1270.  The Burdwan translator gives a very erroneous version of this verse.

1271.  For by Knowledge Emancipation is obtained.

1272.  Vatarechaka is bhastra or a bellows.  What is implied is, perhaps, that such a man breathes or lives in vain.

1273.  Nasti is explained by the commentator as the past and the future.  Nishtha is swarupam.  Literally, what is said is that everything is the Vedas, or the Vedas are everything, This is, perhaps, only an exaggerated mode of saying that the Vedas deal with everything.

1274.  The sense seems to be that while they that are ignorant regard the universe to be as existent and durable as the thunder or adamant, the man of knowledge regards it to be truly non-existent though it puts forth the appearance of existence.

1275.  I have endeavoured to give a literal version of verse 45.  It is difficult, however, to seize the meaning from such versions.  The word used in the first line is Tyaga implying Renunciation.  The commentator correctly explains that this is that complete Renunciation which takes place in Samadhi or the perfect abstraction of Yoga.  Samaptam is samyak aptam (bhavati).  This samyak is Brahma.  Similarly, santosha is not ordinary contentment but Brahmananda or the Supreme felicity of one who has attained to Brahma.  The meaning, then, is this:  in the complete abstraction of Yoga (i.e., Samadhi) is Brahma.  This all the Vedas teach.  In Emancipation again is the Supreme felicity of Brahma.  Apavargah is not annihilation but Emancipation, which is existence in Brahma without the dual consciousness of knower and known.

1276.  I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the adjectives in the text.

1277.  The grammatical construction of this verse is very difficult to catch.  There can be no doubt that the commentator is right.  Tehjah, kshama, santih,—­these are anamayam subham, i.e., nirdukhasya sukhasyapraptau hetuh.  Tatha, separates these from what follows.  Abidham Vyoma Santanam, and dhruvam are governed by gamyate, Etaih sarvaih refers to Tejah and the two others.  Abidham is explained as akittrimam; vyoma as jagatkaranam.  The Burdwan translator gives a correct version, although his punctuation is incorrect.  He errs, however, in not taking anamayam subham as one and the same.  K.P.  Singha errs in connecting anamayam with what follows tatha.

1278.  Nishkriti is literally escape.  There is escape for those referred to; of course, the escape is to be sought by expiation.  There is none for an ingrate, for ingratitude is inexpiable.

1279.  Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.

1280.  The Brahman evidently refers to the indifference of Kundadhara towards him.  He had thought that Kundadhara would, in return for his adorations, grant him wealth.  Disappointed in this, he says, when Kundadhara does not mind my adorations, who else will?  I had, therefore, better give up all desire for wealth and retire into the woods.  The passage, however, seems to be inconsistent with the Brahmana’s indifference to the fine fabrics of cloth lying around him.