i.e., emancipation.  The sense seems to be that by renouncing desire, both actions and attributes are lost.  The state, therefore, of such a soul is one of inaction, or perfect quietude and the absence of attributes, which is exactly the nature of the Supreme Soul.  If, again, emancipation be sought without extinguishing desire, i.e., by the aid of work (prayers and sacrifices), it is to be attained “by extinguishing path by a path,” i.e., the seeker is to proceed along a definite or prescribed or ordained route, taking care that the portions of the route he once passes over may not have to be re-trodden by him.  Action, as explained in a subsequent Sloka, leadeth, it is true to regions of bliss and emancipation, but that state is transitory, for when the merit is extinguished, the state that was attained in consequence of it, is extinguished, and the person falling off, has to recommence action.  If, therefore, permanent emancipation is to be attained, the obligation of re-commencing action must be got rid of, i.e., care must be taken that the portions of the route once passed over may not have to be re-trodden.

5.  Apparently this question of Dhritarashtra is not connected with what precedes.  The connection however, is intimate, and the question follows as a corollary from the Rishi’s last answer.  The Rishi having said that the ordinary soul, by a certain process (i.e., renunciation of desire) attains to the state of the Supreme Soul, Dhritarashtra infers that vice versa, it is the Supreme Soul that becomes the ordinary soul, for (as Nilakantha puts it in the phraseology of the Nyaya school) things different cannot become what they are not and unless things are similar, they cannot become of the same nature.  Applying this maxim of the Nyaya it is seen that when the ordinary soul becomes the Supreme Soul, these are not different, and, therefore, it is the Supreme Soul that becomes the ordinary soul.  Under this impression Dhritarashtra asks,—­Well, if it is the Supreme Soul that becomes the ordinary soul, who is it that urgeth the Supreme Soul to become so?  And if all this (universe) be indeed, that Soul, in consequence of the latter pervading and entering into everything, then divested of desire as the Supreme Soul is, where is the possibility of its action (action or work being the direct consequence of desire)?  If it is answered that the universe is the Deity’s lila (mere sport, as some schools of philosophy assert), then, as every sport is ascribable to some motive of happiness, what can be the happiness of the Deity, who, as presupposed, is without desire?