Free from ignorance and other taints. See Katha, p. 144.

Sankara compares Katha, p. 142. See, too, Mundaka, p. 303; and note infra.

Svetâsvatara, p. 347, and p. 180 supra.

Sankara refers to Brihadâranyaka, p. 887.

Cf. Gîtâ, p. 112, note .

'Named Hiranyagarbha,' Sankara. Cf. Gîtâ, p. 107; Svetâsvatara, p. 354; Mundaka, p. 309; Maitrî, p. 130; Taitt. Âran. p. 894.

'In the form of Virâg,' says Sankara. As to these two, cf. Mundaka, pp. 270-272; and Sankara's and Ânandagiri's notes there. See also Svetâsvatara, pp. 324, 325; and Nrisimha Tâpinî, pp. 233, 234; Colebrooke, Essays, pp. 344, 368 (Madras reprint). The Virâg corresponds rather to the gross material world viewed as a whole; the Hiranyagarbha to the subtle elements similarly viewed, an earlier stage in the development. Cf. the Vedântasâra.

Cf. Mundaka, p. 303, and Gîtâ, p. 112.

The individual self is part of the supreme (Gîtâ, p. 112); perfect = not limited by space, time, &c.; as being part of a thing perfect in its essence, the individual soul also is perfect. The individual self is withdrawn from the perfect, viz. the whole aggregate of body, senses, &c. presided over by the self, and when so withdrawn it appears to be the pure self only. Cf. Brihadâranyaka, p. 948.

'The five elements,' says Sankara, cf. Aitareya, p. 189; and for 'gross body,' the original is literally 'water;' see supra, p. 179, note 6; and see, too, Îsopanishad, p. 11, and Svetâsvatara, p. 368, for different but kindred meanings.

Viz. the lotus-like heart. Cf. Khândogya,. p. 528.

The two principles between them pervade the universe, the individual self being connected with the material world, the other with heaven; 'divine' is, literally, 'the brilliant,' says Sankara, who quotes Katha, p. 305, as a parallel for the whole passage.

Cf. Katha, p. 111; Maitrî, pp. 19-34; and Mahâbhârata Strî Parvan, chap. VII, St. 13. Heaven = the Brahman here (see Brihadâranyaka, p. 876); divine = not vulgar, or unrefined-Sankara, who adds that though the senses generally lead one to sensuous objects, they do not do so when under the guidance of true knowledge.

The body is perishable, but action done by the self while in the body leaves its effect.

To whom, namely, the man of knowledge goes, as before stated.

Cf. Svetâsvatara, p. 347.

Cf. Katha, p. 152, and comment there, where the eye is said to stand for all the senses.

Katha, p. 149; Svetâsvatara, pp. 346-348, also p. 330 (should it be manîshâ there instead of manviso ?). The meanings of the three words are difficult to fix accurately. Sankara varies in his interpretations. p. 188 Probably the meaning he gives here is the best. Mind and understanding have been explained at Gîtâ, p. 57. The heart is the place within, where the self is said to be, and it may be taken as indicating the self, the meaning would then be--a direct consciousness in the self of its unity with the Supreme. See, too, Taitt Âran. p.896.

The five organs of action, the five senses of perception, the mind and understanding make the twelve.

Each current has its own honey regularly distributed to it under the supervision of the Deity, the Supreme. Honey = material enjoyment. Cf. Katha, p. 126, where Sankara renders it by karmaphala, 'fruit of action.'

Who supervises the distribution as stated. Cf. Vedânta-sûtra III, 2, 28-31.

Bhramara, which the commentators interpret to mean 'one who is given to flying about--the individual self.'

I. e. in one life in respect of actions done in a previous life.

Sankara says this is in answer to a possible difficulty that action performed here cannot have its fruit in the next world, as the fruit is so far removed in time from the action. The answer is, The Lord, the Supreme, can effect this, and taking his existence into account there is no difficulty. Oblation = food, &c., Sankara. The meaning of the whole passage, which is not very clear, seems to be that the Lord has arranged things so that each being receives some of this honey, this food, which is the fruit of his own action. Then the question arises, Do these beings always continue taking the honey and 'migrating,' or are they ever released? That is answered by the following sentence.

'The wings of knowledge,' says Sankara, citing a Brâhmana text, those, verily, who have knowledge are possessed of wings, those who are not possessed of knowledge are devoid of wings.'

So, literally; Sankara explains 'golden' to mean beneficial and pleasant,' by a somewhat fanciful derivation of the word hiranya. He refers to Gîtâ, p. 111, about the leaves of the Asvattha. Nîlakantha takes the leaves to be son, wife, &c., which are 'golden,' attractive at first sight. 'Coming to the Asvattha,' Sankara says, means being born as a Brâhmana,' &c. 'Flying away' = obtaining final emancipation.

The 'selfs' are compared to birds in the famous passage at Mundaka, p. 306 (also Svetâsvatara, p. 337). See also Brihadâranyaka, p. 499.

Knowledge of whom leads to 'flying away happily.'

Cf. Khândogya, p. 441. Sankara says that the author here explains the yoga by which the Supreme is to be attained. As to the life-winds, cf. Gîtâ, p. 61. 'The moon,' says Sankara, 'means the mind, and the sun the understanding, as they are the respective deities of those organs' (cf. Brihadâranyaka, pp. 521-542, and Aitareya, p. 187, where, however, the sun is said to appertain to the eye).

I. e. the Brahman; the result is, one remains in the condition of being identified with the Brahman.

Literally, flamingo. Cf. Svetâsvatara, pp. 332, 367; see also p. 289; Maitrî, p. 99; and the commentary on Svetâsvatara, p. 283.

Viz. the individual self, Sankara; that is, as it were, the bond of connexion between the Supreme and the world. Cf. Gîtâ, p. 112.

This is the meaning, though the word in the original is Ritvig, which in the later literature only means priest.

As the whole of the material world is dissolved, when the self is dissevered from the delusion which is the cause of it.

Viz. who moves about on the waters, as above stated.

Svetâsvatara, pp. 330-355; Taitt. Âran. p. 858, and comments there.

The life-winds, the ten organs or senses, mind, and understanding. See the same word similarly interpreted at Svetâsvatara, p. 306, and Sankhya-sûtra III, 9.

According to Sankara, he who makes the distinct entities, after entering into them; he alludes apparently to Khândogya, p. 407.

Namely, that of giving the poison of sensuous objects.

I. e. the eye, ear, &c., like the holes of serpents.

I. e. can appreciate nought but those sensuous objects.

One reading is, 'lead to danger' = which means 'to hell,' according to Nîlakantha.

Scil. delusion about whom leads to 'danger' or 'worldly life.'

The quality of being one with the Brahman in essence.

Self-restraint, tranquillity, &c.

I. e. whether in the midst of worldly life, or in the state of perfect emancipation.

Viz. the resources spoken of before.

Viz. the supreme Brahman. 'There' Sankara takes to mean 'in the supreme abode of Vishnu.' See Introduction.

Sankara does not explain this. Nîlakantha says pervading = fully understanding; both worlds = the self and the not-self. Is the meaning something like that of the passage last cited by Sankara under Vedânta-sûtra IV, 2, 14?

He obtains the fruit of it, Sankara. See as to Agnihotra, Khândogya, p. 381 seq.; and Vedânta-sûtra IV, 1, 16.

I. e. this mortal world, as action &c. would do.

I. e. of one who understands himself to be the Brahman. See Aitareya-upanishad, p. 246.

Sankara says, 'the cause in which all is absorbed.' Cf. a similar, but not identical, meaning given to Vaisvânara at Khândogya, p. 264; and see Vedânta-sûtra I, 2, 24. Becomes great = becomes the Brahman, Sankara.

Even in this body, Sankara; degradation he takes to mean departure from the body, citing Brihadâranyaka, p. 540.

There is no worldly life with birth and death for one who does good, and thinks his self to be the Brahman; hence no emancipation from such life either.

The Brahman is the real, and on that the unreal material world is imagined. Cf. Taittirîya, p. 97, and Sankara's comments there, which are of use in understanding this passage.

Cf. Katha, pp. 130, 157; and Brihadâranyaka, p. 360.

Cf. Svetâsvatara, p. 342; Katha, pp. 100, 107; Maitrî, p. 134.

Cf. Taittirîya, p. 67; Katha, p. 146; Mundaka, p. 293.

Katha, p. 298; Mundaka, p. 288.

See p. 180, note .

See p. 180 supra.

'The individual soul, and God,' say the commentators, the latter being distinct from the supreme self. 'The universe,' says Nîlakantha, 'means earth,' &c., by which I suppose he means earth, heaven, quarters, mentioned directly afterwards.

Katha, p. 293.

This figure is implied in the Îsopanishad, p. 10.

'Therefore it is endless,' says Sankara; and as to this, cf. Taittirîya, p. 51.

'In a sphere beyond the reach of perception,' says Sankara, who also quotes Katha, p. 149, or Svetâsvatara, p. 347, where the same line also occurs.

The original for understandings is sattva, which Sankara renders to mean antahkarana. 'Refined,' he says, 'by sacrifices and other sanctifying operations.' In the Katha at p. 148 sattva is rendered by Sankara to mean buddhi--a common use of the word.

'As being,' says Sankara, 'identical with themselves.' It will be noted that the form of expression is slightly altered here. It is not 'those who understand this.'

I. e. in different aggregates of body, senses, &c. Cf. Gîtâ, pp. 104 and 124; also Khândogya, pp. 475-551.

Cf. Brihadâranyaka, p. 882; Sankara, also refers to Îsopanishad, p. 14.

The words are pretty nearly the same as at Gîtâ, p. 48. Sankara says, the Brâhmana 'who has done all he need do' has no interest whatever in any being, as he has none in a big reservoir, and he cites Gîtâ, p. 54, in support of this. One copy of Sankara, however, differs from this; that runs thus: 'As a person who has done all he need do, has no interest in a big reservoir of water, so to a Brâhmana who sees the self in all beings, there is no interest in all the actions laid down in the Vedas, &c.; as he has obtained everything by mere perception of the self.' Nîlakantha's reading is exactly the same as at Gîtâ, p. 48.

Sankara says that Sanatsugâta states here his own experiences, like Vâmadeva, (about whom there is a reference at Brihadâranyaka, p. 216) and others, to corroborate what he has already said. Cf. also Gîtâ, p. 83, as to the whole passage.

See Gîtâ, p. 84. Nîlakantha takes what exists to mean 'present,' and what does not exist to mean 'past and future.' Cf. Khândogya, p. 532.

See Gîtâ, p. 82, where there is also a similar apparent contradiction.

Cf. Khândogya, p. 518.

That is to say he is 'unborn,' says Nîlakantha. Sankara seems to take 'my' with 'seat' only, and not with birth; for he says, 'everything has its birth from the self.'

Cf. Mundaka, p. 298; Maitrî, p. 84, and comment there.

Cf. Gîtâ, pp. 77, 109, and Khândogya, pp. 535, 550.

See p. 192, note .

Cf. Gîtâ, p. 78, and note there.

I. e. a mind free from affection and aversion, hatred, &c., Sankara.

Cf. Gîtâ, p. 113, and note ; and also Îsopanishad, p. 12.

Khândogya, p. 528; and cf. Gîtâ, p. 113.