verse promises what is going to be done.—(39)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 693).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

उपक्षेपो वक्ष्यमाणस्यायम् । सो ऽयम् उच्यते ॥ १२.३९ ॥

039 I will briefly declare in due order what transmigrations in this whole (world a man) obtains through each of these qualities.

Those partaking of ‘Sattva’ reach the state of the gods, those endowed with ‘Rajas,’ the state of men, and those characterised by ‘Tamas,’ the state of beasts; such is the threefold migratory state.—(40)

सामान्येन गतिनिर्देशो गुणनिमित्तो ऽयम् ॥ १२.४० ॥

This verse indicates in general the states of existence brought about by the three qualities.—(40)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 698);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prayaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a.)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

समासनिर्देशो गतेर् गुणनिमित्तायाः ॥ १२.४० ॥

040 Those endowed with Goodness reach the state of gods, those endowed with Activity the state of men, and those endowed with Darkness ever sink to the condition of beasts; that is the threefold course of transmigrations.

This threefold Migratory State due to the qualities should be understood to be again of three kinds each—high, low and middling, in accordance with the peculiar character of the act and knowledge of each man.—(41)

एषा त्रिविधा गौणिकी सत्त्वादिगुणप्रयुक्ता प्रत्येकं पुनः त्रिविधोत्तमाधममध्यमभेदेन। अतो नवधा संपद्यते । कर्मविद्याविशेषाच् चानन्ताः, कुशलाकुशलकर्मवशात् । बुद्धिपूर्वाबुद्धिपूर्वप्रयोगाच्⁷⁵ च कर्मणां⁷⁶ बहुभेदत्वात् । तद् इदम् आह कर्मविद्याविशेषत इति ॥ १२.४१ ॥

‘This threefold migratory state’— due to ‘Sattva’ and the other qualities,—is ‘of three kinds each’—according as it is ‘high, low or middling’; thus they come to be of nine kinds;—there are endless varieties of states, due to ‘the peculiar character of the act and knowledge of each man’; acts are of various kinds, according as they are good or bad, intentional or unintentional, and so forth. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘in accordance with the peculiar character of acts and knowledge’—(41)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, 41a.)

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

त्रिविधा सती पुनः कर्मविद्याभियोगात् त्रिधा भिद्यते । एतास्व् अपि नवसु वृत्तिषु कर्मविद्ययोगाद् एव वृत्तय आनन्त्येन कल्प्यन्ते ॥ १२.४१ ॥

041 But know this threefold course of transmigrations that depends on the (three) qualities (to be again) threefold, low, middling, and high, according to the particular nature of the acts and of the knowledge (of each man).

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

042 Immovable (beings), insects, both small and great, fishes, snakes, and tortoises, cattle and wild animals, are the lowest conditions to which (the quality of) Darkness leads.

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

(१२.४४ इत्यत्र व्याख्यातम्।)

043 Elephants, horses, Sudras, and despicable barbarians, lions, tigers, and boars (are) the middling states, caused by (the quality of) Darkness.

Inanimate beings, worms, insects, fishes, snakes, tortoise, cattle and wild animals,—represent the lowest state due to the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(42)

Elephants, horses, despised Śūdras, Mlecchas, lions, tigers and boars—represent the middling state due to the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(43)

Cāraṇas, Suparṇas, hypocritical men, Rākṣasas, and Piśācas—represent the highest state among those partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas.’—(44)

चारणाः कथक-गायक-स्त्रीसंयोजकादयः । सुपर्णाः पक्षिविशेषाः । शूद्रा गर्हिता इति संबन्धः । ये ब्राह्मणान् अवजानते ये च तद्-भृत्य्-उपजीविनो ये च मद-मानादि-युक्ताः+++(5)+++ । हिंस्राश् चौरा इत्य् एवम्-आदयो विगर्हिताः ॥ १२.४२–४४ ॥

(verses 12.42-44)

‘Cāraṇas’—dancers, singers, pimps, and so forth.

‘Suparṇas’—a particular kind of birds.

The epithet ‘despised’ is to be construed with ‘Śūdras,’—i.e., those Śūdras who disregard the Brāhmaṇas, poach upon their livelihood, and are characterised by haughtiness, vanity, and such qualities. Such injurious persons as thieves and others are also included among the^(‘)despised.’—(42-44)

(verse 12.42)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyahschitta 41a.)

(verse 12.43)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a.)

(verse 12.44)

‘Cāraṇaḥ’—‘Bards, singers etc,’ (Medhātithi);—‘rope-dancers’. (Nārāyaṇa),—‘a class of mythological beings’ (Rāghavānanda.)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000), which adds that the variation in the resultant condition is due to variations in the being’s past acts;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41 a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

044 Karanas, Suparnas and hypocrites, Rakshasas and Pisakas (belong to) the highest (rank of) conditions among those produced by Darkness.

Stick-fencers, wrestlers, actors, men subsisting by the use of weapons, those addicted to gambling and drinking,—represent the lowest state among those partaking of the quality of ‘Rajas.’—(45)

झल्ला मल्ला इति रङ्गावतारकाः । तत्र मल्ला बाहुयोधिनः । झल्ला यष्टिप्रहारिणः परिहासजीविनो वा⁷⁷ ॥ १२.४५ ॥

‘Stick-fencers and wrestlers’—professionals who are used to descend into public arena;—‘Malla’ standing for wrestlers, and ‘jhalla’ for those who fight with sticks, or clowns, who make a living by jokes.—(45)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta, 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

045 Ghallas, Mallas, Natas, men who subsist by despicable occupations and those addicted to gambling and drinking (form) the lowest (order of) conditions caused by Activity.

Kings, Kṣatriyas, priests of kings, and leading wranglers and warriors represent the middling state among those partaking of ‘Rajas.’—(46)

राजानो जनपदेश्वराः । क्षत्रियास् तदनुजीविनः सामन्ताः । वादप्रधानाः शास्त्रार्थगहनेष्व् इतरेतरं जल्पन्ति । युद्धप्रधाना योधकाः ॥ १२.४६ ॥

‘Kings’—rulers of countries.

‘Kṣatriyas’—feudatories living under the king.

‘Leading wranglers’—those who carry on discussions on scientific subjects.

‘Leading warriors’—soldiers.—(46)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 693);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsimhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

046 Kings and Kshatriyas, the domestic priests of kings, and those who delight in the warfare of disputations (constitute) the middling (rank of the) states caused by Activity.

Gandharvas, Guhyakas, ‘Yakṣas,’ the attendants of the gods, and all the Apsaras, represent the high state among those partaking of ‘Rajas.’—(47)

गन्धर्व्आदयो देवास् तेषाम् अर्थवादेतिहासेभ्यो भेदो विज्ञेयः । विबुधा देवास् तेषाम् अनुचराः सिद्धविधाधरादयः ॥ १२.४७ ॥

‘Gandharvas’ and the rest are divine beings; the distinction among whom may be ascertained from the Itihāsas.

‘Vibudhas’ are gods; the ‘attendants’ of these are those known as ‘Siddhas,’ ‘Vidyadharas,’ and so forth—(47)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1000);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 694);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

047 The Gandharvas, the Guhyakas, and the servants of the gods, likewise the Apsarases, (belong all to) the highest (rank of) conditions produced by Activity.

Ascetics and hermits, Brāhmaṇas, celestial beings, lunar asterisms, and Daityas represent the first state partaking of ‘Sattva.’—(48)

तापसास् तपःप्रधाना वानप्रस्थादयः । यतयः परिव्राजकादयः । अनेन च ज्ञापयति न केवलं जन्मोपपत्तिर् गतिजातस्य कर्माचरणाद् अपि । यतो न तापसादयः कतिचिज्जातिविशेषाः, किं तर्हि कर्मनिमित्ता एते व्यपदेशाः ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते । सन्ति मेरुनिवासिनः केचिज् जनपदा यतयो नाम । श्रूयन्ते “इन्द्रो यतीन् सालावृकेभ्यः प्रायच्छत्” (प्ब् ८.१.४) इति ।

• विमानानि यानविशेषाः पुष्पकादयस् तैश् चरन्ति वैमानिकाः अन्तरिक्षचराः केचिद् देवयोनयः । प्रथमा निकृष्टाः ॥ १२.४८ ॥

‘Ascetics’—the Recluse and others devoted to austerities.

‘Hermits’—wandering mendicants, and the rest.

This shows that the said state belongs to people, not only by birth, but by conduct also because there are no such species by birth as ‘ascetics’ and the rest; in fact the names are based upon what the men do.

Others, however, think that there are a people known as ‘Yatis,’ ‘Hermits,’ inhabiting the Meru mountain; as is clear from what we read regarding ‘India having made over the Yatis to the Sālāvṛkas.’

‘Vimānas’—celestial cars, Puṣpaka, and the rest; those who move about in these are ‘Vaimānikas,’ ‘celestial beings,’ denizens of heaven.

‘First’—lowest—(48)

This verse is quoted in Aparārkā (p. 999);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 694);—in Parāśaramādhava, (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—anil in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

048 Hermits, ascetics, Brahmanas, the crowds of the Vaimanika deities, the lunar mansions, and the Daityas (form) the first (and lowest rank of the) existences caused by Goodness.

Sacrificers, sages, gods, vedas, luminaries, years, Pitṛs and Sādhyas represent the second state partaking of ‘Sattva.’—(49)

आनुपूर्वीविशिष्टः शब्दो वेदः ।

• ननु च गत्यधिकारे कः प्रसङ्गो ऽचेतनानाम् । अचेतनाश् च शब्दादयः ।

• अत्यल्पम् इदम् उच्यते शब्दादयो ऽचेतना इति । सर्व एवैते देवादयः स्थावरान्ताः शरीरात्मानः । तत्र सर्वशरीराणाम् अचेतनत्वम्, तच्छक्तिः⁷⁸ केवलं पुरुषादिचैतन्यरूपिणी प्राप्यते । निर्गुणश् च पुरुषस् तदधिष्ठितानि शरीराण्य् अचेतनान्य् अपि चेतनान्य् उच्यन्ते ।

• अत एतद् उक्तं भवति । सत्त्वप्रधानो वेदस् तदभ्यासात् सात्त्विकी गतिः प्राप्यते । न पुनः सत्त्वप्रधानस्य वेदत्वप्राप्तिः सात्त्विकी गतिर् उच्यते ।

• अन्येषां तु प्रदर्शनं सर्वक्षेत्रज्ञाः सन्त्य् अधिष्ठातारो वेदपुरुषा वारुणे लोके श्रूयन्ते ॥ १२.४९ ॥

Words composed in a certain order are called ‘Veda.’

“In the course of the states of existence, what occasion is there for the mention of insentient things? Words and other things are all insentient.”

“It is too little when you say that words and other things are inanimate. All the beings, from the gods down to the immoveable things, exist in the form of bodies, and all bodies are insentient. As for the sentient faculty, it appears in the form of personal consciousness,—and this Personality, by itself, is devoid of qualities. But the body, though insentient, comes to be regarded as sentient when it is inhabited by the Personality.

Thus what the text means comes to this:—The Veda abounds in the quality of ‘Sattva;’ hence by its study, people attain to the state partaking of the quality of ‘Sattva.’ And ‘the attaining of the state partaking of Sattva’ does not mean that the man abounding in ‘Sattva’ become the Veda.

The view of other people is, that in all things there is a conscious being supervising over them, and ‘personalities of the Veda’ are described as residing in the regions of Varuṇa.—(49)

‘Vedas’.—‘Verbal text’ (Medhātithi);—‘Personification of the Veda’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 999);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 694), which notes that the terms ‘Veda’ and ‘vatsara’ stand for the respective presiding Deities;—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 488);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

049 Sacrificers, the sages, the gods, the Vedas, the heavenly lights, the years, the manes, and the Sadhyas (constitute) the second order of existences, caused by Goodness.

Brahmā, creators of the universe, Dharma, the Great One, Unmanifest,—these the wise ones describe as representing the best state partaking of ‘Sattva.’—(50)

विश्वसृजो मरीच्यादयः प्रजापतयः । धर्मो वेदार्थः । पूर्वं वेदस्वरूपम् उक्तम्, इदानीं तदर्थः । स्वरूपार्थः प्रधानतर इत्य् उक्तं भवति । अथ वा धर्माः सत्यादयश् च⁷⁹ । विग्रहवत्त्वं पूर्ववद् द्रष्टव्यम् । महान् इति संज्ञान्तरम् । अव्यक्तं प्रधानं प्रकृतिर्⁸⁰ इत्य् एको ऽर्थः ।

• ननु च सत्त्वाधिक्ये प्रधानस्य तद्विकारत्वाज् जगतः सर्वेषां विकाराणां सत्त्वाधिक्यं प्राप्तम् । ततश् च रजस्तमसो कुतो ऽतिरेकः । अतो यद् उक्तम् “यो यद् एषां गुणो देहे साकल्येनातिरिच्यते” (म्ध् १२.२५) इति, तद् अनुपपन्नम् ।

• उच्यते । नैतद् एवंपरं⁸¹ प्रधानरूपता प्राप्या । किं तर्हि, त्रयः प्रकाराः संभवन्ति⁸² । यदि वा⁸³ प्राप्यो ऽव्यक्तिभावः, यदि वादृष्टविधिः, यदि वा नैवायं संख्ये यः प्रधाने ऽव्यक्तशब्दो वर्तते । क्रियानिमित्तो ह्य् अयम् । नास्य व्यक्तिर् विद्यत इति अस्फुटप्रकाशत्वाद् अव्यक्तम् । तथा च परमात्मनि वृत्तिर् भवति । महत्त्वं च तस्य विभुत्वाद् उपपद्यत एव ।

• ननु च नैवास्य सात्त्विकी गतिः ।

• अगुणत्यागाच्⁸⁴ चाप्य् एवम् । यदा हि “नाहं न मम किंचित्” इति मुक्ताहंकारममकारो भवति तदा ब्रह्मता भवतीति विज्ञायते । निदिध्यासनयैव ब्रह्मप्राप्तिः । किं तु सत्त्वप्रधाना एव ज्ञानादितत्परा भवन्ति । न तामसी राजसी वेति⁸⁵ । एवं कृत्वोच्यते उत्तमा सत्त्विकी गतिः ।

• अन्यौ पक्षाव् अनुपपन्नौ । न हि प्रधानभावं प्राप्य काचित् पुरुषार्थसिद्धिः । अचेतनं हि तद् व्यपदिशन्ति । अचैतन्यं स्थावरेभ्यो ऽपि निकृष्टतरं⁸⁶ यदधीना हि मदमूर्च्छावस्थाः केचिद् अर्थयन्ते । दृष्टविधिस् तु नैव संभवत्य् अश्रुतत्वात् “आत्मा वारे द्रष्टव्यः” (बाउ २.४.५) इति श्रुतितः न⁸⁷ प्रधानं द्रष्टव्यम् इति । तस्मात् परमात्मविषयाव् एव महान् अव्यक्त इत्य् एतौ शब्दौ ॥ १२.५० ॥

‘Creators of the universe’—Marīci and others, known as ‘Prajāpatis.’

‘Dharma’—What is expounded in the Veda; the former verse had spoken of the Veda itself, and the present one speaks of what is contained in the Veda; this shows that the meaning is more important than the form of the word. Or ‘Dharma’ may stand for Truth and other such things.

The corporeality of ‘Dharma’ is to be explained as before (in the case of the Veda).

‘The Great One’ is another name for the ‘Unmanifest,’ which is synonymous with ‘Prakṛti,’ ‘Pradhāna,’ ‘the Root-Evolvent.’

“The entire world being an emanation from the Root-Evolvent, when there happens to be an excess in it of the quality of Sattva, all such emanations should partake of that quality. How then can there be any excess of Rajas and Tamas in anything? So that what has been said under Verse 25 above, to the effect that—‘the body in which one of these preponderates,’ etc.—cannot be right”

The answer to this is as follows:—It does not mean that ‘the emanations partake of the nature of the Root-Evolvent’; what is meant is that there are three ways of explaining the term ‘avyakta,’ ‘unmanifest’:—(1) It may mean that the Root-Evolvent is something unattainable, or (2) that it is invisible; or (3) that the term may not stand for that Root-Evolvent which is a principle postulated by the Sāṅkhyas; the term ‘unmanifest’ connoting a certain act,—viz., that ‘there is no manifestation’ of the entity concerned, ‘its appearance is indistinct,’ and hence it is ‘unmanifest’; and in this sense the name becomes applicable to the Supreme Self, and the epithet ‘great’ is applicable to It on the ground of its immanence.

“But the state of the Supreme Self cannot partake of the quality of Sattva.”

As a matter of fact, even without entirely renouncing the ‘qualities’ one can be regarded as ‘Supreme Self’; for it is understood that when the man has the feeling ‘I am not,’ ‘there is nothing that is mine,’ and becomes free from the notion of ‘I,’ he attains the position of ‘Brahman’ (the Supreme Self). In fact, it is by meditation that the position of ‘Brahman’ is attained. But only those persons have recourse to meditation and such practices in whom the preponderating quality is Sattva, not Rajas or Tamas.

It is in this sense that this is described as “the best state partaking of ‘Sattva.’”

The other two explanations (of the term ‘unmanifest’) are not right. As regards (a), no human end is served by attaining the position of the Root-Evolvent; because this has been described as ‘insentient,’ and what is ‘insentient’ is inferior to even immovable beings; it is for this reason that people never seek for such condition as that during intoxication or swoon. As regards the seeing of the Root-Evolvent, this cannot be possible, as no such seeing has been anywhere mentioned; as what is prescribed is that ‘the Self should be seen,’—not the Root-Evolvent.

From all this it is clear that the terms ‘the Great One’ and ‘Unmanifest’ stand, for the Supreme Self.—(50)

‘Mahān’.—‘Supreme soul’ (Medhātithi);—‘the deity presiding over the Mohat-tattva of the Sāṅkhyas’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 999);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 694);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 489);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Prāyaścitta 41a).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

एकैकस्य गुणस्य त्रिविधा गतिर् नवभिः श्लोकैः कीर्तितः ॥ १२.४२–५० ॥

050 The sages declare Brahma, the creators of the universe, the law, the Great One, and the Undiscernible One (to constitute) the highest order of beings produced by Goodness.

Thus has been described the entire thrice threefold migratory process pertaining to all beings, arising out of the three kinds of action.—(51)

त्रिःप्रकारस्य वाङ्मनःकायसाधनस्य । त्रिविधः सत्त्वादिगुणभेदेन । पुनस् त्रिविधः उत्तमादिविशेषतः । या प्य् अत्र गतयो विशेषतो ऽनुक्तास् ता अप्य् उक्तसादृश्याद् अन्तर्भावनीयाः । गुणप्रकरणोपसंहारः । उत्तरो ऽपि श्लोको वक्ष्यमाणसूचकः ॥ १२.५१ ॥

‘Of three kinds’—arising from speech, mind and body.

‘Thrice’—according to the three qualities of ‘Sattva’ and the rest.

‘Threefold’—as divided into ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ and ‘middling.’

Those other ‘states’ that may not have been mentioned here are to be understood as resembling, and hence included among, those already mentioned.

This verse sums up the section on the Three Qualities; and the next is indicative of what is to follow.—(51)

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 694);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 489).

**(verses 12.32-51)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.32].

ये ऽप्य् अत्र न कीर्तितास् ते ऽप्य् उक्तसादृश्यास् त्रैविध्यान्तर्भूता एव वेदितव्याः, इत्य् उपसंहारश्लोको ऽयम् ॥ १२.५१ ॥

051 Thus (the result) of the threefold action, the whole system of transmigrations which (consists) of three classes, (each) with three subdivisions, and which includes all created beings, has been fully pointed out.

Foolish men of the lowest class go through the vilest migratory states, in consequence of being addicted to the senses and by not attending to duties.—(52)

इन्द्रियप्रसङ्गः प्रतिषिद्धसेवनप्रदर्शनार्थः⁸⁸ । असेवनं धर्मस्य शिष्टाकरणम् । एतच् चाविदुषां भवत्य् अत आह- अविद्वांसः । त एव नराधमाः । अतश् च पापान् संसारान्⁸⁹ कुत्सितानि जन्मस्थानानि । संयान्ति प्राप्नुवन्ति । अत्र⁹⁰ प्रसिद्ध एव तावत् कर्मविपाकः प्रचक्ष्यते ॥ १२.५२ ॥

‘Addiction to the senses’—This stands for doing what is forbidden.

‘Not attending to duties’— not doing what has been enjoined.

All this is found only in the case of ‘foolish’ men; who are, on that account, called ‘men of the lowest class.’

These men ‘go to’—fall into—‘the vilest migratory states’—most despicable births.

In accordance with this general principle, the retribution of deeds is now explained.—(52)

Yājñavalkya (3.219).—‘By omitting to do what is enjoined, by doing what is condemned, and by not controlling the senses, man falls.’

इन्द्रियप्रसङ्गः प्रतिषिद्धसेवनं धर्मस्यासेवनं शिष्टाकरणम् । प्रतिषिद्धसेवनाच् छिष्टाकरणाच् चाकृतप्रायश्चित्ताः सन्तः पापाः संयान्ति संसारान् । कुतः पुनर् हेतोः, येनाविद्वांसस् ते, प्रायश्चित्तस्याकरणात् प्रतिव्यतिक्रमम् । अत एव च नराधमा इत्य् उक्तम् । तत्र प्रतिषिद्धसेविनां तावद् अकृतप्रायश्चित्तानां कर्मविपाकप्रदर्शनार्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते प्रकरणं प्रायश्चित्तानुष्ठानशेषतया ॥ १२.५२ ॥

052 In consequence of attachment to (the objects of) the senses, and in consequence of the non-performance of their duties, fools, the lowest of men, reach the vilest births.

Into what wombs the soul enters,—and in consequence of what acts,—listen to that, in due order.—(53)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

(verses 12.53-59)

Yājñavalkya (3.207-208).—‘The slayer of a Brāhmaṇa is born among deer, horses, pigs and camels; and the wine-drinker, among asses, Pukkasas and Venas, the stealer of gold being a worm, an insect or flies; and the violator of the Guru’s bed becomes grass or bushes or creepers.’

(See texts under 11.49 et seq.)

053 What wombs this individual soul enters in this world and in consequence of what actions, learn the particulars of that at large and in due order.

Persons who have committed the heinous offences, having passed, during several years, through dreadful hells, reach, after the expiation thereof, the following migratory states.—(54)

घोरान् नरकान् । दुःखप्रसहनव्यथया घोरान्⁹¹ । यातनास्थानानि नारकान् । तत्क्षणाद् उद्भूतरूपस्य कर्मणः फलोपभोगेन क्षयः⁹² । तत ईषदवशिष्टे कर्मणि संसारप्रतिपत्तिः ।

• कथं पुनः सर्वकर्म तत्रैव न भुज्यते ।

• उक्तम् । इन्द्रियस्य कर्मणो नरकं⁹³ फलम्, नोपशान्तस्य । कार्यविरोधित्वाच् च कर्मणां फलेनोपशमः । तत्र यथैव च ज्वलितस्याग्नेर् उदर्चिषो दाहो विनियोगस् तपश् चादंभ एव स्थितस्यैवं नरकेष्व् अपि द्रष्टव्यम् ।

• अग्नेस् तु द्वे अवस्थे भवतः, प्रशान्तता ज्वाला च । नरकस् तु एकरूप एव सर्वदा । उदर्चिष इवाग्नयः कर्माणि चोपचयापचयवन्ति । अत उपचितस्य कर्मणो नरको ऽपचीयमानस्य ततो ऽन्यत्रोपभुक्तिः । तत्र युक्तं ततः सेषेणेति ॥ १२.५३–५४ ॥

‘Dreadful hells’—They are ‘dreadful’ by reason of the great sufferings undergone; ‘hells’ being places of torment

‘Expiation’—Deeds are ‘expiated’ when their results have been experienced; and when slight traces of them are left, the agent becomes born in the several migratory states.

“How is it that the whole of the act is not entirely retributed in the hells?”

It has already been explained that ‘hell’ is the result of very potent deeds—not of mild ones. And since the cause is enfeebled by the appearance of its effect, the Deed is rendered mild, less potent, by the appearance of its results. Just as in the case of fire, when it has been kindled, as soon as it has given forth sparks and heat, it becomes milder; so also is the case with Hells.

“In the case of fire there are two states—mild and flaming; Hells however are always of one uniform character.”

Like flaming fire, Actions also are prone to become strong and weak; when they are strong, they lead to Hell, and when they are weak, their retribution takes place elsewhere. Hence it is only light what has said been regarding the ‘remnant’ of the deed (leading to transmigration).—(54)

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

054 Those who committed mortal sins (mahapataka), having passed during large numbers of years through dreadful hells, obtain, after the expiration of (that term of punishment), the following births.

He who kills a Brāhmaṇa enters the womb of a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, a deer or a bird, or that of a Caṇḍāla or a Pukkasa.—(55)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 700);—and in Mitākṣarā (3.208).

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

055 The slayer of a Brahmana enters the womb of a dog, a pig, an ass, a camel, a cow, a goat, a sheep, a deer, a bird, a Kandala, and a Pukkasa.

The Brāhmaṇa who drinks wine shall enter the womb of worms, insects, moths, of birds feeding on ordure, or of carnivorous animals.—(56)

विड्भुजा वायसादयः । हिंस्राणां व्याघ्रादीनाम् ॥ १२.५६ ॥

‘Feeding on ordure’—such as the crow and the like.

‘Carnivorous’—tigers and so forth.—(56)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.208);—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 510).

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

056 A Brahmana who drinks (the spirituous liquor called) Sura shall enter (the bodies) of small and large insects, of moths, of birds, feeding on ordure, and of destructive beasts.

The Brāhmaṇa who steals gold shall (enter) a thousand times into the womb of the spider, the snake, the lizard, of aquatic animals or of carnivorous Piśācas.—(57)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.208), which explains ‘lūtā’ as the spider, and ‘saraṭa’ as the lizard;—and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 511).

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

057 A Brahmana who steals (the gold of a Brahmana shall pass) a thousand times (through the bodies) of spiders, snakes and lizards, of aquatic animals and of destructive Pisakas.

The violator of the Preceptor’s Bed is born hundreds of times as grasses, shrubs, creepers, as carnivorous and fanged animals, or as beings of cruel deeds.—(58)

क्रूरकर्मकृताः परवधशीलाः ॥ १२.५८ ॥

‘Of cruel deeds’—given to killing others.—(58)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.208).

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

058 The violator of a Guru’s bed (enters) a hundred times (the forms) of grasses, shrubs, and creepers, likewise of carnivorous (animals) and of (beasts) with fangs and of those doing cruel deeds.

Sanguinary persons become carnivorous animals; the eaters of impure food become worms; thieves become creatures consuming their own kind; and those having intercourse with women of the lowest caste become Pretas.—(59)

क्रव्यादा गृध्रादयः । अमेध्यभक्षिणः कृमयः । परस्परम् अदन्ति, यथा महामार्जारो मार्जारम्, महामत्स्यः सूक्ष्मं मत्स्यम्, नेकभेदम् इव । अन्त्यस्त्रीनिषेविणो ऽन्त्याः⁹⁴ बर्बरादयः ॥ १२.५९ ॥

‘Carnivorous animals’—such as the vulture and the like.

‘Eaters of impure food become worms.’

‘Creatures consuming their own kind’—such as big cats devour smaller eats, and large fishes devour smaller fishes of various kinds.

‘Those who have intercourse with women of the lowest caste’—such as the ‘Barbara’ and other castes.—(59)

(verses 12.53-59)

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.53].

059 Men who delight in doing hurt (become) carnivorous (animals); those who eat forbidden food, worms; thieves, creatures consuming their own kind; those who have intercourse with women of the lowest castes, Pretas.

He who associates with outcasts, he who approaches the wife of another person, and he who has stolen the property of a Brāhmaṇa, become ‘Brahmarākṣasas.’—(60)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this verse]

This verse is quoted in Parāṣharamādhava (Prāyaścitta p. 492 and p. 511).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

Yājñavalkya (3.211-215, 217).—‘Having approached another man’s wife, and having misappropriated the property of a Brāhmaṇa, one becomes a Brahmarākṣasa in desolate wilderness. Stealer of gems are born among the lowest castes; the stealer of perfumes, as a musk-rat, The stealer of grains becomes a rat; the stealer of a vehicle, a camel; that of fruits, a monkey; that of water, a Plava bird; that of milk, a crow; that of household requisites, the Gṛhakāri animal; that of honey, a flea; that of flesh, a vulture; that of a cow, an alligator; that of fire, a crane; that of cloth, suffers from leucoderma; that of juice, a dog; that of salt, a Cīrī bird.—Having passed through the bodies of several animals, as a consequence of their acts, men become, in course of time, born again as poor and low men devoid of all good qualities.’

Viṣṇu (44.14-44).—‘After having suffered the torments of hells, the evil-doers pass into animal bodies. Criminals of the highest degree enter the bodies of plants, one after the other. Mortal sinners enter the bodies of worms or insects; minor offenders, those of birds; animals of the fourth degree, that of aquatic animals; those who have committed crimes effecting loss of caste, enter the bodies of amphibious animals; those who have committed a crime degrading one to a mixed caste enter the bodies of deer; those who have committed a crime rendering them unfit to receive alms enter the bodies of cattle; those who have committed a crime causing defilement enter the bodies of low-caste men who may not be touched; those who have committed one of the miscellaneous crimes enter the bodies of miscellaneous wild carnivorous animals. One who has eaten the food of one whose food should not be eaten, or forbidden food, becomes a worm or insect. thief becomes a falcon. One who has appropriated a broad path, becomes an animal living in holes. The stealer of grains becomes a rat; that of copper, a Haṃsa; that of water, a water-fowl; that of honey, a gad-fly; that of milk, a crow; that of juice, a dog; that of clarified butter, an ichneumon; that of meat, a vulture; that of fat, a cormorant; that of oil, a cockroach; that of salt, a cricket; that of sour milk, a crane; that of silk, a partridge; that of linen, a frog; that of cloth, a curlew; that of cow, an iguana; that of sugar, a Vālguda; that of perfumes, a musk-rat; that of vegetable and leaves, a peacock; that of prepared grain, a boar called Śvāvidh; that of undressed grain, a porcupine; that of fire, a crane; that of household utensils, a wasp; that of dyed cloth, a Chakora bird; that of an elephant, a tortoise; that of a horse, a tiger; that of fruits or blossoms, an ape; that of women, a bear; that of a vehicle, a camel; that of cattle, a vulture. He who has taken by force any property belonging to another, or eaten food not previously presented to the gods, inevitably enters the body of some beast.’

060 He who has associated with outcasts, he who has approached the wives of other men, and he who has stolen the property of a Brahmana become Brahmarakshasas.

The man who, through greed, steals gems, pearls and corals, or the various kinds of precious articles, is born among ‘Hemakartṛs.’—(61)

हेमकर्तारः पक्षिणः ॥ १२.६१ ॥

‘Hemakartṛs’—is the name of a bird.—(61)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.213);—in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 511);—and in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra 74a).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

061 A man who out of greed has stolen gems, pearls or coral, or any of the many other kinds of precious things, is born among the goldsmiths.

By stealing grains one becomes a rat; by stealing bronze, a Haṃsa; by stealing water, a Plava; by stealing honey, a gnat; by stealing milk, a crow; by stealing sweets, a dog; and by stealing clarified butter, an ichneumon.—(62).

आखुः मूषकः ॥ १२.६२ ॥

‘Ākhu’—rat.—(62)

‘Rasam’.—‘Juice of sugar-cane’ (Kullūka);—‘quicksilver’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 511).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

062 For stealing grain (a man) becomes a rat, for stealing yellow metal a Hamsa, for stealing water a Plava, for stealing honey a stinging insect, for stealing milk a crow, for stealing condiments a dog, for stealing clarified butter an ichneumon;

For stealing meat, a vulture; for stealing fat, a cormorant; for stealing oil, a ‘Tailapāyika’ bird; for stealing salt, a Cīrīvāka; and for stealing curds, a ‘Balākā’-bird.—(63)

कौशेयं तित्तिरिर् हृत्वा क्षौमं हृत्वा तु दर्दुरः ।

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 511).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

063 For stealing meat a vulture, for stealing fat a cormorant, for stealing oil a winged animal (of the kind called) Tailapaka, for stealing salt a cricket, for stealing sour milk a bird (of the kind called) Balaka.

For stealing silk, a partridge; for stealing linen, a frog; for stealing cotton-cloth, a crane; for stealing a cow, an alligator; and for stealing molasses, a ‘Vāgguda’-bird.—(64)

दर्दुरः मण्डूकस्तोकः ॥ १२.६४ ॥

‘Dardura’ is the frog of the smaller variety.—(64)

**(verses 12.64-67)
**

These verses are quoted in Parāśaramādhara (Prāyaścitta, p. 512).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

064 For stealing silk a partridge, for stealing linen a frog, for stealing cotton-cloth a crane, for stealing a cow an iguana, for stealing molasses a flying-fox;

For stealing excellent perfumes, a musk-rat; for stealing vegetables with leaves, a peacock; for stealing cooked food of various kinds, a Śvāvit; and for stealing uncooked food a hedge-hog.—(65)

बर्हिणो मयूराः ॥ १२.६५ ॥

‘Varhiṇaḥ’—peacock.—(65).

**(verses 12.64-67)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.64].

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

065 For stealing fine perfumes a musk-rat, for stealing vegetables consisting of leaves a peacock, for stealing cooked food of various kinds a porcupine, for stealing uncooked food a hedgehog.

For stealing fire, a heron; for stealing utensils, a ‘Gṛhakāri’-bird; for stealing red clothes, one is born as a ‘Jīvajīvaka’-bird—(66)

(पृथग् व्याख्यानं नास्ति।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

**(verses 12.64-67)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.64].

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

066 For stealing fire he becomes a heron, for stealing household-utensils a mason-wasp, for stealing dyed clothes a francolin-partridge;

For stealing a deer or an elephant, a wolf; for stealing a horse, a tiger; for stealing fruits and roots, a monkey; for stealing a woman, a bear; for stealing water, a ‘Stokaka’-bird; for stealing conveyances, a camel; and for stealing cattle, a goat.—(67)

“जलं प्लवः (म्ध् १२.६२) इत्य् अत्र पानार्थम् उदकं ज्ञेयम् । स्तोकको वारीत्य् अत्र धान्यसेकाद्यर्थम् । “रसश्” चाद्यं रसम् आहुर् यदि वातिरिकौषधादि द्रष्टव्यम् (म्ध् १२.६२) ॥ १२.६७ ॥

When it was said ([under 62]) that ‘for stealing water one becomes a Plava -bird,’ it was water for drinking purposes that was meant; while in the present verse, it is water for irrigating fields and such other purposes.

[Under verse 62], the term ‘Rasa’ may be taken either as the first kind of flavour (Sweet), or as medicinal substances.—(67)

**(verses 12.64-67)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.64].

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

स्तोकको वारि पेयं जलं प्लव इत्य् अत्र सेकर्थम् ॥ १२.५३–६७ ॥

067 For stealing a deer or an elephant a wolf, for stealing a horse a tiger, for stealing fruit and roots a monkey, for stealing a woman a bear, for stealing water a black-white cuckoo, for stealing vehicles a camel, for stealing cattle a he-goat.

For taking by force any kind of property belonging to another, and for eating a sacrificial material that has not been offered, one inevitably becomes an animal.—(68)

नात्र तिरोहितम् इव किंचिद् अस्ति ॥ १२.६८ ॥

There is nothing here that is not quite clear.—(68)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.211);—and in Parāśaramādhdva (Prāyaścitta, p. 512).

**(verses 12.60-68)
**

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.60].

068 That man who has forcibly taken away any kind of property belonging to another, or who has eaten sacrificial food (of) which (no portion) had been offered, inevitably becomes an animal.

For stealing things, women also should incur guilt on this same principle; they become the female of those same creatures that have been named.—(69)

(पृथग् व्याख्यानं नास्ति।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this.]

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.21?);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 702) and in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 512).

Mahābhārata (13.111.130).—(Same as Manu.)

Viṣṇu (44.45).—‘Women who have committed similar thefts realise the same ignominious punishment; they become females to those male animals.’

069 Women, also, who in like manner have committed a theft, shall incur guilt; they will become the females of those same creatures (which have been enumerated above).

If men of the various castes deviate from their occupations, under normal conditions, they migrate into vile migratory states and become servants among robbers.—(70)

ब्राह्मणो ऽध्यापनादिजीविकाकर्मत्यागेन यदि क्षत्रियादिवृत्तिम् उपजीवेत्, एवं क्षत्रियादयः स्वकर्मच्युताः पापान् संसारान् तिर्यग्योनीर् अनुभूय मनुष्यत्वे जाता दस्युषु चौरादिहिंस्रादिषु भृत्यभावं प्राप्नुवन्ति । अनापतीत्य् अनुवादः । आपदि विहितत्वाद् दोषाभावः ॥ १२.७० ॥

If the Brāhmaṇa gives up his own means of livelihood,—such as Teaching and the rest,—and takes to the occupations of the Kṣatriya and other castes;—similarly if the Kṣatriya and others ‘deviate from their occupations’;—they ‘migrate into vile migratory states’—undergoing the experiences of animals;—and when they come to be born among men, they become servants among ‘Dasyus,’—i.e., robbers and other harmful men.

‘In normal times’—This is a mere reiteration; since such deviation having been permitted in abnormal times, there would be no impropriety involved in it.—(70)

“इन्द्रियाणां प्रसङ्गेन धर्मस्यासेवनेन च” इत्य् एतस्माच् छ्लोकात् प्रभृति प्रतिषिद्धसेविनाम् अकृतप्रायश्चित्तानाम् अनर्थलक्षणः कर्मफलविपाक उक्तः । इदानीं शिष्टस्याक्रियायां स्वकर्मच्युतानाम् अनर्थलक्षणः कर्मविपाकः प्रदर्शयितव्य इति । यत इदम् आरभ्यते ॥ १२.६८–७० ॥

070 But (men of the four) castes who have relinquished without the pressure of necessity their proper occupations, will become the servants of Dasyus, after migrating into despicable bodies.

The Brāhmaṇa fallen off from his own duty becomes a ‘fire-mouthed’ Preta feeding on vomitings; and the Kṣatriya a ‘foul-nosed’ Preta feeding on impure substances and dead bodies.—(71)

स्वकर्मच्युतानां पापगतयः प्रदर्श्यन्ते । वान्तम् अश्नाति । उल्कया चास्य मुखं दह्यते । कुणपः शवशरीरम् । कूटपूतनः कुत्सितगन्धा नासिकास्य भवति । “कटपूतनः” इति वा पाठः । कटपूतनो⁹⁵ नाम पिशाचादिः, स तु कश्चिद् अदृश्यो भूतविशेषः श्मशानिकभूमिसेवी ॥ १२.७१ ॥

The text proceeds to indicate the states fallen into by those who fall off from their duty.

The Preta feeds upon vomitings; and its mouth keeps flaming like a fire-brand.

‘Kuṇapa’—dead body.

‘Kūṭapūtanaḥ’—one from whose nostrils foul smell emanates.

‘Kaṭapūtanaḥ’ is another reading; ‘Kaṭapūtana’ b eing the name of a being of the ‘Piśāca’ species, who keeps hovering in cremation-grounds.—(71)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.220), in the sense that the man neglecting his duties suffers the same tortures as the Ulkāmukha and the rest.

071 A Brahmana who has fallen off from his duty (becomes) an Ulkamukha Preta, who feeds on what has been vomited; and a Kshatriya, a Kataputana (Preta), who eats impure substances and corpses.

The Vaiśya, fallen from his duty, becomes the ‘Maitrākṣajyotika’ Preta feeding on pus; and the Śūdra becomes a ‘Cailāśaka’ Preta—(72)

मैत्राक्षिज्योतिक इति शब्दान्तरं पिशाचवचनं पूर्ववत् ।

• अथ वा मैत्राख्ये ज्योतिर् दृष्टाव् अपीति । मैत्रम् अङ्गं पायुः, तदक्षिविवरं छिद्रम् ।

• अन्ये तूलूकम् आहुः । मैत्रम् आदित्यालोकः⁹⁶ । अक्षं ज्योतिः ऐन्दिर्यकं दर्शनम् । स ह्य् आदित्यालोके⁹⁷ न पश्यति ॥ १२.७२ ॥

‘Maitrākṣajyotika,’ like the foregoing terms, is another name for a Piśāca. Or the name may mean—“one who has light (‘jyotiḥ’) issuing from the hole (‘akṣi’) of the anus (‘maitra’).”

Others explain the term as standing for the owl; ‘maitra’ being the light of the sun, and ‘akṣajyotiḥ’ meaning visual perception; the name connoting the fact that the owl cannot see in solar light—(72)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.220) in the same sense as the above.

चैलांशको शिङ्गुरुकः । यत एतद् एवं अतश् “चरितव्यम् अतो नित्यं प्रायश्चित्तं विशुद्धये” इत्य् उक्तम्, मा भूद् अकृतप्रायश्चित्तस्येयान् कर्मफलविपाको बहुकालो ऽनिष्ट इति । “बहून् वर्षगणान् घोरान् नरकान् प्राप्य तत्क्षयात्” इति । चैतद् अनुवर्तते । निन्दितकर्माभ्यासफलम् इदानीं पुनः स्पृशति ॥ १२.७१–७२ ॥

072 A Vaisya who has fallen off from his duty becomes a Maitrakshagyotika Preta, who feeds on pus; and a Sudra, a Kailasaka (Preta, who feeds on moths).

In the proportion that sensually-inclined persons go on indulging in sensual pleasures, in that same proportion their ardour for them goes on increasing.—(73)

भेदग्रहगृहीतानां पुत्रदाराभिष्वङ्गधनादिलोभे विषयसुखगन्धम् आत्मैकत्वपरिपन्थिविद्याप्रतिपक्षभूतं निवर्तयितुं संसारस्वरूपं मानुष्यकं जन्म यथास्थितम् अनूद्यते सर्वस्य प्रसिद्धम् ।

• यथा यथा विषयेष्व् अभ्यासेन प्रवर्तन्ते । विषयात्मका विषयलालसाः । आत्मशब्देन प्रवृत्तस्य तत्स्वभावतैव⁹⁸ भवतीत्य् आहुः । यस् तु कथंचित् सहितं भुङ्क्ते तस्य भोगादिना न⁹⁹ तत्स्मृत्युपपत्ताव् अभिलाषो जायते । यस् त्व् अत्यन्तम् एवाधरः स तद्भावनया तदात्मत्वेन¹⁰⁰ संपद्यते । तद् इदम् आह तथा तथा कुशलतेति । कुशलतापदं चैकरसीभावः । अतश् च स न शक्नोति विषयान् परिहर्तुम् ।

• ईदृश्य् एव प्रवृत्तिः । अशिष्टाप्रतिषिद्धेष्व्¹⁰¹ अपि स्वदारगमनादिष्व् आगमार्जितद्रव्योपपादकेन भोज्याविशेषेष्व् अपि प्रतिषिद्धा ॥ १२.७३ ॥

For the purpose of alienating the listener from that slight pleasure which is obtained by persons obsessed with notions of duality, from sensual objects,—such as attachment to wife and children, greed for wealth and other things,—and which obstructs the acquisition of true knowledge, the text describes the actual condition of men dining transmigration.

In the proportion that men go on repeating their enjoyment of objects,—such men as are ‘sensually inclined,’ i.e., those who have a hankering for objects of sense. What is indicated by the term ‘ātman’ in this connection is that when a man becomes addicted to a certain course of action, it comes to form his very ‘nature’ (ātman). For instance, if a man happens only once in a way to eat to his fill, his hankering for it appears only when he is reminded of it; if, on the other hand, he does it daily, it becomes his very nature.

This same idea is asserted by the clause—‘in that same proportion their ardour for them goes on increasing.’—The term ‘kuśalatā,’ ‘ardour,’ connotes complete identification; and when one has completely identified himself with sensual objects, he can never avoid them.

This same principle applies also to such enjoyments as are not forbidden for cultured men,—such, for instance, as intercourse with one’s own wife, enjoying things obtained with money obtained from the sanctioned sources of income, and so forth;—ton much addiction to all which becomes forbidden.—(73)

073 In proportion as sensual men indulge in sensual pleasures, in that same proportion their taste for them grows.

By the repetition of the said sinful acts, those men with shall understanding undergo sufferings in the various forms of existence in this world.—(74)

ततश् च तेषां पापानां प्रतिषिद्धानां कर्मणाम् अभ्यासात् । “निन्दितकर्माभ्यासे पतनम्” (च्ड़्। म्ध् ११.१८१ चोम्।) इति तद् भवतु । दुःखानि पश्यन्ति, तासु तासु कृमिकीटादियोनिषु ॥ १२.७४ ॥

By repeating the sinful acts,—there is degradation, but apart from that, they ‘undergo sufferings,’ when they come to be born as worms, insects and the rest—(74)

निन्दितकर्माभ्यासाद् अकृतप्रायश्चित्ता एतद् ईदृशम् अनिष्टं प्राप्नुवन्ति ॥ १२.७३–७४ ॥

074 By repeating their sinful acts those men of small understanding suffer pain here (below) in various births;

(They also suffer) being tossed about in the Tāmisra and other dreadful hells, and being bound and mangled in the ‘forest with sword-leaved trees’ and other places.—(75)

“तामिस्रम् अन्धतामिस्रम्” (म्ध् ४.८८) इत्याद्याः प्रागुक्ता नरकाः । तत्र विवर्तनम् एकेन पार्श्वेनासित्वा पार्श्वान्तरेणावर्तनम् अबद्धस्योत्तानस्य वा खड्गधारानिशितपत्रैर् वृक्षैर् बन्धनम् । भूमिष्ठैर् वा पत्रैर् एव कदलीदलखण्डवत् तथाविधैर् मैत्री दुष्कृतिनाम् अङ्गच्छेदप्राप्तिः ॥ १२.७५ ॥

The ‘Tāmisra,’ the ‘Aṇḍhatāmisra’ and other hells have been enumerated above (under 4.80).

‘Being tossed about in this’—lying on one side and turning on the other and so forth.

Being bound up to the sword-like leaves of trees; or being ‘mangled’ by these same leaves lying scattered on the ground—the limbs being cut about like a piece of plantain-stalk.—(75).

(verses 12.75-76)

[[See above, 4.88-89.]]

Yājñavalkya (3.206).—‘Having passed through most despised hells, by virtue of their grievous sins, and thus having their had Karma exhausted, those who had committed heinous offences become born again in the world.’

075 (The torture of) being tossed about in dreadful hells, Tamisra and the rest, (that of) the Forest with sword-leaved trees and the like, and (that of) being bound and mangled;

Also various forms of torments, being devoured by ravens and owls, tortures from morasses and scorching sand, and terrible boiling in jars.—(76)

करम्भः कर्दमः । कुम्भीषु प्रक्षिप्तास् ते हि तापेनाग्नेयेनान्नादिवत् पच्यन्ते ॥ १२.७६ ॥

‘Karambha’ is morass.

‘Kumbhīpāka’—The men are thrust into jars and cooked, like food and other things.—(76)

(verses 12.75-76)

[[See above, 4.88-89.]]

See Comparative notes for [Verse 12.75].

076 And various torments, the (pain of) being devoured by ravens and owls, the heat of scorching sand, and the (torture of) being boiled in jars, which is hard to bear;

Constant births in low forms of life, abounding in misery, afflictions from heat and cold, and terrors of various kinds.—(77)

वियोनयः तिर्यक्प्रेतपिशाचादयः । तत्र संभवो जन्म दुःखबहुलासु ॥ १२.७७ ॥

‘Low forms of life’—such as the lower animals, Pretas and Piśācas;—birth in these, which is full of misery.—(77)

077 And births in the wombs (of) despicable (beings) which cause constant misery, and afflictions from cold and heat and terrors of various kinds,

Repeated lying in wombs, agonising births, painful bondages, and slavery to others.—(78)

स्पष्टार्थः ॥ १२.७८ ॥

The meaning of this is quite clear.—(78)

078 The (pain of) repeatedly lying in various wombs and agonizing births, imprisonment in fetters hard to bear, and the misery of being enslaved by others,

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

079 And separations from their relatives and dear ones, and the (pain of) dwelling together with the wicked, (labour in) gaining wealth and its loss, (trouble in) making friends and (the appearance of) enemies,

Separations from relations and loved ones, dwelling with the wicked, acquiring wealth and losing it, making of friends and enemies.—(79)

Inevitable decrepitude, the pangs of sickness, various forms of afflictions and unconquerable death.—(80)

एताव् अप्य् उक्तार्थौ ॥ १२.७९–८० ॥

**(verses 12.79-80)
**

The meaning of these two verses is clear.—(79-80)

080 Old age against which there is no remedy, the pangs of diseases, afflictions of many various kinds, and (finally) unconquerable death.

With whatever disposition a man performs an act, the fruit thereof he reaps with a body of that same quality.—(81)

सात्त्विकेन राजसेन तामसेन वा भावेन यद् यत् कर्म निषेवते सात्त्विकं राजसं तामसं वा । शरीरेण तादृशेन¹⁰² सत्त्वबहुलेन रजोबहुलेन तमोबहुलेन वा तत् तत् फलम् उपाश्नुते, सात्त्विकं राजसं तामसं वा ।

• यतश् चैतद् एवं रजस्तमोबहुलात् कर्मणो ऽकुशलसंकल्पहेतोर् अनिष्टफलप्राप्तिः । अतस् तत्परिवर्जनेन कुशलसंकल्पकर्मणा भवितव्यम् ॥ १२.८१ ॥

When a man perforins a certain act with a disposition partaking of the quality of ‘Sattva,’ or of that of ‘Rajas,’ or of that of ‘Tamas,’—the act also partaking of one of these same qualities of Sattva, Rajas or Tamas,—then it is ‘with a body of the same quality’—i.e., by one abounding either in Sattva or in Rajas or in Tamas—that ‘he reaps the result thereof,’—this result also partaking of either Sattva or Rajas or Tamas.

Inasmuch as such is the law, if a man’s act is such as partakes of Rajas, and has its source in an evil disposition of mind, the man obtains undesirable results; hence one should avoid such acts and should take to such as have their source in the right disposition.—(81)

सप्तभिः श्लोकैर् अनिष्टफलं दर्शयति । सात्त्विकेन राजसेन तामसेन वा भावेन यद् यत् कर्म निषेवते, सात्त्विकं राजसं तामसं वा तेन तेन शरीरेण तत् सदृशेनेत्य् अर्थः । सत्त्वबहुलेन रजो बहुलेन तमोबहुलेन वा तत् तत् फलम् उपाश्नुते, सात्त्विकं राजसं तामसं वाश्नुते । यतश् चैतद् एवं रजस् तमो बहुलात् कर्मणो ऽकुषलसंकल्पहेतोर् अनिष्टफलप्राप्तिः । अतस् तत्परिवर्जनेन कुशलसंकल्पकर्मणा भवितव्यम् ॥ १२.७५–८१ ॥

081 But with whatever disposition of mind (a man) forms any act, he reaps its result in a (future) body endowed with the same quality.

Thus has been indicated to you the entire manner in which results proceed from actions; now learn that act which brings about the Highest Good of the Brāhmaṇa.—(82)

विहितानां¹⁰³ प्रतिषिद्धानां च कर्मणां यावत्फलोत्पत्तिस् तानि समुपदिष्टानि । ततो निवर्तितव्यम्¹⁰⁴ । यतो दुःखानुबन्धी विषयसुखोपभोगो ऽतस् ततो निवर्तन्ते । नैःश्रेयसे¹⁰⁵ कर्मविधौ मोक्षोपाये वक्ष्यमाणविद्याकाण्ड उपदिष्टे स्थातव्यम् । तद् इदानीं वक्ष्यामः ॥ १२.८२ ॥

The results proceeding from such acts as have been forbidden have been duly described; hence one should avoid such acts. Inasmuch as sensual pleasures are conducive to suffering, one should desist from them, and one should remain fixed in that course of action which is conducive to Liberation, and which is described under the coming section on ‘Knowledge.’ This is what we are going to expound now.—(82)

एष सर्वः समुद्दिष्टः कर्मणां वः फलोदयः ।

कुशलाकुशलसंकल्पमूलानां शास्त्रलक्षणानां तद्व्परीतानां चा[न]र्थलक्षणानाम् । अधुना ।

नैःश्रेयसकरं कर्म विप्रस्येदं निबोधत ॥ १२.८२ ॥

प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणसामर्थ्याद् वक्ष्यमाणो वेदाभ्यासादिको विधिः निःश्रेयसार्थो ऽपि सन्न् आत्मशुद्धये संपद्यत इति विज्ञेयम् । एवं हि प्रकरणम् अनुगृहीतं भवति । अथ वास्मिञ् छास्त्रे पूर्व आभ्युदयिको विधिर् उक्तः, अधुना तु नैःश्रेयसकरं कर्म विप्रस्येदं निबोधत ब्रह्मलोकप्राप्त्यर्थं मोक्षार्थं वा । एवं च सति यथा वेदस्यान्ति उपनिषदो रहस्यब्राह्मणोक्ता निःश्रेयसार्थम्, एवं अस्मिन्न् अपि धर्मशास्त्रान्ते निःश्रेयसार्था इमा उपनिषदो ऽभिविधीयन्ते ॥ १२.८२ ॥

082 All the results, proceeding from actions, have been thus pointed out; learn (next) those acts which secure supreme bliss to a Brahmana.

Vedic Study, Austerity, Knowledge, Control of the Senses, Harmlessness, Service of Elders,—are the best means of attaining the Highest Good.—(83)

निःश्रेयसशब्देन न पुनः पुरुषार्थसिद्धिर् उच्यते, अपि तु निश्चितसुखदुःखानुबन्धः प्रीतिविशेषो ऽपि । वेदाभ्यासादीनां तत्र तत्रोक्तानां पुनर्वचनम् आत्मज्ञानस्तुत्यर्थम् । ज्ञानं वेदार्थविषयम् । उक्तार्थान्य् अन्यानि पदानि ॥ १२.८३ ॥

The term ‘highest good’ stands, not for the accomplishment of one’s personal ends, but for the sure continuity of happiness.

‘Vedic Study’ and other things, already described before, have been repeated here, for the purpose of eulogising the Knowledge of Self.

‘Knowledge’—of what is contained in the Veda.

The terms have been already explained.—(83)

[[See XXXI above.]]

Yājñavalkya (3.190).—‘Expounding of the Veda, performing of sacrifices, Celibacy, Austerity, Self-control, Faith, Fasting and Independence are the means of acquiring the knowledge of the Self.’

केचित् त्व् अत्र पूर्वपादे दानं पठन्ति, अपरे ध्यानम् । तत्र वेदाभ्यासो नाम साङ्गोपाङ्ग[सो]सोपनिषत्कस्य वेदस्य नित्यकर्माविरोधेनाभ्यासो गृह्यते । तपःशब्देन च नित्यकर्माण्य् अभिधीयन्ते । चान्द्रायणादीनि च । ज्ञानं कर्माङ्गदेवतानिचिन्तन इन्द्रियसंयमो ऽहिंसा गुरुसेवा च यथोक्ताः ॥ १२.८३ ॥

083 Studying the Veda, (practising) austerities, (the acquisition of true) knowledge, the subjugation of the organs, abstention from doing injury, and serving the Guru are the best means for attaining supreme bliss.

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

(अग्रिमे श्लोके व्याख्यातम्।)

ज्ञानस्तुत्यर्थो ऽयम् उपन्यासः ॥ १२.८४ ॥

084 (If you ask) whether among all these virtuous actions, (performed) here below, (there be) one which has been declared more efficacious (than the rest) for securing supreme happiness to man,

[Question]—“From among all these good acts, is t here any one act which has been described as more efficacious in securing to man his Highest Good?”—(84)

[Answer]—Of all these, Knowledge of the Self has been declared to be the most efficacious; since it is the best of all sciences, as Immortality is attained by its means.—(85)

द्विविधम् आत्मज्ञानम्- देहेन्द्रियबुद्ध्यादिव्यतिरिक्तस्य कर्तृभोक्तृत्वोपपत्तिरूपस्य अहंप्रत्ययप्रमेयतयात्मनि विषयप्रतीत्यन्तर्गतस्य जीवक्षेत्रज्ञविज्ञानात्मादिपर्यायस्य शरीरनाशे ऽप्य् अनष्टानां कर्मफलानाम् और्ध्वदेहिकानां भोक्तृत्वज्ञानम् । अपरं सर्वस्य जगतो जन्मादीनां परमात्मैककारणत्वेन¹⁰⁶ नित्यस्य सत एकस्याविद्यावासनोपहितनानारूपस्य तिर्यङ्मनुष्यादिष्व् एकत्वदर्शनम्, “आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः” (बाउ २.४.५) इत्येवमादिश्रुतिभिर् उपदर्शितस्वरूपस्य ज्ञानम् ।

• तत्र क्षेत्रज्ञपरिज्ञानं कर्मविधिषूपयुज्यते । असति हि देहादिव्यतिरिक्ते ऽस्मिन्न् और्ध्वदेहिकानां भोक्तरि फलानां स्वर्गकामादिचोदना अनर्थिकाः स्युः, अतस् तत्र न कश्चित् प्रवर्तेत । अतस् तत् कर्मानुष्ठानोपयोगि । यत् तु परमात्मैकत्वज्ञानं तिरोधानोपसेवनाभ्याससामर्थ्येनोपपद्यमानं¹⁰⁷ शुद्धबुद्धमुक्तानन्दनित्याविनश्वरस्वभावस्यात्मनः¹⁰⁸ प्रकाशनं तत्रेदम् उपपद्यते- तद् अग्र्यं सर्वविद्यानां प्राप्यते ह्य् अमृतं तत इति । अमृतं ततः गतेर् व्यापत्तिम् । तत इति विद्यानिर्देश आत्मविद्यायाः । क्षेत्रज्ञज्ञानं तु कर्मोपकारकत्वाद् अमृतत्वाय न¹⁰⁹ कल्पते । अतो वेदान्तोपदिष्टस्य समस्तस्य द्वैताद्वैतविषयस्य सदात्मनो दर्शनं तद् आत्मज्ञानम् अभिप्रेतम् ॥ १२.८५ ॥

(verses 12.84-85)

The ‘Knowledge of Self’ is of two kinds—(1) the Knowledge of the Self, as something distinct from the body, the sense-organs and other things,—as the doer of acts and the experiencer of results, as the object of the notion of ‘I’ which forms part of the conception of the Self, as bearing the names of ‘Soul,’ ‘Conscious Being,’ and so forth, as enjoying, even after the death of the body, the fruits of actions that have not been spent up; and (2) the Knowledge of the Self as the one Supreme Entity ensouling all entities, including men and animals,—the one eternal cause of the birth, existence and dissolution of the entire universe which assumes diverse forms through the encrustations of Illusion,—whose exact nature is indicated by such Śruti texts as—‘The Self is to be seen, to be listened to, to be meditated upon,’ and so forth.

Now of these two, the Knowledge of the Soul comes useful în the performance of acts. If there were no such entity, distinct from the body and other things, the experiencer of effects appearing after death,—then all injunctions relating to Heaven as the desired result and such others would be meaningless; and no one would undertake these acts; hence the said knowledge is of use in this.

As for the knowledge of the one Supreme Self, which is attained by long-continued meditation and service, it would be useful in the attaining of the realisation of the Self in its pristine nature, pure, enlightened, free, blissful, eternal and imperishable.

‘It is the bent of all Sciences, as Immortality is attained by its means.’

‘Immortality’ stands for the cessation of transmigration.—‘By its means’—‘its’ referring to ‘Science,’ stands for the ‘Science’ or Knowledge of the Supreme Self; its the Knowledge of the individual Soul, being useful in the performance of acts, could not bring about Immortality; hence it must stand for the realisation of the True Self, including all that is dual and nondual, which has been taught in the Vedānta texts.—(84-85)

**(verse 12.85)
**

‘Ātmajñānam.’—‘Knowledge of the Supreme Soul, taught in the Upaniṣads’ (Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka and Nandana);—‘Meditation’ (Nārāyaṇa).

आत्मज्ञानप्रशंसार्थः श्लोकः । अतो [ज्ञायते] पूर्वत्र ज्ञानपाठ एव, न ध्यानपाठः [नापि] दानपाठः । आत्मज्ञानं च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्यादिभ्यो ऽन्यत्रादिज्ञानम् । तस्मिन् हि सत्य् अधिकारपुरुष उपलब्धक्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञतत्त्वो मध्यस्थो जितेन्द्रियो निर्हृतदोषो विषयैर् अनभिमन्यमानः श्रुतिनियतम् अधिकारं साकल्येनानुतिष्ठति । यस्मात् अतो युक्तम् अभिहितम्- प्राप्यते ह्य् अमृतं तत इति । समस्तस्य व्यस्तस्य वा परमात्मनो वेदान्तोपनिषदो विज्ञानम्, कर्माङ्गदेव्[व्त्]आज्ञानं वा । सर्वं चैतद् आत्मज्ञानग्रहणेन गृह्यते, तस्मात् सामर्थ्याद् अविरोधाच् च ॥ १२.८५ ॥

085 (The answer is that) the knowledge of the Soul is stated to be the most excellent among all of them; for that is the first of all sciences, because immortality is gained through that.

Among the six aforesaid actions, the performance of ‘Vedic Acts’ should be regarded as the most efficacious for bringing about happiness in this world and as well as after death.—(80)

वेदाभ्यासादीनि षट्कर्माणि श्रेयस्कराणि । तेभ्यो निःश्रेयसकरत्वं वैदिकस्य ज्योतिष्टोमादेः कर्मणः । तेषु मोक्षत्वं प्रतिपद्यते¹¹⁰ ।

• ननु च यदि तावत् पूर्वेषाम् इति निर्धारणे षष्ठी तद् अनुपपन्नम् । निर्धारणं हि समुदायभूतविशेषस्य¹¹¹ केनचिद् धर्मेण तदैकविषयेण चोपपद्यमानस्यावान्तरेणासंभविना¹¹² । “क्षत्रियो मनुष्याणां शूरतमः” इति मनुष्यजातौ क्षत्रियो ऽप्य् अन्तर्भूतः स शूरतमत्वेन निर्धार्यते । अनुपदिष्टस्यानन्तरितस्य कुतो निर्धारणम् ।¹¹³ न चेह प्राग् वैदिकं कर्मादिष्टम् ।

• अथोच्यते । अन्तर्वेदाभ्यासादीनि¹¹⁴ वैदिकान्य् एव, कथम् अनुद्दिष्टं¹¹⁵ वैदिकं कर्म । यद्य् एवम्, सामान्यस्य सामान्यात्¹¹⁶ सुतराम् अनिर्धारणम् । न हि भवति “गवां गौर् उत्पन्नक्षीरतमा” इति । यदि ह्य् अवैदिकानि¹¹⁷ चोद्दिष्टार्थान्य् अभविष्यंस् तत एवैतद् अपेक्षेत वैदिकं श्रेयस्करतरम्¹¹⁸ इति ।

• किं च, कानि तावद् अत्र वैदिकानि कर्माण्य् अभिप्रेतानि । यदि तावत् ज्योतिष्टोमादीनि, विशेषग्रहणे प्रमाणं वक्तव्यम्, वेदाभ्यासादीनाम् अपि वैदिकत्वात्¹¹⁹ । अथ “स्मार्तत्वान् न तानि वैदिकानि, यान्य् एव प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिविहितानि तान्य् एव वैदिकानि” इति¹²⁰ । न हि सर्वेषु¹²¹ वैदिकेषु कर्मसु वेदाभ्यासादीनाम् अगत्वेनान्तर्भावः¹²² । एतच् च यद् वक्ष्यति “अन्तर्भवन्ति क्रमशस् तस्मिन् क्रियाविधौ” (म्ध् १२.८७) इति, तद् धि तस्य नेति तर्ह्य् अग्निहोत्रादौ तपो गुरु संपाद्यं स्यात् । अनेन तेनोक्तेन न कश्चिद् अर्थः । वेदाभ्यासादीन्य्¹²³ अप्य् अनुष्ठेयान्य् अग्निहोत्रादीन्य् अपि । तत्र न विद्मः कीदृशम् अमीषां श्रेयस्करत्वम् । नापि समानि फलानि, येन फलस्योत्कर्षवत्तयैवम् उच्यते । यथा गोदानात् स्वर्गस्य ज्योतिष्टोमाच् च दीर्घकालाद्यनुवृत्तता । यथोक्तम् “लोकवत् परिमाणतः¹²⁴ फलविशेषः स्यात्”(प्म्स् १.२.१७) इति ।

• अत्रोच्यते । यद् उक्तं नैतेनोक्तेन¹²⁵ कश्चिद् अर्थ इति, तत्र केचिद् आहुः । विरोधे स्मार्ते श्रौते बाधकत्वज्ञापनार्थं वैदिकानां श्रेयस्करतरत्ववचनम्¹²⁶ । यथोक्तम् “तुल्यबलविरोधे विकल्पः”¹²⁷ (ग्ध् १.४) । अतुल्यबलायाः स्मृतेः श्रुत्या बाधः¹²⁸ इति । “श्रुतिद्वैधं तु यत्र स्यात् तत्र धर्माव् उभौ स्मृतौ” (म्ध् २.१४) । श्रुतिस्मृतिद्वैधे¹²⁹ अनुवादः¹³⁰ स्मृतिर् इत्य् अर्थाद् उक्तं¹³¹ भवति ।

• अमुनैवावगतत्वाद् अवाच्यम् एतत् ।

• विस्पष्टीकरणार्थम् एव पुनर् उच्यत इत्य् अदोषः ।

• अथ वा, अन्यो ऽपि तथार्थः¹³² संभाव्यते । शुद्धे च विकल्पवचनम् । स्मृतिद्वैधे न तद्विकल्पार्थम् । तेनायम् अर्थः । स्मार्तेभ्यो वैदिकानि बलीयांसि । वेदाभ्यासादिग्रहणं सर्वस्मार्तप्रदर्शनार्थम् । वृत्तानुरोधाद् एवं पठितम् ।

• वयं तु ब्रूमः- न्यायसिद्धो ऽयम् अर्थः, न्यायसिद्धस्यापि सौहार्देनाभिधानम् अनारभ्य युक्तम् । इहात्मनो ज्ञानं प्रतिपदं पठ्यते । तत्र कः प्रसङ्गो बाधात् तस्य । स्मृतिकारा न च स्ववाक्यानि स्ववाक्यैर् एव प्रमाणयितुम् अर्हन्ति । अथोच्यते- याज्ञवल्कीयायाः स्मृतेर् विधिर्¹³³ उच्यते, नात्मीयायाः समानता । यत् तावद् आत्मीयायाम् अप्य् उक्तं भवति । अतः प्रकरणानुरोधाद् वेदाभ्यासादि पदं पृथक्¹³⁴ । नेहात्मानं प्रतिज्ञायेदं पठ्यते । कथं च आत्मज्ञानं श्रुतिपरत्वेन तैर् व्याख्यातम् इति¹³⁵ । + + +¹³⁶ वेदाभ्यासादिभ्यो वैदिकं यागादि कर्म श्रेष्ठम् इति, ततो ऽध्यात्मज्ञानम् । इतरथान्यत्र प्रजाया अन्यद् उच्यमानम् अन्यत्रास्तम् अन्यत्र पतितं स्यात् ।

• अथ वा वैदिकम् अत्र आत्मज्ञानम् एव,¹³⁷ वेदस्य तत्प्रतिपादनपरत्वात् । अग्निहोत्राद्युपदेश औषधपाने वृद्ध्युपदेशवद् बालादिप्रवृत्त्यर्थः ।

• यदि वा कर्मकाण्डेन शिष्टाः स्वाभाविकीम् एनाम् अनाद्यविद्यां वासनाविषयासङ्गहेतुभूताम् अवधूय शास्त्राभ्यासवासनासामर्थ्यवशात्¹³⁸ क्रमेणोपजातवैराग्यशिथिलीभूतदृढतृष्णारागग्रहणे उत्तमाधिकारानुशासने नियोज्यतां प्रतिपत्तुं समस्तम् अपि श्रुत्यादिष्टत्वम् अधिकारोपकारकत्वं कर्मकाण्डस्य विज्ञायत इति ब्रह्मवादिनः । अतो वक्ष्यमाणनिवृत्त्याख्यकर्माभिप्रायम् एतत्- श्रेयस्करतरं ज्ञेयं सर्वथा कर्म वैदिकम् इति ।

• अथ वा भेदो यदि सर्वेषाम् अपि स्वप्नवद् असत्यदर्शनद्वये ऽप्य् आत्मैकत्वज्ञाने श्रेय इत्य् अर्थः । वेदाभ्यासादीनां¹³⁹ भेदोपदेशादिनोद्यं तत् कर्तव्यम् । षष्ठीनोद्यं तु तैर् एव समाहितं बुद्ध्यारोपितान्तरेण पृथक्त्वोपपत्तेः । यथा “मथुराः पाटलीपुत्रकेभ्य आढ्यतराः” इति । तथा सतीयं¹⁴⁰ पञ्चमी स्याद् इति चेत्, अत्रापि प्रतिविहितं धर्माविशेषात् ॥ १२.८६ ॥

The six actions—Vedic Study and the rest—are all conducive to Happiness; and among these the most efficacious in bringing about happiness are the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts prescribed in the Veda.

“If the Genitive ending in the term ‘pūrveṣām’ (‘among the aforesaid’) denotes selection,—that cannot be right; as we have ‘selection’ in a case where among a number of things forming a single group as bearing equally upon a common objective, one of them happens to be possessed of some such efficiency as marks it out as pre-eminent; e.g., in the expression ‘among men, the Kṣatriya is the bravest’; where the Kṣatriya, who is included in the class ‘men,’ is selected as the ‘bravest.’ How, then, can there be any ‘selection’ of what has not been mentioned at all among those spoken of in the foregoing verse? ‘Vedic Act’ has not been mentioned. It might be argued that—‘since Vedic Act is also included under Vedic Study, which has been mentioned, how can the former be regarded as not mentioned?’ But in that case t he ‘selection’ of a generic entity out of the same generic entity would be all the more incongruous; one never says—‘among cows, cows are the most milch.’ ‘Vedic Acts’ could have been selected as the most efficient in bringing about happiness only if Non-Vedic Acts had also been spoken of as conducive to happiness. Further, what are the ‘Vedic Acts’ meant here? If it be held that the Jyotiṣṭoma and such sacrificial acts are what are meant,—then it will be necessary to point out what authority there is for taking the term as referring to these in particular; since the ‘Study of the Veda’ and several such acts.also are ‘Vedic.’—In answer to this, the following argument might be brought forward—‘The Study of Veda and such acts are prescribed in the Smṛtis also; and hence they are not Vedic; those alone can be called Vedic which are prescribed directly by Śruti texts only. Nor do the Study of the Veda and such other acts come in as the necessary details of all Vedic Acts. This is what is going to be explained in the next verse, by the words—each of those is fully comprised in the performance of the several rites’—The answer to this would be that, if the said acts were not Vedic, then it would be difficult to explain their forming part of the Agnihotra and other Vedic rites; so that there would be no useful purpose served by the mention of these at all. Study of the Veda and such other acts have to be performed, as also the Agnihotra and other rites; and we do not know in what way one or the other of these would be ‘more efficient’ in bringing about happiness. The results of the two sets of actions not being the same, it is not possible to make any comparison between them on the basis of those results; as there is in the case of the two acts—the giving away of a cow and the performance of the Jyotiṣṭoma and other rites, the former simply leading the agent to Heaven, while the latter is conducive to a long-continued stay in

Heaven, as has been shown under Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā Sūtra, 1.3.17.”

The answer to the above is as follows—As for the argument that the declaration in question is meaningless,—some people offer the following explanation:—What is meant by the Vedic Acts being more efficient is that whenever there is opposition between what is prescribed in the Veda and what is laid down in the Smṛti, the latter is always to be rejected in favour of the former; this is what has been declared in such assertions as—‘when two opposite injunctions are of equal strength, the two courses are to be regarded as optional alternatives, but when they are of unequal strength, the weaker Smṛti is always set aside by the stronger Śruti.’ This is what has been declared under 2.14 above, where it is stated that ‘when they are two contrary Vedic injunctions bearing on the same point, both the courses are to be regarded as lawful; when however there is opposition between Śruti and Smṛti, the latter is to be regarded as only reiterative, not injunctive.’

“If this be the meaning of the present verse, then, inasmuch as it has been already asserted in the text just quoted, why should it have been asserted again in the present text?”

It has been repeated for the purpose of making the fact clearer; so that there is nothing wrong in this.

It may be possible to find some other meaning of the present text. But the actual meaning appears to be as has been just explained. Thus the meaning comes to be that the ‘Vedic Acts’ are more efficient than those laid down in the Smṛtis,—the mention of ‘Vedic Study’ and the rest being meant to include all those that are laid down in Smṛtis. The peculiar form of the assertion being due to the exigencies of metre.

Our own view however is as follows:—What is stated here is a fact established by reasoning; and it is in a friendly spirit that the Author states, without reference to anything particular, a fact so established. In fact, what is directly spoken of Is the ‘Knowledge of Self’; what then could be the need of the mention of ‘Study of Veda’? Writers on Smṛti do not support their statements by their own statements. It might be argued that—“What are meant to be cited in support are the declarations of Yājñavalkya, and not those of the writer himself.” On the strength of the context we take the ‘Study of Veda’ and other acts as distinct from the Agnihotra and other acts prescribed in the Veda. As a matter of fact, the present declaration is not made with special reference to the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ All that is done is to take it as referring to the Śruti texts hearing upon the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ And the purport of it all is that—(a) the ‘Study of the Veda’ and other such acts prescribed in the Smṛtis are good, (b) better than these are the Agnihotra and other acts prescribed in the Veda, and (c) best of all is the ‘Knowledge of Self.’ If this were not what is meant, then the whole section would be found to have started with one subject and ending with a totally different subject.

Another view is that the term ‘Vedic Act’ here stands for the Knowledge of Self; and this on the ground that, the whole purpose of the Veda is the propounding of this knowledge.

As for the Injunctions contained in the Veda regarding the Agnihotra and other such acts,—these are meant to draw on young boys (slowly, to the undertaking, gradually, of the Higher Knowledge, through the simpler acts); just as old men lead children on to the drinking of unpleasant medicines (by beginning with giving them less unpalatable things).

Or, what is meant is that cultured men shall, by means of the ritualistic acts, shake off their inborn beginningless Illusion, which is the source of predispositions and attachments to sensual objects,—and having acquired the faculty of studying the scriptures, they shall in due course acquire dispassion and thereby loosen the bonds of desire, finally come to be led on to the highest purpose. In fact, the Vedāntins hold that the sole purpose of the Ritualistic section of the Veda lies in thus preparing the agent for the higher purpose. Thus what the present assertion—‘the Vedic Act is in every way more efficient in the bringing about of good’—points to is the act of ‘withdrawing from activity’ that is going to be spoken of later on.

Or, lastly, whether we accept Duality, or reject it as a dream, and accept the Non-dual Self as the only real entity,—in either case, the ‘Knowledge of Self’ is the better means (of attaining the highest good). As for the ‘Study of Veda’ and other acts since they involve the notion of duality, they have to be performed, since these also have been laid down in the Veda.

As regards the objection based upon the use of the Genitive ending (in ‘eṣām,’ etc.), this has been answered by pointing out that its use is justified by the explanation that it is based upon a distinction assumed in the mind; just as we have in the expression—‘Māthurāḥ pātaliputrakebhyaḥ āḍhyatarāḥ,’ ‘the inhabitants of Mathurā are wealthier than those of Pātaliputra.’

“But in that case the Ablative ending should have been used (instead of the Genitive in ‘Ṣaṇṇām eṣām,’ ‘among these six’).”

This has been answered by the remark that there would be no difference in the denotations of the Genitive and Ablative endings in the present connection.—(86)

पूर्वोपदिष्टानां वैदिकानां नित्यानां कर्मणां प्रशंसा । अत्र स्तुतौ कारणं वक्ति ॥ १२.८६ ॥

086 Among those six (kinds of) actions (enumerated) above, the performance of) the acts taught in the Veda must ever be held to be most efficacious for ensuring happiness in this world and the next.

All these are fully included, each in its turn, in a particular course of performance of the Vedic Act.—(87)

एतावद् वैदिकं कर्म ज्योतिष्टोमाद्य् आचक्षते । तेषाम् एव श्लोकयोजना । क्रियाविधिः कर्मविधिर् वैदिकः । कर्मयोगे¹⁴¹ कर्मप्रयोगे बहिः संपाद्यावस्थाः । एतान्य् उपनिषद्वेदाभ्यासादीन्य् अन्तर्भवन्ति । तस्मिन्न् इति व्याप्यतया क्वचित् कस्यचित् समम् एषाम् अन्तर्भावम् आह । कर्मयोग इत्य् उक्ते क्रियाविधिग्रहणं श्लोकपूरणार्थम् । “क्रतुयज्ञेभ्यश् च” इति¹⁴² (पाण् ४.३.६८) तद्वद् वा¹⁴³ सोमयागभेदेन भेदो व्याख्येयः ।

• तत्र वेदाभ्यासस् तावत् सत्रे ऽन्तर्भवति,¹⁴⁴ यजमानमन्त्रेषु सर्वत्रोपयोगतः । तपोदीक्षोपसदसोमयागेषु¹⁴⁵ “पयो ऽमृतं¹⁴⁶ ब्राह्मणस्य” इत्यादि । ज्ञानं सर्वत्र, विदुषाम् अनधिकारात्¹⁴⁷ । एवम् इन्द्रियसंयमः प्रतियागगामी “न¹⁴⁸ स्त्रियम् उपेयान्¹⁴⁹ न मांसम् अश्नीयात्” इति । अहिंसापि “एतां रात्रिं¹⁵⁰ प्राणभृतः प्राणं न विच्छिन्द्याद्¹⁵¹ अपि कृकलासस्य” (बाउ १.५.१४.) इति । गुरुसेवादेर् इत्थम् अप्रवृत्तिः ।

• ये तु निवृत्तम् एव कर्माहुस् तेषां वेदाभ्यासादीनां अनुवृत्त्यर्थः श्लोकः ।

• अन्तर्भवन्त्य् उपासनापरस्यापि तेषाम् अनुष्ठानाद् अन्तर्भावः । तथा चोपनिषद्भ्य उपासकस्य प्रायश्चित्तनिर्देशः पापक्षपणार्थः, न पुनः प्रतिविधानविकार एवोक्तो भवति । अतो विहिताकरणे प्रतिषिद्धसेवने सति प्रत्यवायः ।

• एवं तर्हि कुतो मोक्षः ।

• फलोपभोगेन जन्मान्तरोपत्तदुरितक्षयात्, अकरणात् स्वबुद्धिपूर्वम् अन्यस्य,¹⁵² प्रमादकृतस्य प्राणायामविद्याविशेषाभ्यासातिशयेन कृतनिष्कृतित्वात्¹⁵³ निरुपाध्यात्मस्वरूपसाक्षात्करणाच् च । प्रथमं तं वेदयेत्, तद्भावापत्तिर् मोक्षः । अतश् च ब्रह्मनिष्ठापरेणापि वेदाभ्यासादीन्य् अनुष्ठेयानि । यस्य यस्य कर्मन्यासः श्रूतते स षष्ठे व्याख्यातः ।

• क्रियाविधिर्¹⁵⁴ उपासनविधिर् एव “द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः” (बाउ २.४.५) इत्यादिनोदितः । बहुत्वाच् चोपासनाप्रकाराणां तस्मिंस् तस्मिन्न् इति वीप्सा युज्यत एव । अतः “ब्राह्मेत्य् उपासीत,”¹⁵⁵ (छु ३.१८.१) “य एष आदित्ये हिरण्मयः पुरुषः” (छु १.६.६) इति, “स च एष आत्मापहतपाप्मा” (छु ८.७.१) इत्यादि क्वचिद् उपात्तबुद्ध्याध्यारोपितश् चोद्यते, क्वचिद् धिरण्यमय इत्यादौ लक्षणया तस्यैवोपासना, क्वचित् सर्वोपासनाधिपत्येन निष्कलंकम् इवात्मनः “स एवाधस्तात्¹⁵⁶ स उपरिष्टात्” (छु ७.२५.१) इति चोदनाबहुत्वाद् वीप्सोपपत्तिः ॥ १२.८७ ॥

The ‘Vedic Act’ stands, in this verse, for the Jyotiṣṭoma and other acts, and ‘performance’ also refers to the actual working out, in practice, of the details of those same acts that are laid down in the Veda.

‘All these’—the study of the Veda and its esoteric sections and so forth—‘are included’ in the said ‘act,’ which comprises them all; one act being included in one, and the other in another and so forth.

The ‘act,’ ‘karma yoga,’ having been already mentioned, the ‘performance,’ ‘kriyāvidhi,’ has been mentioned again, for the purpose of filling up the metre. Or some distinction may he drawn on the basis of the different substances —Soma and the rest—used at sacrifices.

(a) Now, the ‘Study of the Veda’ is included in the ‘Sattra,’ Sacrificial Sessions; on the ground that Veda is of use in connection with all the sacred texts that have to be recited at sacrifices.—(b) ‘Austerity’ is included in the Dīkṣā, the Upasada and the Soma sacrifices.—(c) ‘Knowledge’ is included in all sacrifices; as no sacrifices can be performed by men devoid of knowledge.—(d) ‘Control of the sense-organs’ comes in useful in all sacrifices, as it has been laid down for all sacrifices that ‘he shall not have intercourse with his wife;—he shall not eat meat’ and so forth.—(e) So also ‘Harmlessness’; in view of such declarations as—‘he shall not deprive any creature, not even the lizard, of its life.’—(f) ‘Service of elders’ also would come in in the same manner.

There are some people who hold that ‘withdrawing from activity’ is the only ‘act’; and the present text serves the purpose of indicating to these men the necessity of such positive acts as the ‘Studying of the Veda’ and the rest, ‘They are included’—That is, these acts also become included as are of the nature of ‘worship.’ When the Upaniṣads prescribe expiation for persons devoted to ‘worship,’ they do so for the purpose of the destroying of sins, and they do not mean to countermand the act of worship which has been enjoined by Vedic texts. Hence in all cases, whenever one either omits to do what is enjoined, or does what is forbidden, he incurs sin.

“Under the circumstances (if all these acts would continue to be performed), how could there be Liberation?”

Liberation would be attained in the following manner:—(a) The sinful acts committed during previous lives would become exhausted by their effects having been duly experienced,—(b) fresh sinful acts would not. he done intentionally,—(c) those that might he done unintentionally would he expiated by the force of repeated ‘Breath-Suppression’ and other practices,—and (d) thus the man would be enabled to obtain the direct perception of the real nature of the Self.

It is for this reason that even one who is bent upon seeking Brahman should perform all such acts as ‘Study of the Veda’ and the like. As for the acts whose renunciation has been prescribed, the subject, has been dealt, with under Discourse VI.

The term ‘Kriyāvidhi,’ ‘performance,’ may be taken as standing for the act of devoted attention, prescribed by such passages as—‘He should be heard, meditated upon, etc., etc.;’ and since there are many methods of such devoted attention, the text has rightly added the phrase—‘each in its turn.’ For instance, in such passages as—‘one should worship Brahman,’ ‘the Golden Person in the Sun,’ ‘this is the Self, free from sin,’ and so forth—the object of devoted attention is sometimes spoken of in some form attributed to It by our own mind; sometimes in the form of a ‘Golden Person,’ where the expression is used figuratively; sometimes again as the ‘lord’ of all forms of worships the sinless Self:—e.g., such passages as ‘Below Him, above Him,’ etc. It is on account of these diverse declarations that we have the repeated phrase ‘tasmin, tasmin.’—(87)

वेदाभ्यासस् तावत् कर्मविधाव् अङ्गीभवति शस्त्रस्तोत्रग्रहयाजनादौ । तपश् चोपसद्व्रतादि कर्माङ्गम् । ज्ञानम् उक्तं क्षेत्रज्ञविज्ञानादि । इन्द्रियसंयमः, “न मांसम् अश्नीयान् न मिथुनम् उपेयात्” इत्य् एवमादि । अहिंसा- “तस्माद् एतां रात्रिं प्राणभृतः प्राणं न विच्छिन्द्यात्” इत्य् एवमादि । गुरुसेवा ऋत्विगनुवृत्तिः । तच् चैतद् वैदिकं कर्म ॥ १२.८७ ॥

087 For in the performance of the acts prescribed by the Veda all those (others) are fully comprised, (each) in its turn in the several rules for the rites.

The ‘Vedic Act’ is of two kinds—(a) the ‘active,’ which is conducive to happiness and prosperity, and (b) the ‘passive,’ which is conducive to the highest good.—(88)

• नैष दोषः । प्राधान्यं तत्र प्रवृत्तं¹⁵⁷ वैदिकं व्याख्यातम्¹⁵⁸ । वैदिकं¹⁵⁹ तु सर्वत्राविशिष्टम् ।

• सुखम् उपैत्योपपद्यते¹⁶⁰ । यद् अपि सुखाभ्युदयिकं सुखाभ्युदयः प्रयोजनम् अस्येति वान्वर्थो¹⁶¹ वा कर्तव्यः । निःश्रेयसं प्रयोजनम् अस्येति च केचन । प्रवृत्तनिवृत्तपदे¹⁶² यथासंख्यं पूर्ववत्¹⁶³ संबन्धनीये ॥ १२.८८ ॥

“The Vedic Act has all along been described as of the active kind; how is it that it is now said to be of two kinds?”

There is no force in this objection. Where it was said that the Vedic Act is of the active kind, what was meant was that the greater part of it is of that’ kind, as is found in the ease of the Agnihotra and other acts; but the same cannot be said of ‘renunciation’ and acts of that kind;—and yet both sets are equally ‘Vedic.’

‘Conducive to happiness and prosperity’—i.e., which serve these purposes; and—^(‘)Conducive to the highest good’—that which accomplishes this purpose. These two terms are to be construed respectively with the foregoing terms (‘active’ and ‘passive’).—(88)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.58);—and in Aparārka, (p. 1033).

एतच् च कारणभेदान् कर्मणो द्वैविध्यं येन अतस् तत्कारणाद् इदम् उच्यते ।

088 The acts prescribed by the Veda are of two kinds, such as procure an increase of happiness and cause a continuation (of mundane existence, pravritta), and such as ensure supreme bliss and cause a cessation (of mundane existence, nivritta).

That which is done with knowledge and brings about the fulfilment of desires either in this world, or in the next, is described as ‘active’; while that which is done with knowledge and without desires, is declared to be ‘passive.’—(89)

इह कारीरीवैश्वानर्यादि,¹⁶⁴ अमुत्र ज्योतिष्टोमादि काम्यसंपादकं कर्म । काम्यत इति काम्यम् । फलस्य काम्यत्वात् तत्साधनम्¹⁶⁵ अपि कर्म काम्यम्¹⁶⁶ एव । निष्कामं नित्यम् । ज्ञानपूर्वम्¹⁶⁷ उभयत्र शेषम्, अविदुषो ऽनाधिकारात् । अथापि¹⁶⁸ रहस्याधिकारिज्ञानम् उपदिश्यते । तदा नोभयशेषः¹⁶⁹ । पूर्वशब्दश् चाद्यर्थं¹⁷⁰ लक्षयति । ज्ञानम् आद्यं मुख्यं यस्येति विग्रहः । यो ऽभिमुख्यः स लोकः पूर्वं क्रियां प्रतिलभते । अतश् चैतद् उक्तं भवति । ज्ञानं प्रधानं प्रधानतो ऽनुष्ठेयम् । वेदाभ्यासादि तु शास्त्रमात्रया ॥ १२.८९ ॥

‘In this world’—such as the Kārīrī (which brings on rain), the Vaiśvānarī (which secures a son), and so forth.

‘In the next’—such as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like.

All these are acts that bring about the fulfilment of some desired end. What is ‘Kāmya’ (lit. ‘desirable’) is really the reward; but the term is made applicable here to the action which brings about that reward; since as an instrument, that also is ‘desirable.’

‘Niṣkāma,’ which is done without desire for any reward, is the compulsory act.

‘With knowledge’—is to be construed with both, as a man devoid of knowledge is not entitled to the performance of any Vedic Act If however ‘knowledge’ be taken as that of the esoteric section only, then it cannot qualify both. [It can go with the latter only.

The term ‘pūrva’ in the compound ‘Jñānapūrvam’ denotes precedence; hence the compound means ‘that of which knowledge forms the important factor.’ And the purport then comes to be that ‘knowledge is to be pursued as the most important end in view; and Vedic Study and other acts are to be pursued only to the extent that they have been enjoined by the scriptures.’—(89)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1033);—and in Mitākṣarā (3.58).

इह वामुत्र वा काम्यं प्रवृत्तं कर्म कीर्त्यते ।

ज्ञानपूर्वम् अपि संकल्पोपहतम्, किं पुनर् अज्ञानपूर्वम् ।

निष्कामं ज्ञानपूर्वं तु निवृत्तम् उपदिश्यते ॥ १२.८९ ॥

अत्र च निवृत्ते कर्मणि ज्ञानोपदेशात् प्रवृत्ते कर्मण्य् अज्ञानसंकल्पो निमित्तत्वेनार्थाद् गम्यते । इदानीं कारणभिन्नयोः फलभेदं शास्ति सुतरां द्वैविध्यप्रदर्शकम् ॥ १२.८९ ॥

089 Acts which secure (the fulfilment of) wishes in this world or in the next are called pravritta (such as cause a continuation of mundane existence); but acts performed without any desire (for a reward), preceded by (the acquisition) of (true) knowledge, are declared to be nivritta (such as cause the cessation of mundane existence).

He who devotes himself to the ‘active’ side, attains equality to the gods; while he who devotes himself to the ‘passive’ section, passes beyond the five material substances.—(90)

• यो ऽप्य् उत्तरः श्लोकः भूतान्य् अत्येति पञ्च वै इति,¹⁷¹ तत्र¹⁷² अत्येति¹⁷³ विमुच्यत इति न विद्मः । अन्यत्रात्ययो¹⁷⁴ लय उच्यते । न चेह भूतेषु जीवस्य लय इष्यते, अपि तु ब्रह्मरूपापत्तिः¹⁷⁵ ।

• अन्ये ऽपि व्याचक्षते — स¹⁷⁶ चातिक्रामति पञ्चभूतानि । न¹⁷⁷ पाञ्चभौतिकं तस्य शरीरं भवति, अपि तु तेजोमूर्तिर् एवान्वेति¹⁷⁸ । तद् अपि न किंचित् । शरीराग्रहणं हि मोक्षः । तच् च शरीरम् एकभौतिकं¹⁷⁹ वा भवतु¹⁸⁰ पाञ्चभौतिकं वा,¹⁸¹ को विशेषः संसरित्वे । अतो व्याख्येयो ऽयं श्लोकः ।

• उच्यते । यत् तावद् उक्तम् “कस्य कर्मणो देवसाम्यता फलम् इति, नित्यानाम् अफलत्वात्,¹⁸² काम्यानां च फलान्तरयोगात्” इति, तत्र ब्रूमः- नानेन सर्वेषां वैदिकानां कर्मणाम् एतत् फलम् उच्यते । किं तर्हि, निवृत्तस्य कर्मणो यत् फलं यत्र प्रवृत्तिः¹⁸³ । किं च कर्म¹⁸⁴ विद्यते, येन¹⁸⁵ तत्फलम् आप्यत इति प्रशंसा । सन्ति च कानिचित् देवत्वप्राप्तिफलानि कर्माणि¹⁸⁶ । तेनैतद् उक्तं भवति । कर्मकाण्डे यत् कर्तव्यतया¹⁸⁷ वेदितं सास्य परा गतिर् देवत्वप्राप्तिः, न तु मोक्षः । यत् तु रहस्याधिकारोक्तं कर्म तद् अनावृत्तिहेतुः । तत्र कामयमानस्य फलसंकल्पोपहतत्वात् कर्म बन्धहेतुः । कर्मणां ह्य् एष स्वभावो¹⁸⁸ यत् स्वफलदानार्थम् अधिकारिणः कार्यकारणम् आरभन्ते । तथैव नित्यान्य् अप्य् अक्रियमाणानि¹⁸⁹ प्रत्यवायहेतवो भवन्ति । तान्य् अपि शरीरम् आरंभन्त एव ।

• यद्य् एवम्, नित्यानि करिष्यति, काम्यानि प्रतिषिद्धानि न¹⁹⁰ करिष्यति, तस्य शरीरारम्भककर्माभावाद् धेत्वभावेन मोक्षम् अवाप्स्यति, आत्मज्ञानस्य क्वोपभोगः¹⁹¹ । यथोक्तम्-

• नित्यनैमित्तिके कुर्यात् प्रत्यवायजिहासया ।

• मोक्षहीनः¹⁹² प्रवर्तेत¹⁹³ तत्र काम्यनिषिद्धयोः¹⁹⁴ ॥ (श्लोव् ५.१५- ११०)

इत्य् उक्तं भगवद्भिः । न¹⁹⁵ विद्याम् अनभ्यस्यमानस्याविदया¹⁹⁶ क्षयो ऽस्ति । न ज्ञानानुच्छिन्नायाम् अविद्यायां¹⁹⁷ ब्रह्मरूपापत्तिः । एतद् एवाभिप्रेत्योक्तम् “निष्कामं ज्ञानपूर्वम्” (म्ध् १२.८९) इति, तथा “कामात्मता न प्रशस्ता” (म्ध् २.२) ।

• समानक्रियस्य सामार्ष्टिस् तस्य भावः साम्यता । देवैः समानगतिर् भवतीत्य् अर्थः ।

• यच् च भूतान्य् अत्येति इत्य् अप्य् अमुं प्रति¹⁹⁸ व्यामोहः, सो ऽपि न युक्तः । विप्रलापनम् अप्य् अत्यय¹⁹⁹ उच्यते । तुषारनिखिलप्रपञ्चो भवीत्य् अर्थः ।

• “अभ्येति” इत्य् अपि पाठे ऽशरीरत्वम् उक्तं भवति ॥ १२.९० ॥

कथं पुनः प्रपञ्चः कर्तव्य इत्य् अत आह ।

(A) “It has been said that the ‘active’ act is that which brings about desirable rewards; and among actions leading to desirable rewards, some securing for the agent Heaven or some such results, while some bring about only visible results. There is none that is known to bring any such desirable result as ‘equality to the gods.’ Why then should it be said that the man ‘attains equality to the gods’? Those actions also in connection with which no particular rewards are mentioned,—such for instance, as the Viśvajit and other sacrifices,—have been held to have their reward in the attaining of Heaven. Thus we do not know what those acts are of which the reward consists in attaining ‘equality to the gods.’—It will not be right to argue in this connection that—‘Those actions that have been laid down as bringing a particular reward, when done by men who have no desire for that reward, bring about the said equality to the gods.’—as this would involve the rejecting of what is directly asserted and thus assuming of that which is nowhere asserted. In fact what is spoken of in the Veda as the ‘reward’ of actions is something that is desired, such as village, Heaven and so forth, and not the taking of poison and such things. Under the circumstances, to say that ‘equality to gods’ is attained (as the result of acts) and yet it is not ‘desired,’ would be a contradiction in terms.—‘How is it then that under Prohibitions, such results are mentioned as not desired?’—It is in the very nature of the prohibited act that its results should be undesirable; what is evil cannot be desired [and the result of the prohibited act can only be evil]. If it be held that ‘equality to gods’ is the result of the compulsory acts, then that would deprive these acts of their ‘compulsory’ character;—a character that has been understood to belong to them on the basis of the declaration that they are to be performed ‘as long as one is alive.’ If it be absolutely necessary to assume some reward in the case of these acts also, we may assume it to consist in ‘escaping from sin;’ as such a reward, if assumed, would not be inconsistent with the compulsory character of the acts.”

(B) “As regards the latter part of the verse—‘passes beyond the five material substances’— we do not understand how ‘atyeti’ can mean ‘passes beyond’ or ‘becomes freed from.’ As a matter of fact, ‘atyaya’ is used in the sense of ‘laya,’ ‘becoming resolved into’; and certainly it is not meant that the soul ever becomes ‘resolved into’ the material substances; what is meant is that ‘it becomes one with Brahman.’ Others also have explained the passage to mean that ‘the man goes beyond (atikrāmati) the five material substances,’—i.e., ‘his body is no longer made up of the five substances, it becomes purely luminous.’ But this also is nothing; as ‘Liberation’ means not being fettered with a body; so that whether the body is take to be constituted of five substances, or of only one (Light), it is all the same so far as the metempsychic bondage of the Soul is concerned.”

“For these reasons some other explanation, has to be found for this verse.”

The answer to the above is as follows:—

(A) The question has been asked—“What action is that of which equality to gods is the reward? The compulsory acts have no reward, while those that are done for the purpose of obtaining a reward, have distinct rewards mentioned along with them.” Our answer to this is, that the reward spoken of in the text is not one that is held to follow from all Vedic Acts; what is meant is that if a man does an act of the ‘passive’ kind, but with a distinct desire for its result (in the shape of Liberation), and somehow fails to attain it, then the reward that he obtains is equality to the. gods. The purport of it all is that, of all that is laid down in the Ritualistic Section of the Veda, the culminating point of the reward is the attainment of equality to the gods, and not Liberation. As for the acts prescribed in the Esoteric Section of the Veda, which leads to the result that the man never again returns to metempsychic existence,—if the Agent happens to be desirous of obtaining a reward, he becomes tainted by that hankering, and that act of his turns out, on account of that taint, to be a cause of bondage. It is in the very nature of actions that they prompt the Agent, to undertake them for the purpose of bringing to him a definite reward. Thus the compulsory acts also, if left undone, become sources of sin; and as such these also tend to invest the Agent with a material body (for the experiencing of the fruits of that omission).—“If one performs the compulsory acts, and does not perform those that are conducive to rewards, or those that are forbidden, there being no acts that would bring about a material body for him, the man would naturally attain Liberation;—where then would there be any use for the ‘knowledge of self’? This is what has been declared in such passages as—‘With a view to avoid sin, one should perforin the compulsory and occasional acts; it is only when one is unfit for Liberation that he undertakes such as are either forbidden or conducive to desirable results.’”—This has been explained already: Knowledge is necessary for the destruction of Ignorance; until Ignorance has been destroyed by Knowledge,—it is not possible for one to become one with Brahman. It is with a view to this that action done without desires has been spoken of as ‘done with knowledge’ (Verse 89);—and also ‘selfishness is not commended’ (2.2).—When two persons act similarly, they gain equal prosperity; this is what is meant by the ‘equality’ (of gods);—the meaning being that he attains the same condition as that of the gods.

(B) As regards the objections against the declaration that the man ‘passes beyond the five material substances,’ and the confusion that is made regarding its real signification,—that also is not right. Because ‘atyaya’ may mean disappearance also; so that what the text means is that the whole phenomenal world, consisting of material substances, disappears for the man.

If we read ‘abhyeti’ for ‘atyeti,’ it would mean that the man becomes freed form the shackles of the body.—(90)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1033).

वायुशरीर आकाशशरीरो वा सूक्ष्मो भवति । तथा चोक्तम्- “तद् ब्रह्मपरम् अभ्येति वायुभूतः स्वसूर्तिमान्” ॥ अथ वा मोक्षम् अन्येनोपायेनेमं शास्ति पञ्चभूतात्ययशब्देन । इदानीं ध्यानस्य ज्ञानस्य वा स्तुत्य् अर्थम् इदम् आरभ्यते ।

090 He who sedulously performs acts leading to future births (pravritta) becomes equal to the gods; but he who is intent on the performance of those causing the cessation (of existence, nivritta) indeed, passes beyond (the reach of) the five elements.

He who perceives the Self in all beings, and all beings in the Self,—and sacrifices to the Self,—attains self-sovereignty.—(91)

भूतशब्देन यत् किंचित् स्थावरजङ्गमं प्राण्यप्राणि²⁰⁰ तत् सर्वम् उच्यते । तत्र चात्मानं पश्येत्- “अहम् इवैतज् जगत्” इति । तथा च श्रुतिः- “अहं वृक्षस्य रेरिवा” इति (तु १.१०.१) । स्वपरव्यवहारं²⁰¹ जह्यात् । “अयम् अहम् एतन् मम नेदं मम” इति संपद्यते बन्धः²⁰² । त्यक्तात्मात्मीयाभिनिवेशस्योज्झितस्वपरभेदस्य केवलात्मैकत्वं भाति । एष एव स्वाराज्यपदार्थः²⁰³ ।

• सर्वभूतानि चात्मनीति । यद् एव विकारप्रपञ्चरूपं जगत् तद् एव तन् मयि स्थितम् अहम् एकः स्रष्टा कर्ता ध्याता द्येयश् चेति संपद्यते । आत्मयाजी । आत्मानम् एव सर्वदेवतामयत्वेन यो यजते, मन्यते- “नाग्निर्²⁰⁴ आदित्यो वा देवता, अहम् एव देवता” इत्य् एवं पश्यन्न् आत्मयाजी संपद्यते । न पुनर् आत्मोद्देशेन²⁰⁵ यागः कर्तव्यतया चोद्यते²⁰⁶ ।

• केचिद् आहुः । नाग्नेयादिष्व् अग्न्यादयो देवता आत्मत्वेनापि न वक्तव्याः ।

• स्वाराज्यम्²⁰⁷ । स्वे राज्ये भवः स्वाराज्यः²⁰⁸ । परमात्मवत् स्वतन्त्रः संपद्यते स्वप्रकाशश् च भवति । न²⁰⁹ चन्द्रादित्याद्यालोकम् अपेक्षते नेन्द्रियाणि²¹⁰ चक्षुरादीनि नान्तःकरणं मन आदि । अतः पश्यन्न् इति²¹¹ च । भावयेद् इत्य् उच्यते²¹² । न²¹³ दर्शनमात्रं सकलबाह्याभ्यन्तरव्यापारतिरस्करणे तद्भावनापराः स्मृताः²¹⁴ ॥ १२.९१ ॥

This verse proceeds to point out in what manner the said result is to be brought about.

The term ‘bhūta,’ ‘being,’ stands here for all things, movable and immovable, animate and inanimate;—in these one should perceive the ‘self,’—cultivating the notion ‘I am this whole world’—as expressed in the text ‘aham vṛkṣasya, etc.’ (Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, 7.10.1); and he should give up all such notions of duality as ‘this is myself and that is some one else.’ When the man comes to entertain such notions as—‘this is myself, this is mine, that is not mine’—this is what constitutes his ‘bondage.’ When, on the other hand, he has given up all notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’ or ‘this is mine’ and ‘that is another’s,’ and so forth, he comes to recognise the absolute unity of the Self.

This is what is meant by the term ‘self-sovereignty.’

‘All beings in the Self’—cultivating the notion—‘The entire phenomenal world subsists in me,—I alone am the creator, the doer, the meditator and the meditated upon.’

‘Sacrifices to the Self’—offers sacrifices to—thinks of—the Self as representing all the gods; cultivating the notion—‘There are no such deities as Agni or Āditya,—I am the sole deity’;—the man becomes one who ‘sacrifices to the Self’; and this does not mean that the man should actually offer sacrificial materials to himself.

In this connection some people hold that it is not right to speak of Agni and other deities of the Āgneya and other sacrifices as the ‘Self.’

‘Svārājyam,’ ‘self-sovereingty.’—The term is derived as ‘Sve rājye bhavam’; and the meaning is that the man becomes as self-sufficient as the supreme Self, and also self-luminous, not depending upon the Sun or the Moon or other sources of light, or upon the eyes and the other sense-organs, nor the Internal Organ of the Mind and the rest. This is why the text uses the term ‘paśyan,’ ‘perceiving’ which implies not merely seeing, but that one should contemplate upon the said idea, giving up all functionings of the exernal and internal organs.—(91)

‘Ātmayājī’.—‘Who realises the presence of all deities in himself’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘he who performs the Jyotiṣṭoma and other sacrifices in the manner of the Brahmārpana’ (Kullūka and Nandana and Rāghavānanda).

Īśa-Upaniṣad (6).

Āpastamba (1.23.1).—‘That Brāhmaṇa shines in heaven who is wise and recognises all creatures in the Self, who pondering thereon, does not become bewildered, and who recognises the Self in everything.’

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।
समं पश्यन्

समत्वेन परमात्मानं पश्यन्, आत्मवत् सर्वभूतानि पश्यन्न् इत्य् अर्थः ।

आत्मयाजी

निवृत्तकर्मावस्थः परमसंयमवान् । अनेन प्रसंख्यानेन । तस्य फलम् आह- एवं युक्तः ।

स्वाराज्यम् अधिगच्छति ॥ १२.९१ ॥

यथोक्तेन श्रुत्युक्तेनात्मयाजित्वेनापवर्गाय कल्पते । स्वतन्त्रः संसारे भवति न कर्मक्लेशवासगः । एतच् च प्रसंख्यानं रागद्वेषग्रहणार्थवियुक्तम् अपवर्गाय स्यात् । संयमस्तुत्यर्थो वायं श्लोकः । आत्मज्ञानम् तु पूर्वत्र संस्कृतम् एव । उभयार्थो वा संभवाद् उभयत्र ॥ १२.९१ ॥

091 He who sacrifices to the Self (alone), equally recognising the Self in all created beings and all created beings in the Self, becomes (independent like) an autocrat and self-luminous.

Having renounced even the said acts, the Brāhmaṇa shall concentrate his effort on the knowledge of Self, on calmness and on the study of the Veda.—(92)

यथोक्तान्य् अपि कर्माणीति । नानेनाग्निहोत्रादीनां कर्मणां परिहानिर् विधीयते, अपि त्व् आत्मज्ञाने यत्नवान् स्याद् इत्य् आत्मज्ञानाभ्यासो विधीयते । कर्माणि परिहायेत्य् अस्यालंबनं²¹⁵ प्रशस्तदेवतायतनप्रदक्षिणमन्त्रगुरुगमनादीनि मुक्त्वा²¹⁶ ऽप्य् आत्मज्ञानम् अभ्यस्येत् । न हि नित्यानां कर्मणां स्वेच्छया परित्यागो ऽस्ति पुरुषधर्मादिषु²¹⁷ विहिते नास्ति त्यागेन विना ॥ १२.९२ ॥

‘Even the said acts.’—This does not sanction the abandoning of such acts as the Agnihotra and the like; all that is meant to be enjoined is that ‘one should concentrate his effort on the knowledge of Self’—which prescribes the acquiring of the knowledge of Self.

‘Having renounced the acts.’—What the meaning of this phrase is that one should concentrate his efforts upon the acquiring of the knowledge of Self, even though this might involve the abandoning of such acts as the worshipping at certain temples or attending upon elders and so forth. This does not however sanction the voluntary renunciation of the compulsory rites; but all other rites have to be renounced, without which the knowledge of Self cannot be acquired.—(92)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.58) which explains ‘Vedābhyāsa’ as ‘repeating the Praṇava, Om’—and in Yatidharmasāṅgraha (p. 26).

यथोक्तान्य् अपि कर्माणि परिहायेत्य् अयम् अर्थवादः, आत्मज्ञानशमवेदाभ्यासस्तुतये । न हि नित्यानां कर्मणां परित्यागो ऽस्त्य् आत्मेच्छया । शास्त्रतस् तु परित्यागः पाक्षिकः पुरुषमेधादिष्व् अनुत्यागेन । तदभावपक्ष अनधिकृतपुरुषविषयम् एतत् त्रयम् ॥ १२.९२ ॥

092 After giving up even the above-mentioned sacrificial rites, a Brahmana should exert himself in (acquiring) the knowledge of the Soul, in extinguishing his passions, and in studying the Veda.

This represents the fulfilment of the object of one’s existence, specially for the Brāhmaṇa; it is only when he has attained this, and not otherwise, that the twice-born man has accomplished his purpose.—(93)

द्विजो²¹⁸ भवति क्षत्रियवैश्ययोर् अप्य् आत्मज्ञाने ऽधिकारं दर्शयति । यथा चारण्यककश्रुतिः²¹⁹ । ब्राःमणस्य विशेषतः इति । “वेदाभ्यासे” (म्ध् १२.९२) इति संबन्धनीयम् । आत्मज्ञेन समत्वेनाभ्यासासितेनैव संभवतः । यद् आत्मज्ञानं प्राप्य कृतकृत्यो द्विजो भवति पुरुषार्थ एतावता समाप्यते । न हि मोक्षाद् अपरः पुरुषार्थो ऽस्तीति ॥ १२.९३ ॥

ननु च यद् उक्तं सर्वात्मैकत्वेनायं पश्येत् तत्²²⁰_ प्रत्यक्षविरुद्धम् इव, प्रत्यक्षेण हि भिन्नो भावः_²²¹_ प्रतिभाति । तेन कथम् एकत्वेन ग्राह्यः । अनारभ्य स्वार्थ उपदिष्टः स्यात् । कथं भिन्नम् अभिन्नं द्रष्टुं शक्यम् । न हि खरो गौर् इव बुद्ध्या ग्रहीतुं शक्यः । इन्द्रियदोषेणान्यत्रावभासरूपया प्रतीयते शुक्तिकादौ रजताकारतया, न तूपदेशतः । यो ह्य् उपदिशेत् तं हस्तिनं प्रतिपद्यते । नासौ वचनफलम् अञ्जसाश्नुवीत । अत आह ।_

‘The twice-born.’—This implies that the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also are entitled to the knowledge of Self; as has been made clear by Vedic texts of the Āraṇyakas.

‘Specially for the Brāhmaṇa.’—This has to be taken as referring particularly to the ‘Study of the Veda’; since to the ‘Knowledge of Self’ are twice-born persons equally entitled.

Having attained this ‘knowledge of the Self’ the man ‘has accomplished his purpose’;—that is, all his ends are fulfilled; there being no higher end than Liberation.

“What has been said regarding the necessity of looking on all things as the One Self appears to be contrary to perceptible facts. What we perceive directly is diversiy (diversity?). How can this be perceived as one? Any teaching regarding this would be setting forth a purpose that cannot be fulfilled. What is diverse, how can that be looked upon as one? The ass can never be looked upon as the cow. It is only when the perceiving organ is deranged that one perceives a thing as what it is not,—as we find when the shell is mistaken for silver; and certainly no such wrong conception forms the subject of a teaching. One who could propound such a teaching would be looked upon as most foolish, and his words would bear no fruit at all”

It is in view of this that we have the next verse.—(93)

‘Kṛtakṛtyaḥ ‘All whose ends have been accomplished’ (Medhātithi);—who has done all he ought to do’ (Govindarāja).

एतद् धि जन्मसामग्र्यं ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषतः ।

विशेषत इति वचनान् न तथा क्षत्रियवैश्ययोः ।

प्राप्यैतत् कृतकृत्यो हि द्विजो भवति नान्यथा ॥ १२.९३ ॥

वेदाभ्यासादीनां षण्णां कर्मणां वैदिकानाम् अधिकृतानां स्तुत्युपसंहारश्लोको ऽयम् ॥ १२.९३ ॥

093 For that secures the attainment of the object of existence, especially in the case of a Brahmana, because by attaining that, not otherwise, a twice-born man has gained all his ends.

For Pitṛs, gods and men, the Veda is the eternal eye; the teaching of the Veda is beyond power and illimitable. Such is the settled fact.—(94)

अयम् अर्थः । वेदो ऽत्र वक्तुः²²² प्रमाणम् । चक्षुर् इव चक्षुः, दर्शनहेतुत्वसामान्यात् । यथा चक्षुःपरिच्छिन्नेष्व् अनेष्टितः²²³ रूपप्रत्ययो भवत्य् एवं वेदाद् इति चक्षुर् इत्य् उक्तम् । सनातनं शाश्वतं नित्यम् । अनेनापुरुषकृतत्वम् आह । पुरुषकृतत्वे²²⁴ हि तत्प्रामाण्यात् प्रमादो ऽपीत्य् अत्र न प्रमाणम् अस्ति, अतः पुरुषगतगुणदोषसद्भावनिश्वयात्²²⁵ । तदभावाद् अपौरुषेयत्वेन वेदः प्रमाणम् । अतो वेदप्रामाण्यात् दृश्यार्थस्य न कश्चन विरोधः ।

• ननु च यद्य् एवम् उपदिशेत् “अग्निना सिञ्चेद् उदकेन च दीपयेत्”,²²⁶ किं न भवेद् विरोधः ।

• विषम उपन्यासः । तत्र हि दृष्टया पदार्थशक्त्या दृष्ट एवार्थः कर्तव्यतयोपदिश्यते । तत्र प्रमाणान्तरगोचरत्वं तस्यार्थस्य । तद्विपर्ययाद् युक्तं तद् एतद् उक्तम् । इह तु विधिपरत्वात् वाच्यानां²²⁷ प्रमाणान्तराणां च विधिविषयत्वाभावात् सिद्धस्वरूपवस्तुगोचरत्वेनासत्य् एकविषयत्वे कुतो विरोधः ।

• इह ह्य् अनात्मभूतानां आभासतो भावानाम् आत्मत्वेन²²⁸ दर्शनं विधीयते स्वाराज्यफलाय²²⁹ । तत्र यत्राधिकं भेददर्शनं तस्याभ्यासतः शक्यम् अन्यथाकर्तुम् । तथा हि, रागादयश् चित्तधर्मा भावनातिशययोगाङ्गाभ्यासेन शक्यन्ते²³⁰ नियन्तुम् । द्वेष्यम्²³¹ अपि मैत्रादिना द्वेष्यताबुद्धिर् निवर्तत इति सर्वस्यैतत् स्वसंवेद्यं दृष्टं²³² च । भावनाया²³³ अविद्यमानवस्तुस्वाभाव्यम् अवभासते, सामर्थ्यात् । यथा विप्रलंभे कामिनः सर्वत्र कामिनीवत्²³⁴ पश्यन्ति, किम् अङ्ग यत्र तात्त्विकम् एकत्वम् अस्ति । तत् कथं भेदेन विरुद्धत्वाद् अवभासते । तद्रूपा हि सर्वभावना, सा भिन्ना विद्यते । ईदृशं चात्र दर्शनं समत्वेन विधीयते, यत्र “ममेतत्,” “नेदं मम” इति बुद्धेर् अनुपपत्तिः । यथोकम्-

• ममेति द्व्यक्षरो मृत्युर् न ममेति च शाश्वतम् । इति । (म्भ् १४.१३.३)

तस्मान् नास्ति विरोधः ।

• पितृदेवमनुष्याणाम् इत्यादीनि श्रुतिपदानि²³⁵ । देवादयो ऽपि रिध्यन्ति संयुक्ता²³⁶ न चेदृक्²³⁷ ते ऽतीन्द्रियम् अर्थं पश्यन्ति, श्रुतिम् अन्तरेण ज्ञातुम् अशक्यत्वात् । अप्रेमेयं चापरिमाणम्, अनन्तत्वाद् वेदशाखानाम् । अथ च²³⁸ प्रमातुं अशक्यम्²³⁹ अर्थतः । वेदशास्त्रं²⁴⁰ वेदाः ॥ १२.९४ ॥

It is as if it were the ‘Eye’—being the means of perception; just as the eye provides the perception of colour, so does the Veda of dharma; hence it is spoken of as the ‘Eye.’

‘Eternal’—everlasting. This is meant to indicate the fact that the Veda is not the work of a personal author. If it were the work of such an author, then it would be affected by his weaknesses, and would therefore not be entirely trustworthy. Hence, inasmuch as we find the Veda free from all those excellences and defects that beset man, we conclude that it is not the work of any person, and on that account, is absolutely trustworthy.

Hence it is that, the Veda being absolutely trustworthy, it cannot be regarded as incongruous simply because of its teachings being contrary to facts of perception.

“If the Veda were to contain such teachings as ‘one should irrigate with fire’ or ‘burn with water,’ would this also not be incongruous?”

The analogy is not quite correct. In the sentences cited, visible objects with visible powers are spoken as accomplishing visible effects; and as such objects are amenable to other means of knowledge, it is only natural that, if there is any teaching contrary to these, it should be regarded as incongruous. In the case in question on the other hand, (i.e., of Duty) the subject, dealt with is such as is amenable to Injunctions only, a subject upon which no other means of knowledge can have any hearing at all,—bearing as they do only upon existing objects, (and not upon acts to be done); how then can there be any incongruity between these?

Then again, what is laid down here is that entities that are not self should be looked upon as the ‘Self,’ for the purpose of attaining ‘self-sovereignty’; so that wherever the notion of diversity is very rampant, it is only right that this should be set aside by constant, practice. For instance, love, hatred and other functions of the mind can be controlled by the practice of meditation; when for example, an enemy ceases to be an enemy if he is constantly looked upon as a ‘friend.’ All this can be ascertained by our own experience. In fact, the power of thought is so great that it can bring about the conception of non-existing things also; e.g., a lover separated front his object of love, sees her in everything. How much more possible is it then, my friend, in a ease where what is contemplated upon is the very truth? Thus then, how can one be justified in asserting that, what is asserted here appears to be contrary to the diversity that is actually perceived? In reality all things are of the nature of the ‘Self,’ and they appear as diverse only on account, of our being in the habit of looking upon them as diverse. It is the perceiving of this unity that is enjoined here; in which case there would be no chance of any such notions arising as ‘this is mine—that is not mine,’ and the like. This is what has been thus declared—‘The two syllables ma-ma (mine) connote death, and the syllables na-ma-ma (not mine) connote immortality.’

Thus then there is no incongruity at all (in the teaching of the Veda).

‘For pitṛs, gods and men.’—These are the words of the Veda itself. Even gods and others cannot perceive Duty and allied things without the help of the Veda; they are beyond their power;—and also ‘illimitable’—the number of Vedic rescensions being endless. Or, ‘aprameya’ means that no adequate conception can be formed of the Veda and its subsidiaries.—(94)

This verse is quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 129).

पितृदेवमनुष्याणाम् अस्तित्वप्रसिद्दये कर्माङ्गत्वायाधिकारपुरुषस्य वेदश् चक्षुः । चक्षुर् इव, चक्षुः दर्शनार्थत्वात् । येन पितरो वेदविध्युपहृतम् एव भुञ्जते, तेन वेदस् तेषां चक्षुर् इत्य् उच्यते । अतर्क्यं चापौरुषेयत्वात् । अप्रमेयं च फलतो वेदशास्त्रम् । यस्मात् अतः ॥ १२.९४ ॥

094 The Veda is the eternal eye of the manes, gods, and men; the Veda-ordinance (is) both beyond the sphere of (human) power, and beyond the sphere of (human) comprehension; that is a certain fact.

Those ‘revealed texts’ that are outside the Veda, as also all the false theories, are useless, even when carried to perfection; as they have been declared to be founded on ‘darkness.’—(95)

पूर्वं त्व् अपौरुषेयत्वेन वेदस्य प्रामाण्यम् उक्त्वा, इदानीं पौरुषेयाणां वेदानाम् अप्रामाण्यम् । अथ वेदबाह्या वेदविरुद्धा अवेदमूलाः श्रुतयो ग्रन्थसंदृब्धेषु²⁴¹ नोदनाश् “चैत्यवन्देन स्वर्गो भवति” इत्याद्या निर्ग्रन्थशोभादिसिद्धान्ताः²⁴² प्रसिद्धाः²⁴³ । कुदृष्टयः²⁴⁴ असत्तर्कदर्शनानि । वेदकर्तुः साधनम् अपूर्वदेवतादिनिराकरणम् एवमाद्याः कुदृष्टयः । सर्वास् ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्य प्रकर्षं प्राप्य । संनिरूपितहेतुदृष्टान्ताः²⁴⁵ अन्ततो निष्फला उक्ताः, तत्र युक्तीनाम् आभासरूपत्वात् । ताश् च युक्तयो ऽन्यवति वर्त्मनि रात्रीयन्ति²⁴⁶ महाग्रन्थविस्तारा भवन्ति संक्षेपरूपाः । तथा पौरुषेयाणाम् उपदेशे न प्रामाण्यम्,²⁴⁷ पुरुषाणाम् अतीन्द्रियार्थदर्शनशक्त्यभावात्, सत्याम् अपि शक्तौ उपदेशिकस्य²⁴⁸ प्रमाणाभावात् । “अयं सर्वज्ञः, तेनायम् आगमः प्रणीतः” इति न किंचिद् अत्र प्रमाणं क्रमते ।²⁴⁹ विद्यमाने ऽपि कर्तृपूर्वत्वे दृष्टार्थादृष्टकल्पनाप्रसङ्गः, तत्प्रमाणत्वे देवतात्वसिद्धिः²⁵⁰ । अतस् ता युक्तयो व्यामोहमूला इत्य् अर्थः ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । प्रेत्य मृत्यस्य ता निष्फलाः । तमोनिष्टास्²⁵¹ तामसयोनिहेतुत्वात् ।

• अस्मिन् पक्षे ऽसमानकर्तृकत्वात् प्रेत्येति दुर्लभत्वम्²⁵² । निष्ठान्ताद् वा सप्तमी पठितव्या “प्रेते” इति ॥ १२.९५ ॥

Having declared the trustworthiness of the Veda on the ground of its not being the work of an author, the text proceeds to point out the untrustworthy character of those ‘Vedas’ that are the work of personal authors.

The ‘revealed texts’—in the form of Injunctions brought together under a compilation—‘that are outside the Veda’ contrary to the Veda,—e.g., such declarations as ‘Heaven is attained by bowing to caityas’ and so forth,—which are known under the name of the doctrines of ‘Nirgranthas,’ ‘Somas,’ and the like.

‘False theories’—philosophical systems based upon wrong reasonings—such as, the proving of the Veda being the work of a personal author, the rejecting of ‘apūrva,’ ‘deities’ and such other entities. These are what are known as ‘false theories.’

‘All these are useless,’—‘pretya,’ ‘even when carried to perfection’—by the full setting forth of reasons and examples; these are declared to be useless; on account of the fallacious character of their reasonings.

They are like the ‘darkness’ of night, on the path of duty, spreading far and wide, in the form of huge compilations.

No trustworthiness can attach to the teachings contained in the compilations made by human authors; for the simple reason that such authors do not possess the faculty to perceive things beyond the senses.

In fact, even if some one did possess such a faculty, people would not believe him; because there can be no proof for the statement that ‘such and such a person is omniscient, and he has composed such and such a revealed text.’

If, even on being the work of a human author, the text be regarded as trustworthy, this would involve the necessity of assuming an unseen fact (of the man being possessed of divine powers), for a visible purpose. For all these reasons all those reasonings should be regarded as based upon ignorance.

Others explain the verse to mean that, ‘pretya,’ after dying,—‘the said texts and theories are useless,’—because they become the cause of men being born in conditions partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas.’

Under this explanation, the syntactical connection of the participle ‘pretya’ would be impossible, since it must have the same nominative as that of the principal verb in the sentence (which is impossible), and the only alternative would be to read, for ‘pretya,’ ‘prete,’ the Locative form of the past-participle ‘preta.’— (95)

‘Pretya’—‘Having acquired excellence’ (Medhātithi);—‘after death’ (‘others’ in Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Kullūka).

या वेदबाह्याः स्मृतय आगमा इत्य् अर्थः । पुरुषदृष्टिप्रभवाः । तदीयेषु शास्त्रेषु याश् च काश् च [कुदृष्टयः] सर्वास् ता निष्फलाः प्रेत्याधिकारविरोधेन तत्कर्मविधानात् । अधिकारमूलो धर्मो यतः, तदभावात् तमोनिष्ठा हि ताः स्मृताः । यतश् च ॥ १२.९५ ॥

095 All those traditions (smriti) and those despicable systems of philosophy, which are not based on the Veda, produce no reward after death; for they are declared to be founded on Darkness.

Those other (doctrines) which spring up and perish are all worthless and false, being of modern growth.—(96)

अतो वेदाद् यान्य् अन्यानि शासनानि तान्य् **उत्पद्यन्ते विनश्यन्ति **च । उत्पादविनाशित्वाद् अनित्यानि । वेदस् तु तद्विपर्ययान् नित्यः । अर्वाक्कालिकतया इदानींतनेन पुरुषेण केनचित् कृतत्वाद् अतो निष्फलानि, अदृष्टस्य फलस्याभावात् । यानि कानिचिद्²⁵³ विप्रलम्भमूलकादिलक्षणानि²⁵⁴ ॥ १२.९६ ॥

‘Other’—i.e., apart from the Veda;—‘doctrines’— teachings;—‘which spring up and perish,’—and because they spring up and perish, they are not eternal,—while the Veda is eternal.

‘Being of modern growths’— having been propounded by some person of the present time,—‘they are worthless’—not productive of any transcendental result.

‘Those other doctrines’—which bear traces of being propounded by dissemblers, and such other signs.—(96)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 12.)

अतो वेद एव स्वतन्त्रो ऽनुशासने ऽन्यनिरपेक्षो भूत्वा, भूयः प्रमाणशास्त्रानुविधानाच् च । तन्मूलं धर्मशास्त्रम्, न त्व् अन्यानि तद्विधानि । पुरुषकृतयः कर्तृसमाख्याताः । यतश् चैतद् एवम् अतः ॥ १२.९६ ॥

096 All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date.

The four castes, the three worlds, the four life-stages, the past, the present and the future are each learnt from the Veda.—(97)

इयम् अपि स्तुतिर् एव । चातुर्वर्ण्यं वेदात् प्रसिध्यति, अधिकारित्वेनावतिष्ठते “वसन्ते ब्राह्मणो ग्रीष्मे राजन्यः” (आप्ध् १.१.१९) इत्यादि । स्वरूपं तु व्यवहारावगम्यं सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यत्वाद्²⁵⁵ अन्यत्र दर्शितम् । त्रयो लोकाः “इतः प्रदानं देवा उपजीवन्ति” (श्ब् १.२.५.२४) । अनेन त्रैलोक्यस्थितिहेतुत्वं वेदस्य सिद्धम् एव, वेदमूलत्वात् स्मृतीनां च²⁵⁶ । आश्रमो ऽपि²⁵⁷ वेदाद् एव । भूतम्²⁵⁸ अतीतं जन्मसुखदुःखादि । यच् च भवद् वर्तमानं यच् च भविष्यं²⁵⁹ तत् सर्वस्य वेद एव शरणीयम् ॥ १२.९७ ॥

This also is in praise of the Veda.

‘The four castes’ are learnt from the Veda,—i.e., the duties of the four castes ate tints known; e.g., ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall be initiated during the spring, the Kṣatriya during the summer,’ and so forth. As for the external features they are the same in all castes, and can be definitely ascertained only by experience; as we have shown elsewhere.

‘The three worlds’—Such texts as ‘the gods subsist upon offerings from this world’ indicate that the Veda points out the means of subsistence for all the three worlds; specially as the Smṛtis (which contain details regarding these matters) also have their source in the Veda.

The ‘life-stages’ also are learnt from the Veda.

Similarly the ‘past’ births, pleasures and pains;—the ‘present’—current,—and the ‘future’—what is to come; for the knowledge of all this one must seek help from the Veda.—(97)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 500);—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Saṃskāra, 46b);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 128).

चातुर्वर्ण्यं तावद् भूतम् अतिक्रान्तम् । कुतः । अस्माद् वर्तमानाच् चतुर्युगाद् । भवद् वर्तमानं चातुर्वर्ण्यम् इति प्रकृतम् । भविष्यच् च तद् एव । यद् अनागतं चतुर्युगे । अथ वा देवचतुर्युगापेक्षयायं कालत्रयनिर्देशः चातुर्वर्ण्यस्य । ब्रह्मणः कल्पापेक्षया वा । वेदाद् एव प्रसिध्यति, नान्यतः, प्रत्यक्षाद् अनुमानाद् वा, तस्य शास्त्रलक्षणत्वात् । तद् दर्शयति । यथा पशुत्वे समाने गोमहिषाश्वादीनां व्यक्तिसंस्थानविशेओपलब्धेर् एव जातिभेदानुमानम् । नैवं पुरुषत्वाविशेषे ब्राह्मणादीनाम् अपि जातिभेदानुमानम् अस्ति, येनानुमानतस् तेषाम् अपि जातिभेदः प्रतीयेत । एवं च सति शास्त्रलक्षणम् एव चातुर्वर्ण्यम् । “वसन्ते ब्राह्मणो ऽग्नीन् आदधीत” इत्य् एवमादि । तथा चोक्तम्- “सर्ववर्णेषु तुल्यासु” इत्य् एवमादि । वेदार्थानुवादित्वं चाश्रित्य स्मृतेर् इदम् उदाहरणम् । तथा च सति युक्तम् इदं यद् अवोचच् छास्त्रकारः सर्वं वेदात् प्रसिध्यतीति । अथ वा तदधिकारापेक्षम् इदं वचनं “चातुर्वर्ण्यं । । । वेदात् प्रसिध्यति” इति, एवं च त्रयो लोकाः तत्फलाः कर्मणां गतयः चत्वारश् चाश्रमाः पूर्ववद् व्याकरणीयम् । भूतं भवत् भविष्यच् चेतीदं नपुंसकलिङ्गं चातुर्वर्ण्यनपुंसकलिङ्गापेक्षम् । इतरत्र पुंलिङ्गत्वान् निदर्शनार्थम् इदं विज्ञेयम् ॥ १२.९७ ॥

097 The four castes, the three worlds, the four orders, the past, the present, and the future are all severally known by means of the Veda.

Sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour as the fifth, proceed from the Veda; their production being due to the ‘secondary rites.’—(98)

शब्दादीनां भोग्यत्वेन सुखसाधनानां वेदाद् एव प्रसिद्धिः । वैदिककर्मानुष्ठानाद् गीतादिशब्दोपपत्तिः । तत्परित्यागाच् छ्रुतिकटुशब्दश्रवणम्²⁶⁰ । अतः शरीरारम्भकाः शब्दादयस् ताभ्यां स्वविषयत्वेनोपतिष्ठमाना वेदात्²⁶¹ प्रसिधन्तीत्य् एतद् अभिप्रायम्, एतन्²⁶² न पुनर् वेद उपादानकरणम् । अतः शरीरारम्भकाः शब्दादयस् ताभ्याम्²⁶³ । एतद् एवाह- प्रसूतिर् गुणकर्मतः । प्रसूतिः शब्दादीनाम् उत्पत्तिः । तदर्थं गुणकर्म । फलार्थत्वात् प्रधानकर्म च चित्रादि²⁶⁴ गुणधर्म इत्य् उक्तम् ।

• पाठान्तरम् “प्रसूतिर्²⁶⁵ गुणधर्मतः” इति । गुणाः सत्त्वादयः, तेषाम् धर्मो विपरिणामः, तस्य या प्रसूतिः साम्यावस्थायाः²⁶⁶ प्रच्युतिस् तदुद्रेको विष्वग्भावश् च, तत्र वेद एव हेतुर् अदृष्टनिमित्तत्वात् ।

• वैचित्र्यपाठान्तराणि निष्प्रयोजनत्वान् न लिख्यन्ते ॥ १२.९८ ॥

Sound and the other objects of experience, which are also the means of pleasure, are known through the Veda. It is by the performance of Vedic rites that the pleasure of hearing music is secured;—and if one neglects those rites, he becomes condemned to the hearing of sounds unpleasant to the ear;—Sound and the other qualities, and the bodily organs apprehending these all owe their existence to the Veda. This is what is meant by the assertion that they ‘proceed from the Veda’; which does not mean that Veda is the material cause out of which these things are made.

This same idea is further explained by the sentence—‘their production is due to the secondary rites.’—The ‘production’—birth, of sound and other things—‘is due to the secondary rites’— Rites directly conducive to such results as Heaven and the like are called ‘primary rites,’ while those minor ones which bring about such minor results us sound and the rest, are ‘secondary rites’; to the latter category belongs, the Citrā Sacrifice.

‘Prasūterguṇadharmataḥ’ is another reading. In this reading ‘guṇa’ stands for the qualities of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas;—‘dharma’ for modification;—‘prasūti’ for the disturbance of equilibrium, excess, extension; and the meaning is that Veda is the cause of the extension of the operations of the qualities of Sattva and the rest;—the Veda being regarded as the cause of all this, as it is all due: to spiritual agencies.

There are several other curious readings, which we do not note, as they are useless.—(98)

‘Prasūtirguṇakarmataḥ’.—An obscure word, the different readings for which disgusted even Medhātithi. For the various explanations see Buhler.

ये हि शब्दादयः स्वर्गादिषु शरीरलक्षणविषयलक्षणाश् चोत्कृष्टाभिप्रेतभोगहेतवः ते वेदाद् एव प्रसिध्यन्ति, नान्यदर्शनात् बुद्धादिवचनात् । किं साक्षात् । न, किं तर्हि प्रसूतिगुणकर्मतः, प्रसूत्यर्थं गुणकर्म । प्रसूतिगुणकर्मतः प्रसूत्यर्थं प्रकृतानां शब्दादीनाम् । गुणकर्म च पुरुषोपकारकम् । तथा च लोकप्रसिद्धिः- “को गुणो मम तवोपकृतवतः” कः उपकार इत्य् अर्थः, गुणार्थम् अभिप्रेतपुरुषार्थार्थम् । कर्म धर्माख्यम् । येन धर्म एव पुरुषोपकराय, नाधर्मः तद्विशेषार्थम् इदं गुणकर्मग्रहणम् । एवं च सति न साक्षाद् वेदः शब्दादिहेतुः, किं तर्ह्य् अग्निहोत्रादिकर्मानुष्ठानद्वारेण धर्माख्यं गुणकर्मशब्दादिप्रसूत्यर्थम् । एवं च न साक्षाद् वेदः शब्दादीनां प्रसूतिनिमित्तम्, किं तर्हि धर्मप्रणादिकया । सैषा वेदस्तुतिर् अपरेण प्रकारेण सामर्थ्याद् विज्ञेया । अथ वा शब्दादयो वेदाद् एव प्रसिध्यन्ति, येन प्रसूतिर् उत्पत्तिर् गुणकर्मणो धर्मस्य । वेदाद् धर्मः । धर्माद् अपि शब्दादयः स्वर्गादिषु । अत इदम् उच्यते- धर्माद् एव प्रसिध्यन्तीति । अथ वायम् अस्य श्लोकपादस्य चतुर्थस्य तृतीयः पाठः- वेदाद् एव प्रसिध्यन्ति प्रसूतेर् गुणकर्मणः । कुतः । वेदात् । अर्थस् त्व् अनन्तरोपदिष्ट एव ॥ १२.९८ ॥

098 Sound, touch, colour, taste, and fifthly smell are known through the Veda alone, (their) production (is) through the (Vedic rites, which in this respect are) secondary acts.

The eternal lore of the Veda upholds all beings; f or th is reason I regard this as the best means of accomplishing the ends of every creature.—(99)

²⁶⁷सर्वभूतभरणं च वेदशास्त्रस्य दर्शितं ब्राह्मणे । तथा च “हविर् अग्नौ हूयते सो ऽग्निर् आदित्यम् उद्वयति तत् सूर्यो रश्मिभिर् वक्ष्यति तेनार्त्तिर्²⁶⁸ भवति ततो ह वैनाम् उत्पत्तिस्थितिर्²⁶⁹ वेति हविर् ज्ञायते” इति । इहाप्य् उक्तम् “अग्नौ प्रास्ताहुतिः सम्यग् आदित्यम् उपतिष्ठते” (म्ध् ३.६६) इत्येवमादि ।

तस्माद् एतत् परं मन्ये** पुरुषार्थकारणम् । यद्य् एवं कारणेन जन्तोर् अस्य धर्मानुशासनम् एतस्मात् करणात् तेषु यथा दर्शितोपपत्तिः ।

• ननु च यद्य् औपादानिकम् अर्थं किं तद् भेदम् उक्तं²⁷⁰ लौकिकम् अर्थम् इति ।

M G: bhedayuktaṃ

• उच्यते । अनुष्ठानम् अस्य वैदिकम्, कार्यं तु दृष्टत्वाल् लौकिकम् एव ॥ १२.९९ ॥

That the Veda upholds all beings has been indicated in the following Brāhmaṇa-text—‘Sacrificial materials are offered into fire,—the fire raises it up to the Sun,—the Sun bears it on his rays,—thence comes rain; thus it is that the sacrificial material comes to be regarded as the cause of the birth and existence of all beings.’ This same idea has been expressed in the present work also—‘The material rightly thrown into the fire rises up to the Sun,’ and so forth (3.76).

For these reasons I regard this as the best means for the accomplishing of the ends of man. In what manner the Veda supplies all the knowledge regarding man’s duties has been already shown.

“What fulfils all these ends,—is it Vedic (spiritual), or worldlly (physical)?”

The duty is spiritual, but the actual act, which is visible to the eye, is physical.—(99)

Cf. 3.76.

तथा च ब्राह्मणम्- “हविर् अग्नौ हूयते । सो ऽग्निर् आदित्यं गमयति । तत् सूर्यो रश्मिभिर् वर्षति । तेनान्नं भवति । अन्नाद् भूतानाम् उत्पत्तिः” स्थित्श् चेति विज्ञायते । इहापि चोक्तम्- “अग्नौ प्रास्ताहुतिः सम्यग् आदित्यम् उपतिष्ठते” (म्ध् ३.६६) इत्य् एवमादि । तद्माद् एतत् परं मन्ये पुरुषार्थकारि यत् येन कारणेन जन्तोर् अस्य धर्मानुशासनम् । एतस्मात् कारणात् ॥ १२.९९ ॥

099 The eternal lore of the Veda upholds all created beings; hence I hold that to be supreme, which is the means of (securing happiness to) these creatures.

It is only one who knows the Vedic lore that deserves the command over armies, Kingly authority, the office of the adjudicator of punishments and sovereignty over all men.—(100)

अतिस्तुतिर् इयम् । दण्डनेतारः²⁷¹ दण्डनायका ग्रामनगरयोः कृताकृतप्रेक्षणनियुक्ताः²⁷² । सेना हस्त्यश्वरथपादातम्, तस्याः पतिः । राज्यं मण्डलेश्वरत्वम् । सर्वलोकाधिपत्यं सार्वभौमत्वम् ॥ १२.१०० ॥

This is an exaggerated praise.

‘Adjudicator of punishments’—the officer who, in villages and cities, fixes the punishments upon men; who is appointed to look after what people do and what they do not know.

‘Army’—consisting of elephants, horses, chariots and foot-soldiers;—the ‘Commander’ of all this.

‘Kingly authority’—royal authority over a small circle.

‘Sovereignty over all men’—the status of the Emperor.—(100)

यथा कथंचिद् वेदं प्रकरणात् स्तौति । अत्र कारणं वक्ति ॥ १२.१०० ॥

100 Command of armies, royal authority, the office of a judge, and sovereignty over the whole world he (only) deserves who knows the Veda-science.

Just as fire, having gained strength, burns even green trees, even so does the person knowing the Veda consume all the evil effects of his deeds.—(101)

इयम् अपि पूर्ववत् । स्पष्टा पदयोजना प्रसिद्धाश् च पदार्थाः ॥ १२.१०१ ॥

As in the preceding verse, so now also the construction of the words is quite easy, and their meaning is well-known.—101

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 172);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 129).

Vaśiṣṭha (27.2).—‘As a fire burning strongly consumes even green trees, even so does the fire of the Veda destroy one’s guilt caused by one’s deeds.’

एतस्मात् कारणात्,

101 As a fire that has gained strength consumes even trees full of sap, even so he who knows the Veda burns out the taint of his soul which arises from (evil) acts.

In whatever life-stage he may be, the person who knows the true meaning of the Vedic Scriptures becomes fit for union with brahman, even while dwelling in this world.—(102)

ब्रह्मभूयाय ब्रह्मभावाय ब्रह्मत्वप्राप्तये इति यावत् । यत्र²⁷³ तत्रेति व्युत्थाय व्युत्क्रमेणापि । यथोक्तम् “विद्वेषणाच् चाप्य् उत्थाय ब्राह्मणा भिक्षाचर्यम् अनुवेद्य²⁷⁴ व्रजन्ति” इति ॥ १२.१०२ ॥

‘Union with Brahman’—becoming one with Brahman, (i.e., attaining Brahman).

‘In whatever’—i.e., even though he may not take to the several stages in the regular order. This is what has been referred to in such passages as—‘Brāhmaṇas, deviating from the regular path, pass on to the stage of the Mendicant immediately after passing through that of the Student.’—102

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra p. 510);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 132).

वेदशास्त्रार्थतत्त्वज्ञो
यत्र तत्राश्रमे वसन् ।
इहैव लोके तिष्ठन् स
ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पते ॥ १२.१०२ ॥

102 In whatever order (a man) who knows the true meaning of the Veda-science may dwell, he becomes even while abiding in this world, fit for the union with Brahman.

Better than ignoramuses are those who ‘read the books’; better than the ‘reader of books’ are those who ‘retain’ them; better than the ‘retainers’ are those who have ‘knowledge’; and better than those having ‘knowledge’ are those who act.—(103)

अज्ञा मूर्खा अनधीयानाः । ग्रन्थिनः²⁷⁵ विद्वांसो ग्रन्थमात्राभिधायिनः । तेभ्यो धारिण इत्य् एतद् यत्नेन पठन्तः²⁷⁶ । पूर्वे तु नातिप्रयत्नतः । ग्रन्थस्येति तत्रापि संबध्यते “ग्रन्थस्य धारिणः” इति । श्रेष्ठत्वम्²⁷⁷ एतेषां जपप्रतिग्रहादिष्व् अधिकारात् । ज्ञानिनस् तु सर्वत्राधिकृता इति श्रेष्ठतराः । ज्ञानपूर्वं जपादयो ऽनुष्ठीयमानाः फलातिशयदायिनो भवन्ति । तद् उक्तम् “यद् एव विद्यया करोति श्रद्धयोपनिषदा तद् एव वीर्यवत्तरं भवति” (छु १.१.१०) इति । व्यवसायिनः²⁷⁸ अनुष्ठातारो निर्विचिक्त्साः²⁷⁹ । येषाम् एतद्²⁸⁰ अन्यथेति न²⁸¹ शक्यते ।

• एतद् अपि स्तुत्यर्थम् । अध्ययनमात्रेण वेदाः पुरुषार्थाय प्रभवन्ति, किं पुनस् तदर्थज्ञानम्²⁸² ॥ १२.१०३ ॥

‘Ignoramuses’—ignorant men; those who do not read at all.

‘Who read the books’—those who have studied the texts, and are just able to mention them.

Better than these are those who ‘retain’ them; those who read the books with care; while the former do not read with sufficient care. The ‘retainers’ also are of the books.

What the superiority of these latter means is that they are qualified for being engaged in recitations, for receiving gifts, and so forth.

‘Those who have knowledge,’ are qualified for all purposes; and hence these are still better. Recitations and prayers, when done with knowledge, are productive of more excellent results. This is what has been thus described—‘Whatever one does with knowledge, faith and with due regard to the esoteric teachings, turns out to be most effective.’

‘Those who act’—Those who, without any hesitation, act up to the teachings of the Veda; and who never doubt their correctness.

This also is meant to be mere praise: Mere study of the Veda is capable of accomplishing the ends of man,—how much more so the knowledge of what is contained in it!—(103)

‘Ajñebhyaḥ’.—‘Entirely ignorant’ (Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa), ‘who have not read the Veda’ (Nandana),—‘who have learnt a little’ (Govindarāja and Kullūka).

‘Granthinaḥ’.—‘Forgetful students’ (Kullūka and Nandana),—‘those who learn the verbal text alone and do not ponder, over the meaning’, (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 73), which adds the following notes:—‘Granthinaḥ,’ who can read only with the help of the book,—‘Dhāriṇaḥ,’ who can read without the help of the book,—‘Jñāninaḥ,’ who have studied the scriptures and know their meaning.

ग्रन्थधारिणो धारिणः । पूर्वपदलोपो ऽत्र विज्ञेयः । यथा सत्यभामा भामा देवदत्तो दत्त इति । धारिभ्यो ज्ञानिनः- प्रयत्न[वि]शेषाद् अधिकतरफलभाजः । ज्ञानिभ्यो ऽध्यवसायिनः कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठातारः । यस्मात् ॥ १२.१०२–१०३ ॥

103 (Even forgetful) students of the (sacred) books are more distinguished than the ignorant, those who remember them surpass the (forgetful) students, those who possess a knowledge (of the meaning) are more distinguished than those who (only) remember (the words), men who follow (the teaching of the texts) surpass those who (merely) know (their meaning).

Austerity and knowledge are conducive to the Highest Good of the Brāhmaṇa; by Austerity he destroys sins and by Knowledge he attains immortality.—(104)

अनेनैतद् दर्सयति । सत्यां अपि विद्यायां नाक्षीणपापस्य मोक्षः, सत्य् अपि कर्मक्षये नासत्याम् आत्मविद्यायाम् । अतो यद् उक्तम् “ते स्वभावेन²⁸³ मुच्यन्ते” इति, तद् असत् । अमृतम् अपुनरावृत्तिर् येयं केवलानन्दरूपता²⁸⁴ ॥ १२.१०४ ॥

What is meant by this is that, even though one may possess knowledge,—until his sins have been destroyed, he does not attain Liberation;—nor if, though his sins may have been destroyed, he has not acquired knowledge of the Self.

Thus there is no truth in the assertion that man attains Liberation by his very nature.

‘Immortality’—not returning to metempsychic birth; which has also been described as consisting in pure Bliss.—(104)

This verse is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 512);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 144).

तपसा कल्मषं हन्ति । तपःशब्देन नित्यानि कर्माणि श्रौतस्मार्थान्य् उच्यन्त इत्य् उक्तं पुरस्तात् । तेषां नित्यानां कर्मणाम् अनुष्ठानेन कल्मषं हन्ति । तथा चोक्तं प्रायश्चित्तप्रकरणे “वेदाभ्यासो ऽन्वहं शक्त्या महायज्ञक्रिया क्षमा, शोधयन्त्य् आशु पापानि महापातकजान्य् अपि” इति । विद्यया परमात्मादिविज्ञानेनेत्य् उक्तं पुरस्तात् प्रकरणात् । अमृतम् अश्नुते । स एव ज्ञानकर्मणोर् अविरोधात् समुच्चयः पूर्वोपदिष्ट उपसंह्रियते । अमृतम् अश्नुते मोक्षम् ब्रह्मत्वं वा प्रापोनोतीत्य् अर्थः ॥ १२.१०४ ॥

104 Austerity and sacred learning are the best means by which a Brahmana secures supreme bliss; by austerities he destroys guilt, by sacred learning he obtains the cessation of (births and) deaths.

If one desires to obtain the correct knowledge of Dharma, he should become fully acquainted with these three:—Perception, Inference and the Scriptures of various traditions.—(105)

सुहृद् भूत्वोपदिशति लौकिकम् अर्थम् । धर्मो वेदार्थः, तस्य शुद्धिर् विवरणं पूर्वपक्षनिराकरणेन²⁸⁵ निश्चितसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थापनम् । एतत्²⁸⁶ प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणनिश्चये सति भवति । सुविदिते हि प्रत्यक्षे ज्वालादिवैषम्येण प्रत्यभिज्ञायते । शब्दनित्यत्वादिसिद्धिः²⁸⁷ । यस्य तु सम्यक् नास्ति²⁸⁸ विवेकः, तस्योभयोर्²⁸⁹ अविशेषेण प्रत्यक्षम् अध्यवसायः स्यात् । ज्वालादिषु च प्रत्यक्षेण क्षयं दृष्ट्वा शब्दे ऽपि²⁹⁰ तथा संभावयेत्, तथानित्यशब्दसमुदायात्मको वेदः स्यात् । यस्य तु विहितानि कुशलप्रमाणेषु प्रशब्दो ऽतद्ग्रहणनिबन्धनो नास्त्य् अभिज्ञानो मन्यमानो ज्वालाविदुषो भेदग्रहणनिबन्धनम् इव सितविशितं विशेषो न ज्वालाबाधेन शब्दे बाधं संभावयति ।

• एवम् अनुमानम् अपि सुविवेचितं न भारतादिग्रन्थप्रमाणोपलक्षणत्वाच् च । तेन शौर्यादिशास्त्रान्ते²⁹¹ कर्मण्यतासिद्धिः । येन न विवेचितं²⁹² ह्य् अनुमानं स पक्षविपक्षयोर्²⁹³ दर्शनादर्शनमात्रेणानुमानप्रवृत्तिं मन्वानो वेदे ऽपि कर्तारं कल्पयेत् । यदा तु निपुणमतिर् भवति तत् तत् प्रयोजकस्य स्नातव्यलक्षणया तस्य कर्तृत्वस्वकरणस्याभावाद् अपौरुषेयत्वम् अध्यवस्यति ।

• शास्त्रं च विविधागमम् । शास्त्रे विविधविधिप्रतिषेधात्²⁹⁴ तस्य विविधो ऽनेकप्रकार आगमः । यत्रागम्यते स आगमः । बहुशाखत्वाद् वेदस्य श्रुतिस्मृतिभेदेन च विविधत्वम् उक्तम् । स चायम् अर्थः स्वाध्यायविध्याक्षिप्तः²⁹⁵ सुहृद्भावेनोपदिष्टः²⁹⁶ न च द्वयम् अपि प्रशंसेव²⁹⁷ ॥ १२.१०५ ॥

In a friendly spirit, the author adds a teaching bearing upon the ordinary business of the world.

‘Dharma’—is what is taught in the Veda.

‘Śuddhi’—correct knowledge, consisting of the rejection of the prima facie view of things and the acceptance of the correct conclusion, is obtained only when one has formed correct notions regarding Perception and the other means of knowledge. For instance, it is only when one has a correct conception of the perception of things that he is cognizant of the fact that flame is something fleeting, and when he finds that the case with sound is not so, he grasps the truth that ‘sound is eternal.’ If, on the other hand, the man has no correct conception of things perceived, he will entertain the same notion regarding the perception of both sound and flame. So that perceiving that flame is fleeting, he would conclude that sound also is fleeting; and for this man the Veda would only be ‘an aggregate of fleeting sounds’…(?)

Similarly ‘Inference’ should be duly learnt. If a man does not become acquainted with the right process of Inference, he would be liable to draw inferences from the Minor Term only, or only from that which does not contain the major term, and thus infer the existence of an author for the Veda also. When on the other hand, he understands the nature of Inference, he concludes that the Veda is not the work of an author, from the premiss that no work of the nature of the Veda is ever found to be the work of an author.

‘Scriptures o f various traditions.’—The Scriptures contain many Injunctions and Prohibitions; and hence there are several ‘traditions’ regarding them. ‘Āgama’ literally means ‘āgamyate,’ ‘that which comes down to one.’ There being several rescissions of the Veda, it is spoken of as having ‘several traditions,’ specially with reference to the distinction drawn between ‘Śruti’ and ‘Smṛti.’

This fact, already implied by the Injunction of ‘Vedic Study,’ has been recalled here by the Author, in a friendly spirit. All this may be regarded as mere praise.—(105)

‘Śāstram’.—‘Veda’ (Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—‘Veda and Smṛti’ (Medhātithi),—‘Smṛti’ (Kullūka).

अनुमानागमाभ्यां धर्मशुद्धि [न] (?) प्रत्यक्षाद्, यतः तस्योपदेशो ऽनुमानशुद्ध्यर्थः । तत्पूर्वकत्वाद् अनुमानस्यागमशेषत्वम् । अपि च प्रत्यक्षस्य क्वचिद् इष्यत एव । यतः एतस्यां कल्पनायाम् उभयशेषत्वाद् युक्तः प्रत्यक्षनिर्देशः । अनुमानस्याप्य् आगमार्थः । एवं च सति प्रत्यक्षानुमानतत्त्वं तर्कः । शास्त्रं तु विविधागमम् । बहुशाखो वेदः । “एकविंशतिधा बाह्वृच्यम् एकशतम् अध्वर्युशाखाः सहस्रवर्त्मा सामवेदः” । अथ वा शास्त्रं विविधागमम्, बहुशाखं धर्मशास्त्रम् । अविरोधाद् उभयं वा श्रुतिस्मृत्याख्यम् । अधुनानुमानतत्त्वं विज्ञानप्रयोजनम् आचष्टे ॥ १२.१०५ ॥

105 The three (kinds of evidence), perception, inference, and the (sacred) Institutes which comprise the tradition (of) many (schools), must be fully understood by him who desires perfect correctness with respect to the sacred law.

If a man explores, by ratiocination, the Vedic teaching regarding Dharma, he alone, and no other, understands Dharma.—(106)

ऋषिर् वेदः, तत्र भवः आर्षः, धर्मोपदेशो यो वैदिकः । यस् तर्केण अनुमानान्तरेण युक्त्या निरूपयति स धर्मं वेदेति पदयोजना ।

• तर्क ऊहापोहान्तर्यसिद्धिः, इदम् अत्र युक्तम् ऊहितुम्, इदम् अपोहितम् । यदा²⁹⁸ सौर्ये कर्मणि निर्वापमन्त्रे “देवस्य त्वा सवितुः प्रसवे ऽश्विनोर् बाहुभ्यां पूष्णो हस्ताभ्याम् अग्नये त्वा जुष्टं निर्वपामि” (व्स् २.११) इति प्रकृतितः प्राप्ते मन्त्रे ऽग्निपदस्यार्थासमवायाद्²⁹⁹ अपोहः सूर्यपदस्य च क्षेपः । अयं तर्को न विरुध्यते वेदेन । यो ऽप्य् एवं मन्यते- “सौर्ये कर्मण्य् अग्नेर् देवतायाः अभावात्, अर्थेन च मन्त्राणां प्रयोज्यत्वात्, एकदेशोपशमे च मन्त्रत्वाभावात्, कृत्स्नस्य वै मन्त्रस्य लोपः,”³⁰⁰ एष वेदार्थविरोधी³⁰¹ तर्कः । यद् उच्चारणं³⁰² मन्त्राणां प्रयोज्यत्वं मन्यते, “अतश् चाविकृत एव मन्त्रः प्रयोक्तव्यः” इति, सो ऽपि शास्त्रविरोधी तर्कः³⁰³ ।

• न चायं³⁰⁴ विधिः । अयम् अर्थवादः । अस्यात्र तात्पर्यम्, ईदृश्य् उपेक्षा यद् अत्रैतच् च मीमांसातो ज्ञायते ऽतो धर्मशुद्ध्यर्थं मीमांसावेदनम् एतेन चोदितम् ।

• अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते । तर्केणेति तर्कप्रधाना ग्रन्था लौकिकप्रमाणनिरूपणपरा³⁰⁵ न्यायवैशेषिकलोकायतिका उच्यन्ते । तत्र वेदविरुद्धानि बौद्धलोकायतिकनैर्ग्रन्थादीनि पर्युदस्यन्ते । तानि वेदविरुद्धानि । न³⁰⁶ तत्र प्रमाणं वेदः । कपिलकणादक्रियाम् अविरथतानिग्रहान्तादिषु हि शब्दः प्रमाणम् । तथा चाक्षपादसूत्रम् “प्रत्यक्षानुमानोपमानशब्दाः³⁰⁷ प्रमाणानि” (न्यास् १.१.३) । वैशेषिका अपि “तद्वचनाद् आम्नायस्य प्रामाण्यम्”³⁰⁸ (वैश्स् १.१.३) इत्य् आहुः । अतस् तानि शास्त्राणि श्रोतव्यानीति च । तथा च महाभारते भगवता कृष्णद्वैपायनेन दर्शितम्-

• श्रोत्रियस्यैव ते राजन् मन्दकस्याल्पबुद्धयः ।

• अनुवाकहता बुद्धिर् नैषा सूक्ष्मार्थदर्शिनी ॥ (म्भ् १२.१०.१)

अनुवाकहतेति तर्ककृताम् अप्य् उपपत्तिम् आह, केवलत्वाद् असत्तया । तथेदम्³⁰⁹ अपरम् उत ।

• कश्चिन् न लोकायतिकान् ब्राह्मणान् स्मार्तः सेवते ।

• अनर्थकुशला ह्य् एते मूर्खाः पण्डितमानिनः । इति । (राम् २.९४.३२)

अनेनासत्तर्कश्रवणं प्रसिद्धम्, पूर्वेण सत्तर्कानुज्ञानं तद् एव तद् इति ।

• केचित्³¹⁰ प्रामाण्यं वेदस्याहुर् ईश्वरप्रणेतृकतया । न च तस्यास्ति संभवः । न च तस्मिन् पक्षे वेदः प्रमाणम्, तस्य ह्य् असाव् ईश्वरः समयोपस्थापकः ।

• एतेषु श्रूयमाणेषु अप्रामाणिको³¹¹ विपरीतो ऽभिनिवेशो जायते । अतो ऽसत्तर्का एव ते । न च वैदिकस्य वाक्यावबोधे कस्यचिद् अप्य् उपयुज्यन्ते³¹² । तथा च सांख्याः “स ह्य् अविशुद्धिक्षयातिशययुक्तः”³¹³ (सांक् २) इत्य् आहुः । अक्षपादैर् अपि तदप्रामाण्यं मन्यते । तथा च याज्ञिकपूर्वपक्षे निर्धारितं यद् अपि केनचित् पठितम् (न्यास् २.१.५७) ।

• कर्ममीमांसावेदान्तभाष्यम्³¹⁴ एवम् अभिधानं यथाश्रुति विज्ञायते- “देवा अस्माल् लोकाद् अमुं लोकम् आयंस् तान् ऋषयो ऽन्वीयुस् तान् मनुष्या अब्रुवन् कथम् अथो भविष्यामः एभ्यः सर्वकर्म ऋषयः प्रायच्छत्³¹⁵ । तस्माद् यत् ब्राह्मणोत्तमास् तर्कयन्त्य्³¹⁶ आर्षम् एव तद् भवति” इति श्रुतेः । एषा यथोक्ततर्कपदार्थानुवादिनी ॥ १२.१०६ ॥

‘Ārṣa’ means ‘pertaining to a Ṛṣi,’ and the term ‘ṛṣi’ here means the Veda; hence ‘Ārṣa Upadeśa’ means ‘Vedic teaching.’

This, if a man ‘explores’—tries to find out—‘by ratiocination’—by means of inferences,—‘he understands Dharma’—such is the verbal construction of the passage.

‘Ratiocination’—is the process of reasoning where a certain proposition is set up, and rejected, if found to be wrong on examination; the man coming to such conclusions as—‘It is right to accept this, and reject that.’ For instance, the sacred text used at the Āgneya sacrifice is—‘Devasya tvā savituḥ…agnaye tvā juṣṭam nirvapāmi’ (Vājasaneya Saṃhitā, 2.11); now an ectype of this Āgneya is the ‘Saurya’ Sacrifice of which the deity is Sūrya;—and in accordance with the general law that ‘the ectype shall be performed in the same manner as its archetype,’ it would follow that the sacred text just quoted shall be used at the Saurya sacrifice also;—but here one argues that though ‘agnaye tvā’ would be the right form for the Āgneya, where the deity is Agni, it could not be right for the Saurya, where the deity is Sūrya; hence while at this latter, the rest of the text shall be used in the same form, the words ‘agnaye tvā’ should be altered into ‘sūryāya tvā.’ Such a reasoning would not be inconsistent with the Veda.

Some people may argue thus: “At the Saurya sacrifice, Agni is not the deity; and it is in accordance with their meanings that sacred texts are employed at sacrifices; so that when one part of the said text is not applicable to the Saurya sacrifice, if that portion were dropped, it would cease to be a Sacred text;—hence the whole text should be dropped.”

But such reasoning would be contrary to the teaching of the Veda.

Similarly if one were to argue that—‘Since the sacred text has to be used, it must be always used in its original unaltered form only,’—this also would be contrary to the Veda.

In fact, what is set forth here is not an Injunction, but a commendatory statement; and the purport of it is that what should be done in such cases is to be ascertained by the process of reasonings embodied in the Mīmāṃsā;—hence it is the study of Mīmāṃsā that is indirectly enjoined for the purpose of obtaining a correct knowledge of Dharma.

Others explain the text in the following manner:—

‘Tarka,’ ‘Ratiocination,’ stands for works of which reasoning forms the main subject; which make it their business to set forth the ordinary means of cognition,—i.e., works on Nyāya, on Vaiśeṣika and on the materialistic Systems of Philosophy. From among these however, those belonging to the last category,—i.e., works written by Bauddhas, Nirgranthas and others—which are inconsistent with the Veda—are rejected; since for these writers the Veda is not an authoritative source of knowledge; as it is for Kapila, Kaṇāda (and the Naiyāyika). This is shown by the following Sūtra of Gautama—‘Perception, Inference, Analogy and Word are the pramāṇas’ (1.1.3); and the Vaiśeṣikas also—‘the authoritative character of the Veda is due to its being His declaration’ (Vaiśeṣika Sūtra). Hence these latter should be carefully listened to (and learnt). In the Mahābhārata also, the revered Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana has declared—‘O king, your intellect seems to be bewildered by the words of the text, just like that of the foolish Vedic scholar, and hence it fails to grasp the subtle aspects of things’;—where the mention of ‘bewilderment caused by the words of the text’ implies the propriety of applying reasonings. There is yet another statement—‘One who follows the Smṛtis should never attend to materialistic Brāhmaṇas, since these are adepts in evil and proud of their learning.’ This forbids listening to unsound reasonings; while the former text (from the Mahābhārata) lays down the propriety of attending to sound reasonings.

The authoritative character of the Veda some people would seek to prove by the fact of its being the work of God. But this is not possible; as according to this view the Veda cannot he authoritative, as its whole fabric would rest upon the will of God, and when we find contradictory statements, we are prone to take the opposite view that the Veda is not trustworthy.

For this reason the reasonings set forth by these persons would also have to be rejected as ‘unsound’; specially as these do not help in any way towards the understanding of the meaning of Vedic texts. Says the Sāṅkhya, for instance (in regard to the Veda)—‘it is beset with impurity, destruction and excess’ (Kārikā, 2). The followers of Gautama also have put forward certain arguments, which embody the prima facie position against the Ritualistic Section of the Veda (Nyāya Sūtra, 2.1.5, et. seq.);—though these arguments are represented as proceeding from another party.

It is only in the Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā and the Vedānta that we find the authority of the Veda unequivocally stated, in the form in which it is set forth in such Vedic texts as—‘The gods came down from the heavenly regions to this world,—the sages followed them,—and the men said to them—How are we going to live?—To them the sages revealed all their duties,—hence the reasonings that the good Brāhmaṇas propound are Vedic.’ This is a passage that explains the exact nature of what is meant by ‘ratiocination’ in the present context.—(106)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 22);—and in Smṛtitattva (p. 511).

श्रोत्रियस्येव ते राजन् मन्दकस्याल्पमेधसः ।
अनुवाकहता बुद्धिर् नैषा सूक्ष्मार्थदर्शिनी ॥ इति ।

एवं च स्तीदम् एव न्यायानुमाननाम्नः परमार्थतस् तर्कस्य लक्षणया वेदशास्त्राविरोदित्वम् । अतो ऽन्यस् तद्विरोधिन्यायानुमानं तर्काभासः । तथा चोक्तं न्यायाभासोदाहरणम्- “अचिन्त्यस्याप्रमेयस्य” इत्य् अत्र । न चात्रोपमानादिप्रमाणपर्युदासः । अन्तर्भावाद् यथा संभवं तर्कागमयोर् एव । आर्षशब्देन मन्त्रा गृह्यन्ते । तथा च शौनकस्य ग्रन्थ आर्षान् मन्त्रान् दर्शयति- “इदं वासिष्ठम् इदं वैश्वामित्रम् आर्षम्” इति । धर्मोपदेशस् तु ब्राह्मणम् । अन्यत् समानम् । अथ वा पाठान्तरेणार्थो ऽभिधीयते- “आर्षं धर्मोपदेशं तु स्मृतिशास्त्रं स्मृत्यविरोधिना, यस् तर्केणानुसंधत्ते धर्मं वेद नेतरः” इति । अयम् अर्थः स्म्र्तिप्रकरणाद् युक्ततरः । वेदाविरोधिनेत्य् एतद् वेदग्रहणम् अस्मिन् पक्षे मन्त्रब्राह्मणलिङ्गापेक्षत्वात् । ततः स्वातन्त्र्यपक्षे ऽपि च स्मृतेर् युज्यते । किं पुनर् मन्त्रब्राह्मणलिङ्गप्रभवपक्ष उत्सन्नशाखार्थानुस्मरणे च । तद् एवं त्रिष्व् अपि श्लोकार्थेषु न्यायस्तुतिर् इयम्, तत्संपरिग्रहार्थत्वात् । न्यायसंपरिग्रहश् चागमशास्त्रव्याख्यानसहयो (?) यथा स्याद् धर्मविशुद्ध्यर्थः । तथा च श्रुतिर् विज्ञायते । “देवा अस्माल् लोकाद् अमुं लोकम् आयन् तान् दृष्ट्वाब्रुवन् कथम् अनार्षा भविष्याम [एभ्यः कर्]म ऋषिं प्रायच्छन् । तस्माद् यद् ब्राह्मणो अनूचानस् तर्कयत्य् आर्षं एतद् भवति” इति स्रुतेर् युक्तो वेदस्मृतिशास्त्राविरोधिनस् तर्कस्य संपरिग्रहः । तदर्थनिर्मलत्वाय, इदानीं न्यायोपदेशप्रयोजनम् उत्तरप्रकरणाद् दर्शयिष्यन्न् इदम् आह ॥ १२। १०६ ॥

आर्षम् अकृतकत्वात् । धर्मोपदेशः स्मृतिः । तथा चेदम् उच्यते धर्मशास्त्रम् । एतद् द्वयं वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना, वेदग्रहणाच् च स्मृतिग्रहणम् अपि सामर्थ्याद् अनुक्तम् अप्य् अत्र विज्ञेयम् । तदपेक्षितत्वाच् छ्रुतेः । अनभिधानं तु छन्दोभङ्गभयात् । एवं च सति वेदस्मृतिशास्त्राविरोधिनेत्य् एतद् उपपन्नम् । प्राधान्याद् वा वेदग्रहणं निदर्शनार्थं स्मृतेर् अपि । स च तर्को द्विप्रकारो, यतः तं विशिनष्टि वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना । यस् तर्केणानुसंधत्ते सन्दिघ(?)व्याहतपुनरुक्ताशङ्कायाम्, स धर्मं वेद न केवलतार्किकः । तथा चेतिहासः- “कच्चिन् न लोकायतिकान् ब्राह्मणांस् तात सेवसे, अनर्थकुशला ह्य् एते मूर्खाः पण्डितमानिनः” इति । केवलागमो वा । तथा च व्यासश्लोको भीमसेनवचनानुवादी-

106 He alone, and no other man, knows the sacred law, who explores the (utterances) of the sages and the body of the laws, by (modes of) reasoning, not repugnant to the Veda-lore.

The act conducive to the Highest Good is as has been here fully declared. Now is going to be set forth the secret of the Teachings of Manu—(107)

वक्ष्यमाणार्थादारातिशयोत्पत्त्यर्थः श्लोको ऽयं श्रोत्रियसंबोधनार्थः । रहस्यं गुह्यम् । अतश् च न सर्वस्य प्रकाशयितव्यम् । यो न शुश्रूषापरो न च परमां भक्तिम् उपेतो यश् च न स्थिरप्रकृतिर् न तस्मै प्रकाश्यम् ॥ १२.१०७ ॥

This verse is intended to attract the attention of the Vedic scholar, and to arouse in his mind a special regard for what is going to be set forth.

‘Secret’—hidden meaning.—(107)

श्रोतॄन् उत्तरप्रकरणार्थश्रवणायाभिमुखीकरोत्य् आदरेण ॥ १२.१०७ ॥

107 Thus the acts which secure supreme bliss have been exactly and fully described; (now) the secret portion of these Institutes, proclaimed by Manu, will be taught.

If the question should arise—“How should it be in regard to those points upon which the laws have not been declared?”—[the answer is]—what the cultured Brāhmaṇas declare, that shall be the undoubted law.—(108)

• उच्यते । नेहेदृशम् अनाम्नातम् अभिप्रेतम् । किं तर्हि, यत् सामान्यत आम्नातं विसेषतस् तु न ज्ञायते ।

• ननु च तत्रापि कः संदेहः । सामान्यस्य विशेषमात्रापेक्षाद्³¹⁷ येन केनचित् सिद्धं³¹⁸ शास्त्रार्थम्, यथा “अद्भिर् आचमेत्” इति कूप्यस्थावरनादेयादिभेदेन भिन्नास्व् अप्सु ताः काश्चिद् उपादीयमानाः संपादयन्ति शास्त्रार्थम् ।

• सत्यम् । यत्र प्रतिषेधश्रुतिः,³¹⁹ न च वैशेषिकं प्रायश्चित्तम् उपदिष्टम्, तत्रेदम्³²⁰ उपदिश्यते । यदा शूद्रोच्छिष्टं किंचित् पात्रं तद् अशुद्धं तत् संपर्काद् अशुचि तस्मिन्न् अकृते सुद्धे यदि केनचिद् भुक्तं स्यात् तदा किं प्रायश्चित्तम् इति संदेहः । स हि जिज्ञासा च निश्चयावसानेन च प्रत्यक्षादिषु सम्यङ् निधिः स्त्रीशूद्रोच्छिष्टम् एवेत्य् अदत्तं भवितुम् अर्हति । न हि तच् छूद्रस्योच्छिष्टम् इति शक्यं वक्तुम् । किं तेन तद् उच्छिष्टम् इति । एवमादौ संदेहे तु शिष्टवचनं प्रमाणीकर्तव्यम्³²¹ । यथा ये शूद्रादयो विप्रांशास् तेषाम् अयं धर्मसंदेहः । शिष्टोपदिष्टम् एव युक्तं कर्तुम् । ततश् च न्यूनाधिकभावेन या कृता कल्पना स एव तत्र धर्मः । तेषाम् अपि तथोपदिशतां न दोषः । यत आह- स धर्मः स्याद् अशङ्कितः इति । अधर्मं ब्रुवतो³²² दोषः, धर्मे तु का विचिकित्सा³²³ । तथा गोत्रप्रवरसंदेहे कथंचित्³²⁴ स्मृतिविच्छेदे ब्राह्मणवचनाद् गोत्रप्रवरसिद्धिः । तत्र च प्रवरसंदेहे “सर्वेषां मानवेति³²⁵ संशये” (आश्श् १.३.५) इत्य् उक्तम् । गोत्रसंशये तर्हि भविष्यति । तत्र च गोत्रसंशयाभावे कुतः प्रवरसंशयः, प्रतिगोत्रं³²⁶ प्रवराणां भेदेन पठितत्वात् । उपपद्यत एवम् एतद् गोत्रनामधेयम् । प्रवराश् च भिन्ना नाना गोत्राणि । तत्र सत्य् अपि प्रवरनिश्चये गोत्रसंदेह³²⁷ उत्पद्यते³²⁸ ॥ १२.१०८ ॥

“How can there be any doubt on points not dealt with by the Ordinances? For the matter would be wholly unknown.”

The answer to this is that what is meant is not what is not spoken of at all, but that in regard to which the law has been stated only in a general form, and the particular applications of it cannot be ascertained.

“Even in such cases why should there be any doubt? A general statement always applies to all particular cases; so that if any particular form of it is followed, the ordinances become followed.”

For instance, when we have the law that ‘one should rinse his mouth with water,’—with what water, of a well, or a tank, or a river, being not specified,—the behests of the law would be duly obeyed by rinsing the mouth with water obtained from any one of these sources.

True; but there are cases where we have a text prohibiting a certain act, but no expiation is laid down in reference to that act; and it is such cases that are contemplated by the present verse.

For instance, there is the following case—There is a vessel polluted by the touch of the Śūdra’s mouth,—and before it has been cleansed some one takes his food out of it;—now what would be the expiation in this case? This question cannot be answered by anything that has been laid down. There is the text laying down the expiation in connection with pollution caused by the touch of the mouth of ‘the woman and the Śūdra’; but what is polluted by the ‘woman and the Śūdra,’ cannot be held to be ‘polluted by the Śūdra (only).’

In such doubtful cases, one should act up to the declaration of cultured men. For such doubts can arise only in the minds of Śūdras and others, who are not learned Brāhmaṇas; and it is only right that they should do what is taught by cultured men; so that in all cases, reductions or enhancements in the exact expiation should be always accepted in accordance with the decision of these people.

Nor would these cultured men be doing anything wrong in declaring the law on doubtful points; since it is declared that—‘that should be the undoubted law.’ If they pronounced a wrong opinion they would certainly be doing something wrong. For in matters relating to Dharma there can be no two opinions. In a case where there is a doubt regarding the exact ‘gotra’ and ‘pravara’ of a certain person,—when no one happens to remember them, how could the exact gotra or pravara be determined by any declaration of the Brāhmaṇas? It is for this reason that it has been asserted that where the gotra or pravara is doubtful, it shall remain doubtful. The pravara is doubtful only when the gotra is doubtful; when there is no doubt regarding the gotra, there can be none regarding the pravara, as the exact pravaras relating to each gotra have been clearly described. But since there are several pravaras mentioned in connection with several gotras, the gotra would remain doubtful even when the pravaras are known.—(108)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 21);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 7), which explains ‘Dharmeṣu’ as ‘the sources of the knowledge of Dharma.’

Gautama (28.48).—‘In cases where no rule has been given, that course should he followed which is approved of by at least ten such Brāhmaṇas as are well-instructed, skilled in reasoning and free from covetousness.’

अनाम्नातेष्व् अनुपदिष्टेषु प्रायश्चित्तलक्षणेषु धर्मेष्व् अन्येषु च सामर्थ्याद् अनाम्नातं चोभयथा स्मरणं सग्रन्थकम् अग्रन्थकं च । अथ वादर्शनम् एवोभयथा स्मरणस्यानाम्नातत्वम् । अनाम्नातेष्व् अज्ञातेषु धर्मेषु किं कर्तव्यम् इति संदेहे सतीदम् आह यं शिष्टा ब्रूयुः स धर्मः स्याद् अशङ्कितः । येनाम्नातत्वम् अनाम्नातत्वं वा प्रति न कश्चिद् द्वेषो ऽस्ति तेषाम् । एवं च कृत्वोक्तम् “आचारश् चैव साधूनाम्” इति । शिष्टब्राह्मणलक्षणम् अधुना वक्ति ॥ १२.१०८ ॥

108 If it be asked how it should be with respect to (points of) the law which have not been (specially) mentioned, (the answer is), ’that which Brahmanas (who are) Sishtas propound, shall doubtlessly have legal (force).’

Those Brāhmaṇas, by whom the Veda, along with its supplements, has been learnt in the right manner, and who are guided directly by the revealed texts,—shall be regarded as ‘cultur ed.’—(109)

शिष्टलक्षणम् अनेन कथ्यते ।

• ननु च “अर्थकामेष्व् असक्तानाम्” (म्ध् २.१३) इत्य् अत्रोक्तम् एव शिष्टलक्षणम् ।

• अन्यो ऽपि तस्य तत्रार्थ आशङ्कितः, अतो न तस्य लक्षणपरतैव, यच् च वसिष्टेनोक्तम् “शिष्टः पुनर् अकामात्मा” (वध् १.६) इति, तत्र विद्वत्ताया³²⁹ अश्रुतत्वात्³³⁰ ।

• यत्र परिपूर्णत्वाद्³³¹ अधिगतो ऽर्थतश् च विदितः स सपरिबृंहणः³³² । तथा च भवान् व्यासः-

• इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदार्थम् उपबृंहयेत् । इति ।

स्मृतयो ऽप्य् एवं गृहीतार्था भवन्ति । ब्राःमणग्रहणम् अनुवादः, तेषाम् एव³³³ धर्मप्रवचनाधिकारात् । श्रुतिप्रत्यक्षहेतवः । प्रत्यक्षं हेतवश् च प्रत्यक्षहेतवः । हेतुशब्देन प्रत्यक्षाद् अन्यप्रमाणान्य् उच्यन्ते³³⁴ । श्रुतिः³³⁵ प्रत्यक्षो हेतुश् च येषां ते³³⁶ श्रुतिप्रत्यक्षहेतवः । एतद् उक्तं भवति । यथा प्रत्यक्षं निर्विवादं प्रामाण्यम् एव, तादृशीं श्रुतिं मन्यन्ते, यान्य् अपि हेतूत्थानि प्रमाणानि तेषु³³⁷ विश्वसन्ति, श्रुतिम् एव तर्कं मन्यन्ते, हेतुशास्त्राश्रयणेन चेदं न प्रमाणीकुर्वन्ति³³⁸ ।

• अथ वा श्रुतिः प्रत्यक्षश्रुतिः,³³⁹ प्रत्यक्षशब्दः श्रौते प्रत्यये प्रयक्षतुल्यत्वात् प्रयुक्तः । स च हेतुर् धर्माधर्मपरिज्ञाने कारणं येषां त एवम् उच्यन्ते ॥ १२.१०९ ॥

This verse provides the definition of the ‘cultured’ man.

“The definition of the cultured man has already been [provided under 2.13].”

But that verse has been suspected of having a totally different meaning; hence it cannot be regarded as providing the required definition. There is another statement—that man is cultured who is not affected by desires.’ But in this, ‘learning’ is not made a necessary condition. [Hence this also cannot be accepted as the requisite definition.]

When the Veda has been completely learnt and its meaning has been thoroughly grasped,—‘along with its supplements’—as described by the revered Vyāsa,—‘The Veda should be supplemented by Itihāsas and Purāṇas’;—by this the Smṛtis also became included.

The mention of ‘Brāhmaṇas’ is purely reiterative; since none other than the Brāhmaṇa is entitled to expound Dharma.

‘Guided directly by the revealed texts’—The revealed texts are their ‘direct guide’;—i.e., those for whom the Veda constitutes Perception and all other means of knowledge. What is meant is that they look upon the Veda as free from all defects, to the same extent that direct Perception is regarded as entirely trustworthy,—they do not rely upon those means of cognition that are based entirely on reasonings; they regard the Veda itself as embodying ‘reasoning’ also, and do not seek to establish the authority of the Veda by means of arguments.

Or, the phrase may mean that ‘they rely upon such Vedic texts as are directly found’;—i.e., they look upon these directly perceptible texts as the sole means of ascertaining what is Dharma (right) and what is Adharma (wrong).—(109)

‘Śrutipratyakṣahetavaḥ’—‘Those who have learnt the Vedic text, also facts of perception and reasonings’, or ‘those for whom the perceptible Vedic texts are the sole means of discriminating virtue and vice’ (Medhātithi);—‘who are the cause of the teaching of the subjects perceptible in the Veda’ (Govindarāja),—‘who are the causes of making the revealed texts perceptible by reciting them’ (Kullūka);—‘those for whose knowledge and exposition of the Law, the causes consist of Hearing and Perception by the senses’ (Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra p. 6) as defining the ‘Śiṣṭa.’

Vaśiṣṭha (1.6-7).—‘He whose heart is free from desire is called śiṣṭa. Acts sanctioned by the sacred law are those for which no worldly cause is perceptible.’

Vaśiṣṭha (6.43).—‘Those Brāhmaṇas in whose families the study of the Veda and the subsidiary sciences is hereditary, and who are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts, must be known to be śiṣṭa, cultured.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.5-6).—‘Śiṣṭa, cultured, forsooth, are those who are free from envy, free from pride, contented with a store of grain sufficient for ten days, free from covetousness, and free from hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, perplexity and anger. Those are called cultured who, in accordance with the sacred Law, have studied the Veda together with its subsidiaries, know how to draw inferences from it, and are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts.’

Āpastamba (2.29.14-15).—‘The indications for doubtful cases are—“He shall regulate his course of action according to the conduct which is unanimously recognised in all countries by men of the three twice-born castes, who have been properly obedient to their teachers, who are aged, of subdued senses, free from avarice and hypocrisy.” Acting thus he will gain both worlds. Some people say that the remaining duties must be learnt from women and from men of all castes.’

सपरिबृंहणः साङ्ग इत्य् अर्थः । अथ वा मीमाम्सान्यायविस्तरधर्मशास्त्रपुराणैर् अङ्गैश् च सह वेदः सपरिबृंहण उच्यते । एवं च व्याख्यायमाने प्रकरणान् व्यायसंपरिग्रहः कृतो भवति, विद्याबहुत्वस्य च मीमांसादिग्रहणेन । तदभावे ॥ १२.१०९ ॥

109 Those Brahmanas must be considered as Sishtas who, in accordance with the sacred law, have studied the Veda together with its appendages, and are able to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts.

When an assembly consisting of at least ten men,—or of at least three men firm in their duty,—declares a certain law, one should not seek to dispute it.—(110)

दश अवरे यस्या दशावरा³⁴⁰ । यदि बहवो न संनिधीयन्ते दशावश्यं संनिधातव्याः । तदभावे त्र्यवरा³⁴¹ । वृत्तथेति । यद् उक्तम् “अर्थकामेष्व् असक्तानाम्” (म्ध् २.१३) इति, तस्यैवायम् अनुवादः । न चैषा पुरुषसंख्या, अपि तु गुणसंख्या । तथा च वक्ष्यति “एको ऽपि वेदवित्” (म्ध् १२.११३) इति । एकस्य यतो गुणसमूहस्य बाहुल्येनासंभवात् पुरुषप्रधानतया संख्याया निर्देशः कृतः ॥ १२.११० ॥

तानीदानीं परिषत्त्वहेतुगुणान्³⁴²_ दर्शयति ।_

That in which there are at least ten men;—if more cannot be brought together, there should be at least ten.

If this be not possible, there should be at least three.

‘Firm in their duty.’—This is a reference to what has been [said under 2.13].

What is meant to be emphasised here is not the number, but the qualification; as in clear from what is going to be said in Verse 113 below, regarding ‘even a single Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda, etc., etc.,’ and the larger numbers are mentioned only in view of the fact that it may be difficult to find any single person possessed with all the requisite qualifications.

The qualifications for membership of the Assembly are next enumerated.—(110)

This verse is quoted in Nityācārapradīpa (p. 69).

Gautama (28.49).—‘They declare that a Pariṣad, Assembly, shall consist of at least the ten following—four men who have completely studied the four Vedas, three men belonging to the first three orders, and three men who know the different institutes of Law.’

Baudhāyana (1.1.7, 9).—‘On failure of the śiṣṭas, an assembly consisting of at least ten members shall decide disputed points of Law.’

तं दर्शयति ।

110 Whatever an assembly, consisting either of at least ten, or of at least three persons who follow their prescribed occupations, declares to be law, the legal (force of) that one must not dispute.

A person learned in the three Vedas, a logician, an investigator, a person knowing the Nirukta, a lawyer and three men belonging to the first three life-stages, shall constitute the ‘Assembly’; which shall consist of at least ten members.—(111)

पुरुषप्रधाने ऽपि निर्देशे गुणपरतैव विज्ञेया ।³⁴³ यस् त्रैविद्यः वेदत्रयस्याध्येता तदर्थस्य च वेदिता ।³⁴⁴ अनुमानादिकुशलः । तर्की अयम् ऊहापोहबुद्धियुक्तः ।

• ननु च नैवंविदो वेदार्थवित्त्वम् एव संभवतीत्य् उक्तम् ।

• सत्यम् । परोपदेशाद् अपि कस्यचिद् याचनावती वेदार्थमात्रा³⁴⁵ संभवत्य् अपि । अतश् च प्रत्ययेन विना वेदार्थग्रहणार्थहेतुकेन³⁴⁶ भातीत्य् उक्तम् ।

• एतेन नैरुक्तो व्याख्यातः । धर्मपाठको मन्वादिस्मृतिशास्त्राणाम्³⁴⁷ अध्येता । त्रयश् चाश्रमिणो ह्य् एते ह्य् अनुष्ठानपराः कुशलतरा धर्मेषु भवन्ति । पूर्वे³⁴⁸ ।

• ब्रह्मचारी गृहस्तो भिक्षुर् इत्य् एके । तस्य हि ग्रामप्रवेशो न निषिद्धः,³⁴⁹ गौतमेन चेयम् आनुपूर्वी³⁵⁰ पठिता- “ब्रह्मचारी गृहस्थो भिक्षुर् वैखानसः” (ग्ध् ३.२) इति ।

• अन्ये त्व् आहुः- हिंसानुज्ञा नास्तीति, कथम् असौ धर्मम्³⁵¹ आश्रयेत्³⁵² । तस्मात् तापससकाशम् अन्यैः सह गन्तव्यम् ॥ १२.१११ ॥

Though the text speaks of the number of members as the more important factor, yet it should be understood as laying greater stress upon the qualifications.

‘A person learned in the three Vedas’—he who has learnt the three Vedas, and knows their meaning.

‘Logician’—who is an expert in drawing Inferences; endowed with the faculty of considering the pros and cons of a subject.

“It has been said under that a Logician can never be learned in the Veda.”

True; but, even though he may not himself learn the Veda, yet he may know its contents from other men; and the knowledge of Logic will enable him to put forth special efforts in this line.

This same remark applies to the person knowing the Nirukta also.

‘Lawyer’—one who has studied the Ordinances of Manu and other law-books.

‘Three men belonging to the life-stages’;—those who are devoted to the actual performance of their duties become specially adept in matters relating to Dharma.

‘First.’—Some people explain this to mean, (1) the Religions Student, (2) the Householder and (3) the Wandering

Mendicant; since it is only these persons whose entry into villages has not been forbidden; and it is in this order that the life-stages have been named by Gautama (3. 2)—‘The Student, the Householder, the Wandering Mendicant, and the Recluse.’ Others however argue that ‘causing injury’ being not permitted for the Mendicant, how could he decide points of law (which may involve loss and injury to certain persons)? Hence the Recluse should be the third.—(111)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.301) as describing the constitution of the Assembly or Court; it adds the following notes:—‘Haitukaḥ’, who is conversant with the essential principles of the Mimānsā,—‘tarkī,’ who is expert in the science of reasoning;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 77 4), which adds the following notes:—‘Hetukaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘haitukaḥ’), expert, in inference;—‘tarkī’, one who is expert in ‘Tarka’, which is the name given to that process of reasoning by which one comes to the correct conclusion on a definite question, by rejecting all other possible alternatives; the ‘tarka’ ‘argumentation’ meant here is one that does not go against the Vedic scriptures.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 199), which adds the following notes—‘Traividyaḥ’, one who knows the three Vedas,—‘haitukaḥ’, one who acts in a reasonable manner;—and in Aparārka (p. 22).

Baudhāyana (1.1, 8).—‘They quote the following:—“Four men, each of whom knows one of the four Vedas, a Mīmāṃsaka, one who is conversant with the subsidiary sciences, one who recites the sacred law, and three Brāhmaṇas belonging to three different orders, constitute an Assembly consisting of at least ten members.’

Gautama (28.49).—(See above under CX.)

Vaśiṣṭha (3.20).—‘Four students of the four Vedas, one knowing Mīmāṃsā, one knowing the subsidiary sciences, a teacher of the sacred law, and three eminent men of the three different orders compose a legal assembly consisting of at least ten members.’

Parāśara (8.34).—(Same as Manu.)

त्रैविद्यग्रहणेन वेदत्रयाधेतारो गृह्यन्ते । हेतुकश् चात्रैविद्यो ऽप्य् आगमन्यायाविरोधिनस् तर्कशास्त्राध्येता । तर्की चाहैतुको ऽपि यः प्रतिभानवान् ऊहते ऽपोहते च । यथान्यायं चाभिनिविशते अश्रुततर्कशास्त्रो ऽपि स्वभावतः । नैरुक्तः केवलो ऽपि । धर्मपाठकश् चानित्थंभूतो ऽपि । त्रयश् चाश्रमिणः पूर्वे प्रव्रजिताद् अन्ये गृहस्थादयः । अपरे तु तापसान् (?) पूर्वांस् त्रीन् आहुः, गौतमपाठम् आश्रित्य- “ब्रह्मचारी गृहस्थो भिक्षुर् वैखानसः” इति, तापसस्य ग्रामप्रवेशप्रतिषेधाच् च । दश धर्मसंशये अद्विष्टारक्ताश् च शास्त्रज्ञाः सन्तः प्रमाणीभवन्ति, तथा चोक्तं सामान्यं सर्वस्मृतिलक्षणं “विद्वद्भिः सेवितः सद्भिः” इत्य् एवमादि । अथ वाइतान्य् एव समासतस् त्रित्वेन ब्रवीति ॥ १२.१११ ॥

111 Three persons who each know one of the three principal Vedas, a logician, a Mimamsaka, one who knows the Nirukta, one who recites (the Institutes of) the sacred law, and three men belonging to the first three orders shall constitute a (legal) assembly, consisting of at least ten members.

A person knowing the Ṛgveda, a person knowing the Yajurveda, and a person knowing the Sāmaveda, shall be understood to form the assembly of at least three members, competent to decide doubtful points of law.—(112)

निरुक्तव्याकरणमीमांसाभिर् वेदार्थो ज्ञायते । ते च सर्वे साधारणाः । न हि तत्रैकस्य वेदस्यार्थो ज्ञायते नान्यस्य³⁵³ नित्यम् अयं प्रकारो ऽस्ति । अथ ऋग्वेदादीत्यादि कथं भेदोपपत्तिः । तथा तत्र गृह्यसूत्रभेदेन चेदम् उक्तम् ॥ १२.११२ ॥

The meaning of the Veda is understood with the help of Nirukta, Vyākaraṇa and Mīmāṃsā. A knowledge of these should be possessed by all the three persons, as these do not help the comprehending of the meaning of any one Veda only, and not of others. Hence a knowledge of these is essential in all cases.

The distinction of the three Vedas—Ṛgveda and the rest—has been mentioned on the basis of the distinction made in the Gṛhyasūtras.—(112)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.300) as prescribing a second kind of ‘Assembly’;—in Aparārka (p. 21);—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 8).

Yājñavalkya (1.9).—‘Four persons well versed in the Veda and in Law, or learned in the three Vedas, constitute the Pariṣad, Assembly; whatever this Assembly declares is the Law; or what is declared by a single person thoroughly cognisant of the Self.’

चतुर्दशविद्यास्थानपारगा एवैते पूर्वोक्ताः शिष्टलक्षणप्राप्तास् त्रित्वेनोच्यन्ते । अथ वा तल्लक्षणयुक्तः ॥ १२.११२ ॥

112 One who knows the Rig-veda, one who knows the Yagur-veda, and one who knows the Sama-veda, shall be known (to form) an assembly consisting of at least three members (and competent) to decide doubtful points of law.

That which even a single Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda decides to be the law, shall be understood to be the highest law,—and not what is asserted by ten thousand ignoramuses.—(113)

व्यवस्येत् निश्चित्य कथयेद् इत्य् अर्थः । नाज्ञानां मूर्खाणाम् अयुतैर् अप्य् उदितः । उत्तरः³⁵⁴ प्राग् एव व्याख्यायते³⁵⁵ ॥ १२.११३ ॥

‘Decides’—finds out and declares.

Not what is proclaimed by ten thousand ‘ignoramuses’—not learned in the Veda.

This has been already explained before.—(113)

expert in the science of reasoning;—in Madanapārijāta (p. 77 4), which adds the following notes:—‘Hetukaḥ’ (which is its reading for ‘haitukaḥ’), expert, in inference;—‘tarkī’, one who is expert in ‘Tarka’, which is the name given to that process of reasoning by which one comes to the correct conclusion on a definite question, by rejecting all other possible alternatives; the ‘tarka’ ‘argumentation’ meant here is one that does not go against the Vedic scriptures.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 199), which adds the following notes—‘Traividyaḥ’, one who knows the three Vedas,—‘haitukaḥ’, one who acts in a reasonable manner;—and in Aparārka (p. 22).

Gautama (28.50).—‘On failure of the Assembly, the decision of one Śrotriya, who knows the Veda and is properly instructed, shall be followed.’

अज्ञानां निन्दार्थवादो निवृत्त्यर्थः ॥ १२.११३ ॥

113 Even that which one Brahmana versed in the Veda declares to be law, must be considered (to have) supreme legal (force, but) not that which is proclaimed by myriads of ignorant men.

Even if thousands of Brāhmaṇas come together,—who have not fulfilled their duties, who are ignorant of the sacred texts, who subsist merely by the name of their caste,—the character of the ‘Assembly’ cannot belong to them.—(114)

अव्रतानाम् इति प्राग् उक्त एवार्थो व्यतिरेकद्वारेण कथ्यते । व्रतिनो वेदाध्यायिनः यं³⁵⁶ निश्चयं ब्रुवते तत्र न विचिक्त्सितव्यं विद्वद्भिर् अविद्वद्भिर् वा । अत एव न लघुपरिकल्पो गुणतुल्यवद् विकल्प्यते³⁵⁷ ॥ १२.११४ ॥

‘Who have not fulfilled their duties’;—what has been already asserted before is stated here in the negative form.

When persons fulfilling their duties and learned in the Veda lay down a certain law, no doubts should be entertained regarding it,—either by learned or by ignorant men. Nor should any optional alternatives be admitted in such cases.—(114)

Baudhāyana (1.1.16).—‘Many thousands cannot form an Assembly, if they have not fulfilled their sacred duties, are unacquainted with the Veda, and subsist only by the name of their caste.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.5).—(Same as above.)

Parāśara (8.12).—(Same as Manu.)

114 Even if thousands of Brahmanas, who have not fulfilled their sacred duties, are unacquainted with the Veda, and subsist only by the name of their caste, meet, they cannot (form) an assembly (for settling the sacred law).

When ignorant men, partaking of the quality of ‘Tamas,’ declare a certain act as right, without knowing what ‘right’ means,—the sin of that act falls hundred-fold upon those who propound it.—(115)

वक्तॄणाम् अविदुषां दोषकथनम् ॥ १२.११५ ॥

This describes the evil effects befalling those ignorant men who go about propounding the law.—(115)

Baudhāyana (1.1.11).—‘That sin which dunces, perplexed by ignorance and unacquainted with the sacred Law, declare to be Dharma, falls, increased a hundredfold, on those who propound it.’

Vaśiṣṭha (3.6).—(Same as above.)

Parāśara (8.13).—(Same as Manu.)

115 The sin of him whom dunces, incarnations of Darkness, and unacquainted with the law, instruct (in his duty), falls, increased a hundredfold, on those who propound it.

All that is conducive to the Highest Good has been thus expounded to you; the Brāhmaṇa who has not deviated from this, attains the highest state.—(116)

प्रतिज्ञातधर्मोपसंहारः³⁵⁸ श्लोको ऽयम् । “धर्मान् नो वक्तुम् अर्हसि” (म्ध् १.२) इति यत् पृष्टम्, “महर्षीन् श्रूयताम्”³⁵⁹ (म्ध् १.४) इति यद् वक्तव्यतया प्रतिज्ञातं तत् सर्वं कथितम् इति शास्त्रपरिसमाप्तिम् आह ।

• ननु च परस्ताद् अप्य् अस्ति शास्त्रं हन्तव्यादिशास्त्रम्, सा च विधितः श्रूयते । तत्र विधिविषये कश्चिद् इति कथम् उच्यते शास्त्रम् उपसंह्रियत इति । वक्तुर् न करोति प्राय उपसंहारः ।

• परस्ताच् च कर्मशेषात् स्वप्रधाना शुद्धैव विद्योपदिश्यत इति न विरोधः । सर्वत्र श्रेयसी शास्त्रार्थधर्मलक्षणा विद्येत्य् उपसंहृत्याभिधाने प्रयोजनम् ॥ १२.११६ ॥

The verse sums up what was promised to be done. What was promised under l.2 and 1.4 as going to be done, has all been duly done. This indicates the end of the Ordinances.

“As a matter of fact, we find teachings even after this; and that too in the direct injunctive form. Why then is it said that the Ordinances are summed up here?”

What comes after this is pure knowledge, which is a necessary complement of all actions. So that there is no incongruity in what we have stated. In fact, in all cases, the propounding of Dharma forms the most important factor in all teachings, and Knowledge comes always in the end. This was what we meant when we said that the present verse sums up the Ordinances.—(116)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

तेषाम् इदानीं धर्मोपदेशनिवृत्त्यर्थं दोषम् आह ॥ १२.११४ ॥

उपसंहारश्लोको निःश्रेयसार्थानां कर्मणां वेदाभ्यासादीनाम् । तथा च तदुपघातार्थम् उक्तम् । “नैःश्रेयसं कर्मविधिं विप्रस्येदं निबोधत” (म्ध् १२.८२) इति केचित् । वयं तु पुनः कृत्स्नधर्मोपसंहारार्थम् एवेमम् आचक्ष्महे । येन नात ऊर्ध्वं केवलधर्म् (?) वक्ष्यन्ते । तथा चानन्तरश्लोकः ॥ १२.११५–११६ ॥

116 All that which is most efficacious for securing supreme bliss has been thus declared to you; a Brahmana who does not fall off from that obtains the most excellent state.

Thus has the blessed Lord explained to me, with a desire to benefit mankind, the highest secret of Dharma.—(117)

स भगवान् मनुर् इदं शास्त्रं सर्वं लोकहिताय प्रोक्तवान् इति भृगुः शिष्यान् आह । अनेनाधिकाराकांक्षा निवर्तते । गुह्यं यद् अध्यात्मं तद् अपि मनुर् माम् उपदिश्य प्रकाशयां चक्रे । मयापि³⁶⁰ यथागमं भवतां प्रकटीकृतम् इति न कार्याधिकाकांक्षा ॥ १२.११७ ॥

‘The blessed Lord’—Manu—propounded these Ordinances for the ‘benefit of mankind.’ This is what Bhṛgu says to his pupils.

This sets at rest all doubts regarding persons entitled to seek for knowledge.

‘Secret’— the true philosophy of the Self also, the revered Manu has disclosed to me; and I also have disclosed it to you just as I heard it. So that you should not seek for any further knowledge on the subject.—(117)

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

भृगुर् भगवान् श्रोतॄन् स्वशिष्यान् एवम् आह- तथा चायम् एव धर्मशास्त्रप्रवचने प्रथमे ऽध्याये ऽधिकृत्य स्मर्यते-

117 Thus did that worshipful deity disclose to me, through a desire of benefiting mankind, this whole most excellent secret of the sacred law.

With a concentrated mind, one should perceive in the Self all things, real as well as unreal. One who perceives all things in the Self never turns his mind towards wrong.—(118)

सर्वं जगत् सदसद्रूपम् उत्पत्तिविनाशधर्मकम् । अथ असत्³⁶¹ शशविषाणादिवत् सच् च³⁶² नित्यम् आकाशादिवत् सर्वम् आत्मनि संपश्येद् आत्मनि व्यवस्थितम् उपासीत ।

• संदर्शनार्थस्य स्पष्टार्थस्य साक्षात्करणपर्यन्तयोपासनया विज्ञायते । न हि सकृद्दर्शनेन साक्षात्कारः संभवति । तथोपदिश्यते रहस्यशास्त्रम् । तत्रात्मध्यानायैतद् उक्तं भवति “श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिह्यासितव्यः” (बाउ २.४.५) इति ध्यानपर्यन्तता सद्दर्शनस्य³⁶³ । आत्मध्यानं यथोपदिष्टज्ञानाभ्यासो विजातीयप्रत्ययान्तरितम् उच्यते । अथ वा सामर्थ्याद् अभ्यासाक्षेपः । यतः संस्कारकर्माणि³⁶⁴ च संस्कार्ये विशेषाधानेन संपन्नस्वार्थानि भवन्ति । यथा “व्रीहीन् अवहन्ति” (आप्श्र् १.२१.७) इति अश्रुतोपन्यासः³⁶⁵ तुषकणविप्रमोकफलेभ्यस् तत्संदर्शनेन ह्य् अदृष्टार्थता स्यात् । तथा च कर्मविधित्वात् षष्ठिसंस्कारकर्मताहानिश् च । अतः संपशेद् इति ज्ञेयान्तरविषयज्ञाननिराकरणेन तद् एकज्ञेयनिष्ठाम् अनुब्रूयात् ।

• अत्र्आत्मनीति विवदन्ते । को ऽयम् आत्मा नाम । यदि तावद् अयं देहाधिकरणः क्षेत्रज्ञः तत उत्तरं³⁶⁶ विरुध्येत “प्रशासितारं रुक्माभम्” (म्ध् १२.१२२) इति । न हि कर्मत्वशरीरस्य मृत्योर् उत्पत्तिः श्रूयते- एतस्य³⁶⁷ वाक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि³⁶⁸ द्व्यावापृथिव्यौ विधृते तिष्ठतः” (बाउ ३.८.९) इति । तस्मान् नाहंप्रत्यय्प्रेमेये³⁶⁹ आत्मन्य् अपि संसारविधिः । अतो ऽन्या काचित् तस्य स्वरूपसिद्धिर् वक्तव्या । किंचैवं सति पश्येद् इत्यादिना बाह्यात्मनाम् अप्य् आधिभूताधिदैवभावेन³⁷⁰ व्यवस्थितानाम् आध्यात्मम्³⁷¹ उपसंहारः । शिष्यते च श्रौतम् अतोस्तरागः साधनतया कारणात्मनार्जितस्य³⁷² संबन्धितां प्रतिपद्यते ।

• ननु यः सर्वं जगत्कारणपुरुषावच्छेदम् उक्तं सदा प्रत्य्आत्मनि संपश्येद् इति, तत्र कीदृशम् आत्मनो दर्शनम् आत्मनीति वक्तव्यम् ।

• अन्ये तु मन्यन्ते । शरीरात्मन एवैतत् संनिवेशनं युक्तम् । तस्य हि श्रोतृसंनिवेशेन तद्वत्ता युक्ता ।

• तत्रोच्यते । आत्मशब्दस् तावत् परमात्मविषयतया दर्शितवाक्यान्तरसमन्वयप्रमाणः । यत् तु³⁷³ स्वरूपसिद्धिर् वक्तव्येति तत्र किम् अन्यच् छक्यं न वक्तुम् अन्यद् अतः श्रोतृत्वज्ञानविधेः । तानि च वाक्यानि प्रतिशाखं सर्वोपनिषद्भ्यो ऽवगन्तव्यानि । प्रमाणान्तराणाम् अप्य् एकत्वप्रतिपादनपरत्वाद् एव ग्राहिणः प्रत्यक्षस्य मिश्रैः कृत एव क्लेशः । उक्तं च वाक्यपदीये³⁷⁴ “न तद् अस्ति च तन् नाम्नि” (ब्वक्य् ३.२.१२) इत्यादि । विध्यवगम्यता च शरीरावरकाद् अवसातव्या ।

• यद् अप्य् उक्तम् असत् कथं दृश्यत³⁷⁵ इति सच् चासच् चेत्य् अयम् अर्थः स्यात् । सद् इति विकारग्रामस्य³⁷⁶ निर्देशः । असद् इत्य् अप्रत्यक्षतैव सूक्ष्मतयाशक्यावधारत्वात्³⁷⁷ ।

• यद् अप्य् उक्तं नास्ति परमात्मनः श्रोत्रसंबन्ध इति । किम् अत्र संबन्धि सर्वस्य जगत्स्थित्युत्पत्तिविनाशानां तत्कारणतयोपपादित्वात् ।

• यश् चायं संनिवेशविधिस् तस्यायम् अर्थः । यावद् यत् किंचिद् भेदवद् अवभासते तत् सर्वम् अद्वैतिकत्वे प्रविलापयेत् । सर्वम् आत्मस्थम् इत्य् एतत् परमात्मनो विरतिसामान्ये हेतुर् विद्यत इति ।

• समाहितः । समाधिर् नाम चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधोपायो योगशास्त्राद् आगमयितव्य इत्य् अर्थः । नाधर्मे कुरुते मतिं बुद्धिचेतसोर्³⁷⁸ निश्चलताभावः । तावद् अभ्यसेद् यावद् वादिभिश् चेतो नापह्रियेत । अतश् च यावत् कश्चिद् भेदकत्वे प्रतिविलापयेत्³⁷⁹ ॥ १२.११८ ॥

‘All things’—the world—‘real and unreal’—i.e., which is liable to be produced and to be destroyed; or that which is eternal like the Ākāśa, or what is an absolute non-entity, like the ‘hare’s horn’—all this one should perceive in the Self;—that is, he should contemplate upon all this as centred in the Self.

What ‘perceiving’ connotes is a clear conception; and this can only be obtained by constant contemplation; as no dear conception of a thing can be obtained by merely seeing it once. It is for this reason that the Esoteric Science has been propounded. And in connection with the contemplation of the Self, we have such texts as—‘It should be listened to, thought, upon and meditated upon,’ where the act of seeing is spoken of as extending up to meditation.

That is called ‘Contemplation of the Self’ which consists in repeated meditation upon It, without the intervention of any other foreign object.

Or, mere repetition (of the act of seeing) may be taken as what is implied by the term ‘perceive’ As a matter of fact, all purificatory acts have their purpose fulfilled only when they impart to the purified object a certain peculiar excellence; as is found in the case of the thumping of the corn; where, even though the repetition of the act of thumping is not directly laid down, yet it becomes implied by the fact that without such repeated thumping the corns cannot be cleared of all their husk. If the act were to be left off before this had been accomplished, it could only be regarded as leading to some invisible (transcendental) result; and in that case the act would cease to be ‘purificatory’.

For this reason the term ‘should perceive’ should be taken to mean the giving up of all other acts, and the repeating of the act of perceiving of the one object in view.

In regard to the ‘Self’ spoken of here, people dispute over its exact meaning:—“What is it that is called ‘Self,’ ‘ātman’? (A) If it stands for the Conscious Entity ensouling the body, then this is inconsistent with what follows regarding ‘the Ruler, the Soul, bright like gold, eta, etc.’ (in 122); since we do not hear of anybody appearing for such a being,—since what is declared regarding It is—‘O Gārgi, the Sun and the Moon remain under the control of this Imperishable One, so also Heaven and Earth have been upheld by him’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka

Upaniṣad). For those reasons the transmigratory process cannot belong to that Self with regard to which we have the notion of ‘I’; so that some other form will have to be pointed out as belonging to the ‘Self’ spoken of here. Further, under the said explanation, by virtue of what the text lays down regarding ‘perceiving all things in the Self,’ even things external, at least in their spiritual aspects, will have to be regarded as being resolved into the Individual Soul (which is absurd). The only alternative left is to regard the ‘Self’ as standing for that which is the original source of all Being, of the whole Universe, one that interpenetrates all entities. Hut in regard to this it will be necessary to explain what exactly would be meant by^(‘)perceiving all things in the Self.’ Others have held that what is referred to is the Bodily Self, in which all things are to be perceived.

Our explanation is as follows—As regards the term ‘ātman,’ ‘Self,’ it has been already shown that all authorities agree in pointing to its standing for the Supreme Self. As for what has been said above regarding the necessity for pointing out the exact form of the ‘Self’ here meant,—what else could be said on the point, except what is found asserted under the Injunctions of ‘listening to……and knowing’ this Self;—all such injunctions can be found out from the various Upaniṣads belonging to the various Vedic texts. Then again, it is because there are other proofs also of the unity of this Self that Miśra has taken such pains to explain the actual facts of perception (which point to diversity). The following passage is found in the Vākyapadīya—‘There is nothing in name, etc.’ The fact of this Self being comprehended with the help of Injunctions may be ascertained from the fact of the Body being Its covering, etc.

As for the objection as to how what is ‘asat’ (unreal) can be seen;—in the phrase ‘the real and the unreal’ the term ‘real’ stands for the whole aggregate of worldly products, and ‘unreal’ for such subtle objects as are ordinarily not perceptible.

Another question that has been raised is—“How can the Supreme Self have any connection with hearing (such as is mentioned in the Injunction that ‘the Self should be heard, etc., etc.)?’”

But what to say of connection with Hearing? In fact the birth, existence and dissolution of the entire Universe has been proved to have its source in that Self.

As for the Injunction regarding the resolving of all things into the Self,—what is actually meant is that ‘whatever appears to be diverse, all that one should resolve into that One Entity.’ And what is meant by everything subsisting in the Self, is that one should cease to have any hankering for the things of the world.

‘With concentrated mind.’—This ‘Concentration’ means ‘the controlling of the operation of the mind’; and how this is to be done is to be learnt from the Yoga-śāstra.

‘Never turns his mind towards wrong.’—This connotes the immobility of the intellect and the mind. What is here prescribed should be practised until the mind ceases to be perturbed by disputants; and whatever there may be of diversity should he resolved into the one Supreme Self.—118

‘Ātmani’.—‘In the supreme self’ (Kullūka and Nandana),—‘in his Own individual self’ (Govindarāja).

‘Sadasat’.—‘The products and the causes, or the intelligent and the non-intelligent’ (Nandana),—‘that which has shape and which is shapeless’ (Govindarāja),—‘that which comes into existence and perishes,’ or ‘that which is an absolute non-entity and that which is eternal’ (proposed by Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1027).

एतद् वो ऽयं भृगुः शास्त्रं श्रावयिष्यत्य् अशेषतः ।
एतद् धि मत्तो ऽधिजगे सर्वम् एषो ऽखिलं मुनिः ॥ इति । *म्ध् १.५९)

यद्य् अयम् उपसंहारो धर्माणाम् उत्तरास् तर्हि किमर्थाः श्लोकाः । परमात्मोपासनार्थाः । तथा चोत्तरत्राध्यात्मम् एव वक्ष्यते, न तु धर्माः केचन वक्ष्यन्ते । उक्तत्वात् तेषाम् । एवं च सति पूर्वश्लोक उक्तानां सर्वधर्माणाम् उपसंहारार्थः, न तु शात्रस्य । शास्त्रं तु परमात्मविषयम् उपासनापदर्थं साद्यात्मम् उत्तरत्रोपसंहरिष्यति-

इत्य् एतन् मानवं शास्त्रं भृगुप्रोक्तं पठन् द्विजः ।
भवत्य् आचारवान् नित्यं यथेष्टां चाप्नुयाद् गतिम् ॥ इति । (म्ध् १२.१२६)

न केवलम् एतद् एव धर्मगुह्यं यद् उक्तं धर्मोपसंहारे- एवं स भगवान् देवो लोकानां हितकाम्यया इत्य् एवमादि, किं तर्हीदं चापरं परमात्मविषयं तत्प्रसंख्यानम् अध्यात्मोपासनारूपं धर्मगुह्यम् उच्यते ॥ १२.११७ ॥

केचिद् आहुः क्षेत्रज्ञात्मविषयं तत्प्रसंख्यानम् अध्यात्मोपासनारूपं धर्मगुह्यम् । न, विरुद्धत्वात् । वक्ष्यति हि- “प्रशासितारं सर्वेषाम्” इत्य् एवमादि । यत इदं परमात्मविषयम् एव्आत्मग्रहणं विज्ञेयम् । तथा च प्रदर्शयिष्यामः । श्लोकम् इदानीं विवृणु[म]ः । सर्वं यद् वक्ष्यति । सच् चासच् चेति तद् व्यक्ताव्यक्तं सविकारं प्रधानम् उच्यते । आत्मनीति सर्ववेदशाखोपनिषदस् तत्त्वे परमात्मनीत्य् अर्थः । अध्यस्तं व्यवस्थितं तदधीनवृत्तिभेदपक्षे, तदात्मकतया वाभेदपक्ष इति केचित् । संपश्येद् इत्य् उपासीतेत्य् अर्थः । कथम् एवं यथोवचाम । तथा च पश्यतिर् उपासनार्थो विज्ञेयः । तस्य विशेषणं समाहितः आस्तिक्येन श्रद्धया यमनियमैर् वा समाहितात्मा पश्येत् । अस्य फलार्थवादः फलविधिर् वायम्- सर्वं ह्य् आत्मनि संपश्यन् नाधर्मे कुरुते मनः, परमात्मत्वेन सर्वम् इदं पश्यन् । यतश् च ॥ १२.११८ ॥

118 Let (every Brahmana), concentrating his mind, fully recognise in the Self all things, both the real and the unreal, for he who recognises the universe in the Self, does not give his heart to unrighteousness.

The Self alone is all the gods; everything subsists in the Self; it is the Self that brings about the connection of these embodied beings with actions.—(119)

सर्वत्र यागादिक्रियाः स्वर्गादयो देवता आत्मत्वेन द्रष्टव्याः । यो ऽयम् अग्निर् देवता अग्नेर् इयम् अन्यात्मैवासौ नान्यो ऽग्निर् देवतास्तीति । तद् अप्य् उक्तम्- “एक आत्मा बहुधा श्रूयते” (निर् ७.४) इति । यत्र युक्त “एक एवाहम् आत्मा देवता” (र्व् १.१६४.४६) इति । तथा “इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणम् अग्निम् आहुः एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति (र्व् १.१६४.४६), बहुरूपपरमात्मनो ऽन्यां देवतां पश्यन्ति, सतां परादात्” इत्य् अनेन कर्माङ्गदेवतानाम् आत्मदृष्टिर् विधीयते ।

• किं तर्हि न तस्य देवतादिकृत्यम् अस्ति ।

• आत्मतयैव सर्वसिद्धिः ।

• कथम् ।

• नार्थात्मनि जनयत्य् एषाम् इति ।

• कर्मयोगे कर्मफलसंबन्धः । स आत्मा तेषां निष्पादयति । नान्या देवता न तद्गुणकम् इति ॥ १२.११९ ॥

All sacrificial rites, heaven and other rewards, and all the gods—should be looked upon as the ‘Self’: What is known as the ‘God Agni’ is the Self, apart from which there is no ‘God’—This is what is meant by such declarations as—(a) ‘This Self is found spoken of in various forms’;—(b) ‘the one Self is the God’;—(c) ‘Indra, Varuṇa, Mitra are described as Agni,’—‘One real entity the wise ones speak of in various ways’;—all which goes to show that when men have notions regarding the ‘gods,’ what they have is only the idea of the ‘Self’ in its various forms. The assertion that ‘the man has passed beyond all that exists’ indicates that one should look upon all ritualistic deities as the ‘Self.’

“Does this mean that in actual practice, these gods should not be treated as gods?”

All that is to be done is to be done as being done for the Self. And the reason for this lies in the fact that it is the Self that brings about ‘the connection of all beings with actions’;—and there is no other God, even approaching It in quality.—119

येन कारणेन परमात्मैव देवता वस्वाद्याः सर्वा इत्य् अध्यात्माधिभूताधिदेवताधियज्ञव्यवस्थिता इत्य् अर्थः, अतश् च सर्वम् आत्मन्य् अवस्थितं पश्येद् इति वर्तते । अनेन चात्मन्य् अवस्थानशब्देन भेदपक्ष एव विज्ञायते, नाभेदप्कषः । तथा च सति यद् अत्राभेदवचनं तद् आगमोपपत्तिविरोधाद् अर्थवादीक्रियते । एवं च सति परमात्मैव तस्यां तस्यां कर्माङ्गदेवतायाम् अवस्थितः संप्रदानकारकत्वेन कर्मत्वेन चोपादनादिक्रियाणां जनयति कर्मयोगम् । कस्य । एषां शरीरिणां शास्त्रधम्[एष्व्]आधिकृतानाम् अर्थलक्षणेषु चेतरेषु । एवम् अधिकृतविधेर् अयम् अर्थवादो विज्ञायते । आध्यात्मकम् अधुनोपासनायोगं परमात्मविषयं बाह्योपसंहारेण दर्शयति ॥ १२.११९ ॥

119 The Self alone is the multitude of the gods, the universe rests on the Self; for the Self produces the connexion of these embodied (spirits) with actions.

One should withdraw the Ākāśa into the ten cavities, the Wind into the organs of touch and movement, the best Light into the organs of digestion and vision, the Water into the fluids, and the Earth into the solid limbs.—(120)

यान्य् एतानि नवच्छिद्राणि तेषु बाह्यम् आकाशं नियच्छेत् । बाह्यम् आकाशं तद् एव तन् न बाह्यं किंचिद् अस्तीति । अनिलो³⁸⁰ वायुः । तं संनिवेशयेत् । चेष्टते स्पन्दते तत्र काचिच् छरीरावस्था हस्तपादाद्युक्तविहरणलक्षणायाश् चायम् । स्पर्शो बाह्यादिलक्षणः³⁸¹ । तत्र वायुं संनिवेशयेत् । **पक्तिर् **जठिराग्निकृता । दृष्टिश् च । तयोः³⁸² निवेशयेत् । तेजः परं³⁸³ कृष्णम् आदित्यात्मनावस्थितम्³⁸⁴ । स्नेहे मेदोमज्जादिरूपे संनिवेशयेद् इति वर्तते । गां पृथिवीं मूर्तिषु शरीरभागेषु ॥ १२.१२० ॥

एवं महाभूतानाम् उपसंहारः । इदानीं देवतानाम् आधानम् उपसंहरिष्यते ।

There are nine cavities in the body;—on these one should ‘withdraw’—draw in —the Ākāśa, as ‘there is no external Ākāśa, nor any external thing whatsoever.’

‘Anila’ is wind;—this also he shall withdraw.

‘Movement’—when, for instance, one moves about, or moves his hand and feet, etc.

‘Touch’—of things external to the body.

Into these one shall withdraw the Wind.

‘Digestion’— brought about by the fire in the stomach,—and ‘vision’;—into this he shall withdraw Light;—‘the best’—that which exists in the form of the Sun and other luminous substances.

‘Fluids’—in die form of fats and marrow;—into these he shall withdraw Water.

Such is the withdrawal of the Great Elemental Substances. Next follows the method of withdrawing the gods.—120

खं संनिवेशयेत् खेषु, खं बाह्यम् अधिदैवाधिभूताख्यं संनिवेशयेद्, उपासनया खेष्व् आध्यात्मिकेषु देवतैक्यप्रदर्शनेन । एवं चेष्टनस्पर्शन आध्यात्मिके बाह्यानिलं संनिवेशयेद् इति विज्ञेयम् । एवं पक्तिदृष्ट्योः शारिरयोः परं तेजः, कस्य परम्, वायोर् निर्देशतः, संनिवेशयेद् इति सर्वत्रानुवर्तते । स्नेहे आध्यात्मिके ऽपः, संनिवेश्यमानानाम् अपां कर्मत्वाद् अयं द्वितीयानिर्देशो ऽप इति । गां च मूर्तिषु, एवं सर्वत्र ॥ १२.१२० ॥

120 Let him meditate on the ether as identical with the cavities (of the body), on the wind as identical with the organs of motions and of touch, on the most excellent light as the same with his digestive organs and his sight, on water as the same with the (corporeal) fluids, on the earth as the same with the solid parts (of his body);

The Moon into the mind, Space into the ear, Viṣṇu into movement, Hara into strength, Agni into speech, Mitra into the excretions, and Prajāpati into the generative organ.—(121)

यो ऽयम् इन्दुश् चन्द्रमास् तं मनसि संनिवेशयेत् । नैष चन्द्रो गगनसंचारी । किं तर्हि, मम मनसि व्यवस्थितः । याश् च दिशः श्रोत्रेन्द्रियशक्तौ । क्रान्ते³⁸⁵ विष्णुं यो यत्राल्पम् अपि क्रामति³⁸⁶ विष्णुर् एव क्रान्तिकर्मणा³⁸⁷ संनिविष्टः । एवं बले हरम्³⁸⁸ । हनुरेतो द्राग् अप्य् उत्थानं स चेन्द्रियावकाशः कालाकृतिर् इन्द्रियकर्मैव तत् । यम् एवं³⁸⁹ वागग्नेर् एवायम् उत्सर्गो वाय्वाद्यैर् मन्त्रैः पश्येत् । एवम् अध्यात्मम् उपसंहृत्य सर्वं परमात्मनि पश्येत् । एवमात्मको हेतुः परमात्मनि व्यवस्थितः “नाहं कश्चित् ततो भिन्नः” इति । एवम् एषा सर्वोपासना कर्तव्या ॥ १२.१२१ ॥

The Moon—one shall withdraw into the mind. The ‘Moon’ here does not stand for what we see moving in the sky, but the deity residing in man’s mind.

‘Space into the ear’—The organ of hearing.

‘Viṣṇu into movement.’—Whenever one makes any the slightest movement, it is due to the impelling force of Viṣṇu residing in the man’s body.

Similarly ‘Hara into strength’—When a man rises, and moves about and does work, all this is the effect of strength which is due to the presence of Hara.

Speech is Agni, and the excretions are Mitra;—all this one shall contemplate upon as such.

Having thus withdrawn all into the body, one shall look upon it all as subsisting in the Self.

When the true nature of the Self has been thus comprehended the man realises that he himself is nothing apart from the Supreme Self.

All meditation shall be carried on in this manner.—121

एवं सर्वत्राध्यात्मादिषु व्यवस्थितेषु भिन्नासु देवतास्व् अभिन्नम् ॥ १२.१२१ ॥

121 On the moon as one with the internal organ, on the quarters of the horizon as one with his sense of hearing, on Vishnu as one with his (power of) motion, on Hara as the same with his strength, on Agni (Fire) as identical with his speech, on Mitra as identical with his excretions, and on Pragapati as one with his organ of generation.

The ruler of all, who is minuter than the minutest atom, bright like gold, amenable to dream-cognition,—him should one know as the Highest Puruṣa.—(122)

एवम् एवाह । प्रशासितारं नियन्तारम् । सर्वेषां ब्राह्मणादिशूद्रपर्यन्तानाम् । यो ऽयम् अग्न्यादीनाम् औष्ण्यादिस्वभावनियमो यच् चादित्यादीनाम्³⁹⁰ अनिशम् अन्तःपरम् ओजः जगद्भ्रमणप्रकाशनादिषु³⁹¹ व्यापारो³⁹² यश् च कर्मणां फलं प्रतिनियमः स सर्वस् तस्मिन् नियन्तरि सति । यद् उक्तम् “एतस्यैवाक्षरस्य प्रशासने गार्गि” (बाउ ३.८.९) इत्यादिना, तथा-

• तत् सूर्यस् तपति च यावद् वर्षति चन्द्रमा ।

• भयाद् अग्निश् च वायुश् च मृत्युर् धावति पञ्चमः ॥ (च्ड़्। कटु ६.३) इति

अणीयांसम् अणोर् अपि इति ।यः कश्चिद् दारानिरतिशयवालाग्रशतभागादिस् तत् ते तृतीयांशपरिमाणकत्वम् असत्प्रतिपाद्यते, “अस्थूलम् अनणु” (बाउ ३.८.८) इत्यादिसर्वधर्मपरिषेधात् । किं तर्हि, कुशाग्रीयाया भुद्धेर् गम्यत्वात् । एतद् उक्तं भवति । यो नात्यन्तं कुशलो न च तदभ्यासे परिष्वक्तः ॥ १२.१२२ ॥

‘Ruler’— Controller ‘of all’—from the Brāhmaṇa down to the Śūdra, and so on. The determining of the heat and other characteristics of Fire and other things,—the inner light in the Sun, the movement in the sky of the Sun and the Stars, etc.,—the laws regulating the operation of actions and their retribution,—all this is due entirely to the controlling power of the Being here referred to. This is what has been thus described—‘O Gārgī, it is under the sway of this Imperishable One, that, etc., etc.,” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3.8.9);—and again, ‘That the Sun shines, and gives rain, the Moon gives light, Agni heats, Wind blows, and Death, the fifth, pursues men,’ etc., etc.

‘Minuter than the minutest atom’— What is generally regarded as the minutest thing conceivable,—e.g., the hundredth part of the hair-tip,—this Being is devoid of even that small dimension; as is described in the text—‘It is neither huge nor small’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 3.8.8.) where all qualities are negatived. This Being is cognisable only by means of an exceptionally keen intellect; but never by any. one who is not very expert, or who is not well-versed in the practice of meditation.—122

न संसार्यात्मानं क्षेत्रज्ञम् । तथा च सर्ववेदशास्त्रोपनिषदो योगशास्त्राणि च । व्यासो ऽपि चैवम् आह-

उत्तमः पुरुषस् त्व् अन्यः परमात्मेत्य् उदाहृतः ।
यो लोकत्रयम् आविश्य बिभर्त्य् अव्यय ईश्वरः ॥ इति ।

प्रशासितारं सर्वास्व् अवस्थास्व् अधिकृतानां सर्वेषां ब्रह्मादीनाम् अपि । तथा ब्राह्मणम्, “एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने, गार्गि " इत्य् एवमाद्य् उदाहरणीयम् । अणीयांसम् अणोर् अपीति सौक्ष्म्यातिशयप्रदर्शनम् एतत् परमात्मन इतरेभ्यः संसार्यात्मभ्यः । रुक्माभम् इत्य् अनेन शुद्धतास्योच्यते । तथा च रहस्यब्राह्मणम् वाजसनेयिनाम् उपनिषदि- “यो [ऽश्नायापिप्]आसे शोकं मोहं जरां मृत्युम् अत्येति; एतं वै तम् आत्मानं विदित्वा” इत्य् एवमादि । स्वप्नधीगम्यम् इति तद्रूपप्रतिपदनपरम् इदम् । यथा हि सुप्तावस्थायां प्रत्यस्तमितकर्मक्लेशसुखदुःखविशेषं शान्तं संसार्यात्मतत्त्वस्य रूपम्, एवम् इदं परमात्मनस् तत्त्वं मनसा स्वप्नधिया शक्यते सदैवंरूपम् अधिगन्तुम् । यत इदम् उच्यते, “स्वप्नधीगम्यं विद्यात् तु पुरुषं परम्” इतरपुरुषापेक्षयेदम् अस्य परत्वम् उच्यते । तथा चोक्तम् अस्यासकृद् अध्यासोदाहरणम्, कर्माङ्गदेवताभेदाधिकारव्यवस्थितं च परमात्मानं सन्तम् ॥ १२.१२२ ॥

122 Let him know the supreme Male (Purusha, to be) the sovereign ruler of them all, smaller even than small, bright like gold, and perceptible by the intellect (only when) in (a state of) sleep (-like abstraction).

This some people call ‘Agni’; others, ‘Manu-Prajāpati’; others, ‘Indra’; others, ‘Prāṇa’; and yet others, ‘the Eternal Brahman.’—(123)

(पृथग् व्याख्यानं नास्ति।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this verse.]

एवम् इदं सर्वदेवताधिकारेषु व्यवस्थितं ब्रह्म अग्न्यादिदेवतोपासको ऽपि प्राप्नोतीति । तथा चाग्निरहस्य ब्राह्मणं वाजसनेयिकं “तम् एतम् अग्निर् इत्य् अध्वर्यव उपासते” इत्य् एवमादि एतत् काण्डिकान्ते च स्फुटम् एव दर्शयत्य् एतम् अर्थम्, “तं यथा यथोपासते तद् एव भवति तद् वैनान् भूत्वावति । तस्माद् एतम् एवम्वि[त्] सर्वैर् एवैतैर् उपासीत” इत्य् एवमादि । यतश् च ॥ १२.१२३ ॥

123 Some call him Agni (Fire), others Manu, the Lord of creatures, others Indra, others the vital air, and again others eternal Brahman.

He it is who, interpenetrating all beings, with his five forms, makes them, revolve constantly like a wheel, through birth, growth and decay.—(124)

(पृथग् व्याख्यानं नास्ति।)

[The Bhāṣya has nothing to say on this verse.]

एष सर्वाणि भूतानि पञ्चभिर् व्याप्य मूर्तिभिः ।

महाभूताख्याभिः स्वकर्मक्लेशापक्षया

जन्मवृद्धिक्षयैर् नित्यं

प्राणिनः

संसारयति चक्रवत् ॥ १२.१२४ ॥

तदुपभोगाय वा । अश्वप्रशासिता सर्वेषाम् इत्य् अवगम्यते । यथोक्तस्योपासनायोगस्योपसंहारम् अधुना प्रदर्शयन्न् इदं तत्फलम् आचष्टे ॥ १२.१२४ ॥

124 He pervades all created beings in the five forms, and constantly makes them, by means of birth, growth and decay, revolve like the wheels (of a chariot).

He who thus perceives the Self through the Self, in all beings, becomes equal towards all and attains the highest state, Brahman.—(125)

ब्रह्माभ्येति ब्रह्मभावम् आपद्यते । मैत्राद्यवभासेन रागद्वेषक्षयम् अनुवदति । अनेन चाविजातीयप्रत्ययान्तरितात्मैकत्वज्ञानम् अनुष्ठेयम् आह । न हि विजातीयप्रत्ययोत्पत्तौ सर्वसंमतता भवति । अतश् चैतद् उक्तं भवति । अहं ममेति त्यक्ताहंकारममकारस्य तद् एकज्ञाननियततया निरतिशयपरमानन्दरूपं ब्रह्म प्राप्नोति । अनिष्टनिवृत्तिः शास्त्रप्रदर्शिताभिप्रेतनियमस्य प्राप्तिश् च³⁹³ फलसिद्धिर् भवति इत्य् अर्थः ॥ १२.१२३–२५ ॥

‘Attains Brahman’—becomes unified with Brahman.

Having cultivated sympathy for all beings, he experiences freedom from all love and hate.

What this lays down is the propriety of concentrating oneself upon the idea of the unity of the Self, not allowing it to be interrupted by any notions of diversity. When the notion of diversity is present, one cannot become ‘equal towards all.’

It is only when one has got rid of all notions of ‘I’ and ‘mine,’—expressed in such ideas as—‘This is myself,’ ‘this is mine,’ and so forth,—that his notion of unity becomes fixed, and he attains ‘Brahman,’ which is of the nature of unsurpassed Highest Bliss. That is, he is saved from all evil and attains that desirable result which has been described in the scriptures.—125

एवं यः सर्वभूतेषु

व्यवस्थितं

पश्यत्य् आत्मानं

परं यथोक्तम्

आत्मना ।

स्वात्मना दृष्ट्वा च यथोपदेशं यावज् जीवम् उपासते,

स सर्वसमताम् एत्य ब्रह्माभ्येति परं पदम् ॥ १२.१२५ ॥

फलविधि एष आगमोपपत्तिभ्यां विज्ञेयः । न फलार्थवादः । एवम् इदं परमात्मयोगप्रसंख्यानोपासनाफलम् उपसंहृत्य शास्त्रम् अधुनोपसंहरति ॥ १२.१२५ ॥

125 He who thus recognises the Self through the Self in all created beings, becomes equal (-minded) towards all, and enters the highest state, Brahman.

The twice-born man who reads these Ordinances of Manu, shall be ever equipped with virtue and shall attain whatever state he may desire.—(126)

इतिः शास्त्रसमाप्तिम् आह । पठन् भवत्य् आचारवान् । अन्यो अध्याहार्य आचारः । यथा पठितशास्त्रात् शास्त्रानुष्ठानम्³⁹⁴ । एवंविधश् चेद् भवति यथेष्टां देवतादिलक्षणां गतिम् ॥ १२.१२६ ॥

M G: paṭhitaśāstrāntarāt svanuṣṭhānaṃ

‘Iti’—indicates the end of the Institutes.

‘He who reads, shall he virtuous.’ Some people explain ‘ācāra,’ ‘virtue,’ as virtuous conduct, in accordance with the ordinances that have been read.

And if he is so, ‘he shall attain whatever state he way desire.’—126

This is the end of the Ordinances of Manu as declared by Bhṛgu.

Thus ends the Manubhāṣya of Medhātithi.

शास्त्रेण हि प्रबोध्यमानो ऽवश्यम् आचारवा[न् भवत्य् अविनेयो ऽपि कालान्त]रेण, किं पुनर् विनेयः, येन हेतौ सत्य् अवश्यंभावि तत्फलं लोके दृष्टम् । तदनुष्ठानाच् चेष्टकामसं[प्राप्तिः] ॥ १२.१२६ ॥

[इति भारुचिकृतं मनुशास्त्रविवरणं समाप्तम् ]

126 A twice-born man who recites these Institutes, revealed by Manu, will be always virtuous in conduct, and will reach whatever condition he desires.