1604.  The commentator explains that the object of this verse is to show that among mobile creatures those endued with knowledge are superior, and among all kinds of knowledge, the knowledge occurring in the Sankhya system is the highest.

1605. i.e., if in consequence of any defect of practice or Sadhana, the Sankhyas fail to attain to Emancipation, they at least become translated into gods.

1606. i.e., it is everything.

1607.  That Narayana who does all this is the embodiment of the Sankhya system.

1608.  The commentator explains the compound Adhyatmagatinischayam differently.

1609.  Both the vernacular translator render this verse wrongly.

1610.  Vasyante is explained by the commentator as implying Brahmanah ante and not ‘at the end of that night’.  The line occurs in Mann (Chap 1. 74) where ante refers to Brahmana’s day and night.  Vasishtha here refers to Mohapralaya and not any intermediate Pralaya.

1611.  In the creation of Mahan or Prajapati or Virat, and of Consciousness, the element of Tamas or ignorance predominates.

1612.  This is a very abstruse verse.  I am not sure that I have understood it correctly, What is said here seems to be this from Akshara arose Hiranyagarbha:  from Hiranyagarbha arose Virat.  This, that or the other is worshipped by ordinary men, while persons possessed of real insight do not invest any of them with attributes worthy of worship.  The speaker says that the ascription of attributes, called Ignorance, and the non-ascription for destruction of that ascriptions called Knowledge, (with respect to Virat or Hiranyagarbha or Akshara) then arose.  It might be asked that when there were no men as yet to worship or to condemn such worship, how could the two arise?  The answer is that the two, in their subtile forms, came into existence and were after-wards availed of by men when men come into being.

1613.  From Akshara or the Indestructible is Hiranyagarbha.  From Hiranyagarbha is Mahan or Virat and Consciousness.  From the last are the subtile elements.

1614.  The meanings of such verses depend upon the grammatical significations of certain words that are used.  They can scarcely be rendered accurately into any other language not derived from Sanskrit.  What is said here is that it is Prakriti which must be said to be the Adhishthatri of the universe.  Vishnu is not so.  Vishnu, Brahma, Akshara, or the Indestructible, however, is said to cover or pervade the universe (vyapnoti).  Vishnu is Vyapka but not Adhishthatri.

1615.  In the previous section it has been said that through Tamas he takes birth among the intermediate orders, through Rajas among human beings, and through Sattwa among gods.  The root kshi in Gunakshayat means aisarvya or puissance.

1616.  The soul weaves a cocoon with attributes (or, acts which result from attributes), and though free deprives himself of freedom.