alt be in front and thyself in the rear
is the road of Self-knowledge. The Burdwan translator does not understand
how the first line comes to mean Knowledge of Self! Accordingly, though
he uses the word amajnana (following the Commentator), yet he erroneously
repeats some of the words used in the line.

1731. The last word of the second line is muchyate and not yujyate. If
yujyate be adhered to, meaning would be 'freed the consequences of
ignorance and error, he would succeed in attaining to Brahma.'

1732. This is a very abstruse verse. I have rendered it, following the
lead of the Commentator, Srutam, he explains it 'the knowledge, born of
vedic declarations like Tattwamasi etc.' Sarvamasnute is equivalent to
samastam Brahmandam vyapnoti, meaning such knowledge leads to sarvatmyam,
i.e., omniscience Tadetat etc., i.e., that omniscience is the darsanam,
of parampurushartha or Moksha. Kritajna upadishtam artham is Samhitam.

1733. The sense is that in course of our repeated rebirths we have got
these relations repeatedly and will get them as repeatedly. But we are,
in reality, quite unconnected with them. Their union with us like the
union of pieces of wood floating in a river, now joined together
temporarily, now separated.

1734. Mokshadaisikam is explained by the commentator as
Mokshandeshataram. K. P. Singha wrongly renders this word. This section
is called pavakadhyayanam, meaning chitta-sodhakadhyayanam, that is, the
lesson which, when read and mastered, is to lead to the cleansing of the
heart.

1735. Time, as a personified agent, is throwing all creatures at unequal
distances. Some are thrown near and some to a great distance. These
distances are regulated by the nature of the acts done by the creatures
thrown. Some are cast among animals, some among men. Throwing or hurling
them thus, Time drags them again, the binding-cords being always in his
hands.

1736. Both the vernacular translators have misunderstood the first line
of this verse although there is no difficulty in it. Apastamva says
drishto dharma-vyatikrama; Sahasancha purvesham. What Bhishma says here
is that one should not speak of those instances of Vyatikramah and
Sahasam.

1737. Although the Vedas came to Suka of their own accord, yet he was in
deference to the universal custom, obliged to formally acquire them from
a preceptor.

1738. Vyasa was the priest or Ritwija of the house of Mithila and as such
the kings of Mithila were his Yajyas