1674.  This may mean that as men speak, and as speech is Brahma, all men must be regarded as utterers of Brahma.  If, again, Brahma be taken to mean the Vedas in special, it may imply that all men utter the Vedas or are competent to study the Vedas.  Such an exceedingly liberal sentiment from the mouth of Yajnavalkya is compatible only with the religion of Emancipation which he taught.

1675.  The doctrine is that unless acts are destroyed, there can be no Emancipation.

1676.  Literally, ‘these are not obstacles by external nature,’ and are therefore irremovable by personal exertion of the ordinary kind.

1677.  Sanchodayishyanti implies questioned.  Here it means questioning the king internally or by Yoga power.

1678.  Utsmayan is explained by the Commentators as ’priding himself upon his own invincibleness.’  Ayaya bhavam implies her determination to make the king dumb.  Visesayan is abhibhavan.

1679.  Sammantum is explained by the Commentator as equivalent to samyak jnatum.

1680.  It is difficult to say in what sense the word vaiseshikam is used here.  There is a particular system of philosophy called Vaiseshika or Kanada; the system believed to have been originally promulgated by a Rishi of the name of Kanada.  That system has close resemblance to the atomic theory of European philosophers.  It has many points of striking resemblance with Kapila’s system or Sankhya.  Then, again, some of the original principles, as enunciated in the Sankhya system, are called by the name of Visesha.

1681.  The mention of Vidhi indicated, as the commentator explains, Karmakanda.  The value of Karma in the path of Emancipation is to purify the Soul.

1682.  K. P. Singha wrongly translates this verse.

1683.  There is equal reason in taking up etc., implies that the bearing of the sceptre is only a mode of life like that of holders of the triple-stick.  Both the king and the Sannyasin are free to acquire knowledge and both, therefore, may attain to Emancipation notwithstanding their respective emblems.  In the emblems themselves there is no efficacy or disqualification.

1684.  The object of this verse is to show that all persons, led by interest, become attached to particular things.  The littleness or greatness of those things cannot aid or bar people’s way to Emancipation.  ’I may be a king, says Janaka, and thou mayst be a mendicant.  Neither thy mendicancy nor my royalty can aid or obstruct our Emancipation.  Both of us, by Knowledge, can achieve what we wish, notwithstanding our outward surroundings.

1685.  Hence, by changing my royal life for that of a bearer of the triple-stick I can gain nothing.

1686.  Yukte in the first line means in the Yogin.  The Bombay reading Tridandanke is a mistake for Tridandakam.  The Bombay text reads na muktasyasti gopana, meaning that ’there is no relief for one that has fallen down after having arisen in Yoga.’  The Bengal text reads vimuktasya.  I adopt the Bengal reading.