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 indicated. The man of Knowledge refrains from censuring the wicked
acts of others and from perpetrating any wicked act himself.
Pages:
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961