1668.  The comparison lies in the folly of the two persons indicated.  One churning ass’s milk for butter is only a fool.  Similarly, one failing to understand the nature of Prakriti and Purusha from the Vedas is only a fool.

1669. give a literal rendering of this verse for showing how difficult it is to understand the meaning.  The commentator correctly explains the sense which is as follows:  anyah or the other is the Soul as distinguished from its reflection upon Prakriti, that is the Soul in its real character as independent of Prakriti.  What is said here is that when the Soul, in its real character beholds, or acts as a witness of everything (i.e., as exists in the states of wakefulness and dream), becomes conscious of both itself (the Twenty-fifth) and Prakriti (the Twenty-fourth) when, however, it ceases to behold or act as such witness (i.e., in the state of dreamless slumber of Yoga-samadhi), it succeeds in beholding the Supreme Soul or the Twenty-sixth.  In simple language what is said here is that the Soul becomes conscious of both itself and Prakriti in the state of wakefulness and dream.  In Samadhi alone, it beholds the Supreme Soul.

1670.  What is said here is that the Twenty-sixth or the Supreme Soul always beholds the Twenty-fifth or the Jiva-soul.  The latter, however, filled with vanity, regards that there is nothing higher than it.  It can easily, in Yoga-samadhi, behold the Twenty-sixth.  Though thus competent to behold the Supreme Soul, it fails ordinarily to behold it.  The commentator sees in this verse a reputation of the doctrine of the Charvakas and the Saugatas who deny that there is a Twenty-sixth Tattwa or even a Twenty-fifth which they identify with the Twenty-fourth.

1671.  Tatsthanat is explained by the commentator as Varasya avaradhisrhanat, i.e., in consequence of vara overlying the avara.  The instance of the string and the snake is cited.  At first the string is erroneously taken for the snake.  When the error is dispelled, the string appears as the string.  Thus the Supreme and the Jiva-soul come to be taken as one when true knowledge comes.

1672.  The ordinary doctrine is that the Jiva-soul is indestructible, for it is both unborn and deathless, its so called births and deaths being only changes of the forms which Prakriti undergoes in course of her association with it, an association that continues as long as the Jiva-soul does not succeed in effecting its emancipation.  In this verse the ordinary doctrine is abandoned.  What is said here is that the Jiva-soul is not deathless, for when it becomes identified with the Supreme Soul, that alteration may be taken as its death.

1673.  This is a very difficult verse.  Pasya and apasya are drashtri and drisya, i.e., knower and known (or Soul and Prakriti) Kshemaya and Tattwo are drik and drisya, i.e., knowledge and known.  One that sees no difference between these that is, one that regards all things as one and the same, is both Kevala and not-Kevala, etc, meaning that such a person, though still appearing as a Jiva (to others) is in reality identifiable with the Supreme Soul.