ances. There
are again declarations in favour of Knowledge. What the speaker asks is
that the Rishi should discourse upon what the speaker should do, i.e.,
whether he should betake himself to the acquisition of Knowledge or to
the doing of acts.

1461. i.e., Each Asrama speaks of particular observances and courses of
conduct as beneficial. This, therefore, is a source of confusion to men
of plain understandings. Is there no distinction then among duties or
observances in respect of their beneficial character? This is the
question propounded. The commentator thinks by the word asramas is meant
the four principal faiths and _not_ the modes of life.

1462. I retain the word asrama in the English version as it is very
doubtful in what sense it has been used in the original. The commentator
explains that by four asramas are meant the four principal forms of creed
prevalent at one time in India. The first is that there is no such thing
as virtue or righteousness. This is ascribed to Sakya Simha or Buddha.
The second is that righteousness consists in only the worship of trees,
etc. The third is that only is righteousness which the Vedas have laid
down. The fourth is that transcending righteousness and its reverse there
is something for whose attainment one should strive. Yatha samkalpitah is
explained by the commentator as yo yena sreyastena bhavitastasya tadeva
sreyah.

1463. Gunoddesam is Gunakirtanam or the announcement of merits. What
Narada says here is this: the asramas are four. The merits of each have
been proclaimed by their respective founders. The principal merit each
claims is that it leads to knowledge of Self. Now, the announcement is
nanarupam; it is also prithak; and lastly, it is viprasthitam or
contradictory, for, as the commentator points out, that which a
particular asrama announces to be righteous is according to another
unrighteous. Both the vernacular translators give incorrect versions.

1464. Te refers to asramas. Abhipretam is atma-tattwarupam. Yanti is
equivalent to prapayanti.

1465. Mitranam is taken by the commentator to be equivalent to
sarva-bhuta-labhayapadanam, i.e., they who have given the pledge of
harmlessness to all creatures. By enemies is meant here the envious and
harmful.

1466. In previous Sections the nature of Truth has been discussed. A
formal truth may be as sinful as a lie, and a lie may be as meritorious
as a Truth. Hence, the ascertainment of Truth is not easy.

1467.