United States or Estonia ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !


"Brahma is faultless and equable"; so Sreedhara and others, "since faultless equality is Brahma." The sense is that they are at one with Brahma both here and hereafter. Renouncer and devotee Sannyasin and Yogin. Which spring from desire. Self in this sloka is explained by the commentators as mind. The mind, unless controlled, cannot lead to devotion.

It is amusing to see how confidently they dogmatise upon this point, rejecting the authority of Sankara, Sreedhara, Anandagiri, and the whole host of Indian commentators. As K. T. Telang, however, has answered the point elaborately, nothing more need be said here. One may abstain, either from choice or inability to procure them, from the objects of enjoyment.

Joined to the qualities, i.e., perceiving objects of sense or experiencing pleasure and pain. "Atmani" in the first line is "in the body" as explained by Sreedhara and others: "in the understanding" as explained by Sankara. It seems, however, to be used in the general senses of "themselves", without particular reference to either body or understanding.

Davies renders it resplendent; but Telang renders it "deity." See Sreedhara. Both Mr. Davies and Telang seem to take it as a predicate in contra-distinction to Ekastham. This is scarcely correct. Verse 21 is read differently. For Twam Surasangha, some texts read twa-Asurasanghas. Then again for Stuvanti in the second line some read Vikshate.

It seems a fashion to doubt the etymology of this word, as if commentators of the learning of Sreedhara and Sankara, Anandagiri and Nilakantha even upon a question of derivation and grammar can really be set aside in favour of anything that may occur in the Petersburgh lexicon. Hrishikesa means the lord of the senses. Ranasamudyame may also mean "at the outset of battle."

Kama which I have rendered desire is explained by Sreedhara as the wish for an unattained object; and raga as the longing or thirst for more. The second Kama is explained as desires of the class of love or lust. Daivi is explained by Sankara as divine; by Sreedhara as marvellous.

Confining the mind within the heart, i.e., withdrawing the mind from all external objects. Murdhni is explained by Sreedhara to mean here "between the eyebrows." All these regions being destructible and liable to re-birth, those that live there are equally liable to death and re-birth.

Bhavanta Sreedhara explains, is Dhyanam; and Sankara as Atmajnanabhinivesas. K. T. Telang renders Bhavana as perseverance. I do not think this is correct. Sankara, Anandagiri, and Nilakantha explain this sloka thus. Sreedhara explains it otherwise. The latter supposes the pronouns yat and tat to mean a particular sense among the Charatam indriyanam.

Kamadhuk, the wish-giving cow called Surabhi. The cause of re-production, i.e., I am not the mere carnal passion, but that passion which procreates or is crowned with fruit. The latter are Sarpas as well. Sreedhara says that the distinction lies in the fact of the Nagas being without poison. This is hardly correct. Pavatam may also mean "of those that have motion."

It may refer to the actions themselves of the great men set up by them as a standard. Sreedhara would connect "in the three worlds" with what follows. I follow Sankara and the natural order of words. The word rendered "nature" is prakriti. It really implies "primal matter." The second line, literally rendered, is "deeming that qualities engage in qualities."