1286. i.e., he never slaughtered living animals for offering them in
sacrifices because of his inability to procure them. He, therefore,
substituted vegetable products for those animals. His sacrifices,
intended to take him to heaven, were really cruel in intention.
1287. Following the Bombay text I read the last line of 8 as Sukrasya
punarajatih Parnadonamadharmavit, or Sukrasya punarjnabhih, etc.; ajatih
is a 'descendant.' If ajnabhih be taken as the reading it would mean 'at
the repeated commands of Sukra.' The Bengal reading apadhyanat adharmavit
seems to be vicious. Both the vernacular versions are incorrect; K.P.
Singha supplying something of his own will for making sense of what, he
writes, and the Burdwan translator writing nonsense as usual.
1288. K.P. Singha wrongly translates this verse; for once, the Burdwan
translator is correct.
1289. Both the vernacular versions of this verse were incorrect. The
commentator explains that the grammar is rasatalam didrikshuh sa
Yajna-pavakam pravishtah. Yajne duscharitam kinnu, samipavarti mudo janah
i.e., fearing to see many other defects in the sacrifice which was being
celebrated by an ignorant person.
1290. Vaddhanjalim is an adverb, qualifying ayachata. The Burdwan
translator wrongly takes it as an adjective of Satyam.
1291. In verse 8, it is said that it was a descendant of Sukra, viz., the
virtuous Parnada, who had become a deer and lived in those woods as the
Brahmana's neighbour.
Pages:
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930