ommentator as
an instrumental and not as a genitive. Hence he takes it that Kalpitani
is understood after it.

1446. i.e., occupies them one after another.

1447. Murti is a misreading for apurti or discontentedness. The Burdwan
translator retains murti in his Bengali version. It is not clear which
reading K.P. Singha adopts. The Bengali substitute he gives is murchccha
or stupefaction.

1448. i.e., there are no materials of which it is constituted. Hence
Sattwa or Buddhi has no asrayah or upadana.

1449. What the speaker inculcates in verses 41 and 42 is this: some are
of opinion that with the apparent destruction of the body, the attributes
that make up the body do not cease to exist. It is true that they cease
to become apprehensible by the senses; but then, though removed from the
ken of the senses, their existence may be affirmed by inference. The
argument is that, if destroyed, their reappearance would be impossible.
The reappearance, however, is certain. (For rebirth is a doctrine that is
believed to be a solemn truth requiring no argument to prove it). Hence,
the attributes, when apparently destroyed, do continue to exist. They are
regarded as then inhering in the linga or subtile body. The counter
opinion is that, when destroyed, they are destroyed for ever. The latter
opinion is condemned by the speaker.

1450. In the second line the word is Gadhamavidwansah, i.e., 'ignorant of
its bottom or depth.' K.P. Singha gives the meaning correctly, without
translating the verse literally. The Burdwan translator makes nonsense of
it. Both however, wrongly take agadha as the final word in yathagadha,
forgetting that agadham is a masculine adjective incapable of qualifying
nadim which is feminine. Ayam is Jiva. The last clause is to be taken as
buddhiyogam anuprachyuta ayam tatha.

1451. This is not a difficult verse, yet both the vernacular translators
have misunderstood it. What is said in the first line is this: yat
vahudosham karoti, yat (cha) purakritam, ekatah cha dushyati. Both the
finite verbs have jnanin (the man of knowledge) for their nominative
understood. Dushyati means nasyati or destroys. The meaning then is that
the man of Knowledge destroys his sinful acts of both this and past
lives. The commentator cites the well-known simile of the lotus leaf not
being drenched or soaked with water even when dipped in water. Now, this
is that unseen fruit of Knowledge. In the second line, the visible fruits
are