607.  The commentator explains this verse thus, although as regards the second line he stretches it a little.  If Nilakantha be right, K.P.  Singha must be wrong.  Generally, however, it is the known incapacity of the ocean to transgress its continents that supplies poets with illustrations.  Here, however, possibly, the rarity of the phenomenon, viz., the ocean’s transgressing its continents, is used to illustrate the rare fact of the intelligence, succeeding by yoga power, in transcending the attributes of Rajas, Tamas and Sattwa.

608. on the other hand, directing one’s thoughts boldly to it, one should ascertain its cause and dispel that cause, which, as stated here, is Passion.

609.  The first two words of the second line are those of verse 5 of See, I, Manu.

610.  Kathanchit is explained by Nilakantha as ‘due to great ill-luck.’

611.  I do not follow Nilakantha in rendering this verse.

612.  The soul is said to be only a witness or spectator and not an actor.  The Rishis understood by the soul the being to whom the mind, the senses, etc., all belong.  Could the idea of the inactive and unsinning Soul have arisen from observation of the moral principle of Conscience which discriminates between right and wrong, and acts, therefore, as an impartial judge, or watches everything like an uninterested spectator?  European moralists generally attribute two other functions to the Conscience, viz., impelling us to do the right and avoid the wrong, and approving when right is done and wrong avoided.  But these functions may easily be attributed to some other principle.  At any rate, when the question is one of nomenclature only, the last two functions may be taken away and the word Soul applied to indicate the Conscience as the faculty of discrimination only.

613.  The qualities here referred to are those of Sattwa (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (darkness).  What is meant by this verse is that such a person transcends the qualities instead of the qualities transcending him and his acts.

614.  Nilakantha takes the third line as elliptical and is for supplying te labhante.

615.  I follow the commentator in his exposition of this verse.  Anavisandhipurvakam is explained as nishkamam.  Ubhayam is prachinamaihikam cha karmam.  Apriyam is equivalent to vadham.  The substance of priyam, etc., is thus given:  Moksham prati tu karmanah karanatwam duranirastam.

616.  Aturam is explained as pierced by lust, wrath, etc.  Asuyate is equivalent to dhikkaroti.  Janah is explained by the commentator as parikshakah but it would be better to take it as standing for people generally.  Tasya is an instance of the genitive for the accusative.  Tat refers to nindyam karma, sarvatah means sarvashu yonishu.  Janayati Janena dadati.  The object of the verse is to show that sinful acts produce fear both here and hereafter.