Similarly, santosha is not
ordinary contentment but Brahmananda or the Supreme felicity of one who
has attained to Brahma. The meaning, then, is this: in the complete
abstraction of Yoga (i.e., Samadhi) is Brahma. This all the Vedas teach.
In Emancipation again is the Supreme felicity of Brahma. Apavargah is not
annihilation but Emancipation, which is existence in Brahma without the
dual consciousness of knower and known.

1276. I have followed the commentator in his exposition of almost all the
adjectives in the text.

1277. The grammatical construction of this verse is very difficult to
catch. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right. Tehjah,
kshama, santih,--these are anamayam subham, i.e., nirdukhasya
sukhasyapraptau hetuh. Tatha, separates these from what follows. Abidham
Vyoma Santanam, and dhruvam are governed by gamyate, Etaih sarvaih refers
to Tejah and the two others. Abidham is explained as akittrimam; vyoma as
jagatkaranam. The Burdwan translator gives a correct version, although
his punctuation is incorrect. He errs, however, in not taking anamayam
subham as one and the same. K.P. Singha errs in connecting anamayam with
what follows tatha.

1278. Nishkriti is literally escape. There is escape for those referred
to; of course, the escape is to be sought by expiation. There is none for
an ingrate, for ingratitude is inexpiable.

1279. Asubheshu is explained as asubheshu karmashu upasthiteshu.

1280. The Brahman evidently refers to the indifference of Kundadhara
towards him. He had thought that Kundadhara would, in return for his
adorations, grant him wealth. Disappointed in this, he says, when
Kundadhara does not mind my adorations, who else will? I had, therefore,
better give up all desire for wealth and retire into the woods. The
passage, however, seems to be inconsistent with the Brahmana's
indifference to the fine fabrics of cloth lying around him.

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