1281.  Persons who have won ascetic success utter a wish and it is immediately fulfilled.  ‘I give thee this,’ and forthwith what is given in words appears bodily, ready to be taken and appropriated.  The words of such persons do not follow their meanings, but meanings follow their words.

1282.  The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of this verse.  He forgets his grammar so completely as to take etaih as qualifying lokah.

1283.  The verse is not difficult; the commentator, again, is very clear.  The Burdwan translator, however, while citing the very words of the commentary, totally misunderstands them and makes utter nonsense of them.  Ekarthanam is explained as Ekam chitiasuddhih Iswarapritirva tadarthanam madhya.  The question asked is dharmartham yo yajnah samahitah (viniyuktah) tadeva vruhi and not that Yajna which sukhartham (bhavati).

1284.  One that subsists upon grains of corn picked up from the fields after the reapers have abandoned them is called a person leading the unchha mode of life.  The Burdwan translator commits the ridiculous error of taking unchhavrittih as the name of the Brahmana.  The commentator supposes that Yajna here implies Vishnu, as expounded in the Srutis.

1285.  Syamaka is a variety of paddy called Panicum frumentaceum.  ‘Suryaparni’ is otherwise called ‘Mashaparni’ (Ayurvedhartha chandrika).  It is identified with Tiramus labialis, syn.—­Glycine deblis.  ‘Suvarchala’ is a name applied to various plants.  Here, very probably, ‘Brahmisaka,’ or Herpestes Monnjera (syn.—­Gratiola Monniera, Linn) is intended.

1286. i.e., he never slaughtered living animals for offering them in sacrifices because of his inability to procure them.  He, therefore, substituted vegetable products for those animals.  His sacrifices, intended to take him to heaven, were really cruel in intention.

1287.  Following the Bombay text I read the last line of 8 as Sukrasya punarajatih Parnadonamadharmavit, or Sukrasya punarjnabhih, etc.; ajatih is a ‘descendant.’  If ajnabhih be taken as the reading it would mean ’at the repeated commands of Sukra.’  The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit seems to be vicious.  Both the vernacular versions are incorrect; K.P.  Singha supplying something of his own will for making sense of what, he writes, and the Burdwan translator writing nonsense as usual.

1288.  K.P.  Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan translator is correct.

1289.  Both the vernacular versions of this verse were incorrect.  The commentator explains that the grammar is rasatalam didrikshuh sa Yajna-pavakam pravishtah.  Yajne duscharitam kinnu, samipavarti mudo janah i.e., fearing to see many other defects in the sacrifice which was being celebrated by an ignorant person.

1290.  Vaddhanjalim is an adverb, qualifying ayachata.  The Burdwan translator wrongly takes it as an adjective of Satyam.