Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* Arguna Misra says, ‘his own and those of others.’ Nilakan/ha takes good to mean not men, but tranquillity, &c. The next sentence seems rather to militate against this view, which in itself is not a well-founded one. 302 anuciTA. self of the kingdom’. He (then) restraining his own vices, and honouring good men, attained high perfection, and sang these verses: ‘I have conquered most vices; destroyed all foes; but there is one, the greatest, vice which should be destroyed and which I have not destroyed—that (vice), being impelled by which, a creature does not attain freedom from desire, and being troubled by desire, understands (nothing) while running into ditches*; (that vice), being impelled by which, a man even does what ought not to be done. That avarice—cut (it) off, cut (it) off with sharp swords. For from avarice® is born desire; then anxiety comes into existence; and he who desires, mostly acquires qualities appertaining to the quality of passion. Obtaining those, he mostly acquires qualities appertaining to the quality of darkness‘. When the bodily frame is destroyed, he, owing to these qualities, is born again and again, and engages in action. And at the expiration of life, again with his body dismembered and scattered about, he meets death, and again birth. Therefore, properly perceiving this, and restraining avarice by courage, one should wish for sovereignty in the self. This is sovereignty °; there is no other sovereignty here. The self properly understood is itself the sovereign.’ Such were For the good of the people, says Arguna Misra. 3 T.e. base actions, Nilakansha. * Avarice, according to Arguna Misra, is the belief that one has not got that which one has, and desire is the wish for more and more. Avarice, seems, however, to be the general frame of mind, always wishing for something, never being contented, and desire is the wish for a specific object. ‘ Which are sources of delusion. Cf. a similar doctrine at Apestamba II, 5, 140. * Nilakan/ha compares Taittirfya, p. 26. CHAPTER XVII, 8. 303 the verses sung with regard to the great sovereignty, by the glorious Ambarisha, who destroyed the one (chief vice), avarice. Cuarter XVII. The Brahmaaa said:
2Cf. a similar doctrine at Apestamba II, 5, 140. * Nilakan/ha compares Taittirfya, p. 26. CHAPTER XVII, 8. 303 the verses sung with regard to the great sovereignty, by the glorious Ambarisha, who destroyed the one (chief vice), avarice. Cuarter XVII. The Brahmaaa said: On this’, too, they relate this ancient story (in the shape of) a dialogue, O you of a pure heart! between a Brahmaaa and Ganaka. King Ganaka, by way of punishment, said to a Brahmaza who had fallen into some offence: ‘You should not live within my dominions. Thus spoken to, the Brahmasa then replied to that best of kings: ‘Tell me, O king! how far (extend) the dominions which are subject to you. I wish, O Lord! to live in the dominions of another king, and, O master of the earth! I wish to do your bidding according to the Sdstras.’ Thus spoken to by that glorious Brahmaaa, the king then heaved frequent and warm sighs, and said nothing in reply. While that king of unbounded power was seated, engaged in meditation, a delusion suddenly came upon him, as the planet * upon the sun. Then when the delusion had gone off, the king recovered himself, and after a short while spoke these words to the Brahmaaa. Ganaka said: Though this country, which is the kingdom of my father and grandfather, is subject (to me), I cannot ' On getting rid of the notion that this, that, and the other thing is one’s own,—Arguna Misra. Nilakan/ka agrees, and adds also on the subject of cutting off avarice. * That is to say, Rabu. 304 aNnuciTA, ‘find my domain!, searching through the (whole) earth. When I did not find it on the earth, I looked for Mithila; when I did not find it in Mithila, I looked for my own offspring. When I did not find it among them, then came the delusion on me. Then on the expiration of the delusion, intelligence again came to me. Now I think that there is no domain (of mine), or that everything is my domain. Even this self is not mine, or the whole earth is mine. And as mine, so (is it) that of others too, I believe, O best of the twice-born! Live (here, therefore) while you desire, and enjoy while you live *. The Brahmana said: Tell me, what belief you have resorted to, by which, though this country, which is the kingdom of your father and grandfather, is subject to you, you have got rid of (the notion that this or that is) mine. What conviction have you adopted, by which verily you consider your whole domain as not (your) domain, or all as your domain ? Ganaka said: I understand (all) conditions here, in all affairs, to be terminable’, hence I could not find anything that should be (called) mine‘. (Considering) whose this
3Ganaka said: I understand (all) conditions here, in all affairs, to be terminable’, hence I could not find anything that should be (called) mine‘. (Considering) whose this : Meaning, apparently, that over which he and no one “else has power. He contracts his vision gradually, and finds nothing at all which he can call his own to the exclusion of others. He explains, further on, how he arrives at the alternative conviction stated towards the close of this speech. In the Brihaddranyaka (p. 916) he is said to have offered his kingdom to Yagdavalkya and himself as his slave, after learning the Brahma-vidya. See too Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. iv, Pp. 426 seq. * See Santi Parvan (Moksha) I, 13. * Conditions of indigence or affluence, Nilakaw/ha. Arguna Misra’s reading is different. * There is a familiar verse, ascribed to Ganaka, which says, ‘If CHAPTER XVII, 21. 305 was, (I thought of) the Vedic text about anybody’s property, (hence) I could not find by my intelligence anything that should be (called) mine'. Resorting to this conviction, I have got rid of (the notion that this or that is) mine. Now hear the conviction, holding which, my domain (appears to me to be) everywhere * I do not desire for myself even smells existing in the nose*. Therefore the earth‘ being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself tastes even dwelling in the mouth. Therefore water being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself the colour (or) light appertaining to the eye. Therefore light being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself the (feelings of touch) which exist in the skin. Therefore air being conquered is always Mithil4 is on fire, nothing of mine is burnt (in it).’ The verse occurs in the Mahabhfrata, Santi Parvan (Moksha Dharma), chap. 178, st. 2, and also chap. 276, st. 4. See too Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. i, p. 429. ' This is not clear. I have followed Nflakassha's text. Arguna Misra’s is in the earlier part more intelligible, ‘ Whose is this to-day, whose to-morrow?’ But I cannot find that there is any Vedic text to this effect. Nilakassha cites on his text {sopanishad, P- 5 The meaning here seems to be, ‘When I considered as to whom the things I saw in my thoughts belonged to, I remembered the Vedic text that one should not wish to obtain another’s property, and so, thinking about the matter with that caution, I could not make out that there was anything which I could call my own.’ * This is the alternative conclusion he has come to. * The sense of smell enjoys the smell, my self has nothing to do with it. Cf. Git4, p. 55, also Maitri, pp. 112, 113.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* Arguna Misra says, ‘his own and those of others.’ Nilakan/ha takes good to mean not men, but tranquillity, &c. The next sentence seems rather to militate against this view, which in itself is not a well-founded one. 302 anuciTA. self of the kingdom’. He (then) restraining his own vices, and honouring good men, attained high perfection, and sang these verses: ‘I have conquered most vices; destroyed all foes; but there is one, the greatest, vice which should be destroyed and which I have not destroyed—that (vice), being impelled by which, a creature does not attain freedom from desire, and being troubled by desire, understands (nothing) while running into ditches*; (that vice), being impelled by which, a man even does what ought not to be done. That avarice—cut (it) off, cut (it) off with sharp swords. For from avarice® is born desire; then anxiety comes into existence; and he who desires, mostly acquires qualities appertaining to the quality of passion. Obtaining those, he mostly acquires qualities appertaining to the quality of darkness‘. When the bodily frame is destroyed, he, owing to these qualities, is born again and again, and engages in action. And at the expiration of life, again with his body dismembered and scattered about, he meets death, and again birth. Therefore, properly perceiving this, and restraining avarice by courage, one should wish for sovereignty in the self. This is sovereignty °; there is no other sovereignty here. The self properly understood is itself the sovereign.’ Such were For the good of the people, says Arguna Misra. 3 T.e. base actions, Nilakansha. * Avarice, according to Arguna Misra, is the belief that one has not got that which one has, and desire is the wish for more and more. Avarice, seems, however, to be the general frame of mind, always wishing for something, never being contented, and desire is the wish for a specific object. ‘ Which are sources of delusion. Cf. a similar doctrine at Apestamba II, 5, 140. * Nilakan/ha compares Taittirfya, p. 26. CHAPTER XVII, 8. 303 the verses sung with regard to the great sovereignty, by the glorious Ambarisha, who destroyed the one (chief vice), avarice. Cuarter XVII. The Brahmaaa said:
2Cf. a similar doctrine at Apestamba II, 5, 140. * Nilakan/ha compares Taittirfya, p. 26. CHAPTER XVII, 8. 303 the verses sung with regard to the great sovereignty, by the glorious Ambarisha, who destroyed the one (chief vice), avarice. Cuarter XVII. The Brahmaaa said: On this’, too, they relate this ancient story (in the shape of) a dialogue, O you of a pure heart! between a Brahmaaa and Ganaka. King Ganaka, by way of punishment, said to a Brahmaza who had fallen into some offence: ‘You should not live within my dominions. Thus spoken to, the Brahmasa then replied to that best of kings: ‘Tell me, O king! how far (extend) the dominions which are subject to you. I wish, O Lord! to live in the dominions of another king, and, O master of the earth! I wish to do your bidding according to the Sdstras.’ Thus spoken to by that glorious Brahmaaa, the king then heaved frequent and warm sighs, and said nothing in reply. While that king of unbounded power was seated, engaged in meditation, a delusion suddenly came upon him, as the planet * upon the sun. Then when the delusion had gone off, the king recovered himself, and after a short while spoke these words to the Brahmaaa. Ganaka said: Though this country, which is the kingdom of my father and grandfather, is subject (to me), I cannot ' On getting rid of the notion that this, that, and the other thing is one’s own,—Arguna Misra. Nilakan/ka agrees, and adds also on the subject of cutting off avarice. * That is to say, Rabu. 304 aNnuciTA, ‘find my domain!, searching through the (whole) earth. When I did not find it on the earth, I looked for Mithila; when I did not find it in Mithila, I looked for my own offspring. When I did not find it among them, then came the delusion on me. Then on the expiration of the delusion, intelligence again came to me. Now I think that there is no domain (of mine), or that everything is my domain. Even this self is not mine, or the whole earth is mine. And as mine, so (is it) that of others too, I believe, O best of the twice-born! Live (here, therefore) while you desire, and enjoy while you live *. The Brahmana said: Tell me, what belief you have resorted to, by which, though this country, which is the kingdom of your father and grandfather, is subject to you, you have got rid of (the notion that this or that is) mine. What conviction have you adopted, by which verily you consider your whole domain as not (your) domain, or all as your domain ? Ganaka said: I understand (all) conditions here, in all affairs, to be terminable’, hence I could not find anything that should be (called) mine‘. (Considering) whose this
3Ganaka said: I understand (all) conditions here, in all affairs, to be terminable’, hence I could not find anything that should be (called) mine‘. (Considering) whose this : Meaning, apparently, that over which he and no one “else has power. He contracts his vision gradually, and finds nothing at all which he can call his own to the exclusion of others. He explains, further on, how he arrives at the alternative conviction stated towards the close of this speech. In the Brihaddranyaka (p. 916) he is said to have offered his kingdom to Yagdavalkya and himself as his slave, after learning the Brahma-vidya. See too Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. iv, Pp. 426 seq. * See Santi Parvan (Moksha) I, 13. * Conditions of indigence or affluence, Nilakaw/ha. Arguna Misra’s reading is different. * There is a familiar verse, ascribed to Ganaka, which says, ‘If CHAPTER XVII, 21. 305 was, (I thought of) the Vedic text about anybody’s property, (hence) I could not find by my intelligence anything that should be (called) mine'. Resorting to this conviction, I have got rid of (the notion that this or that is) mine. Now hear the conviction, holding which, my domain (appears to me to be) everywhere * I do not desire for myself even smells existing in the nose*. Therefore the earth‘ being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself tastes even dwelling in the mouth. Therefore water being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself the colour (or) light appertaining to the eye. Therefore light being conquered is always subject to me. I do not desire for myself the (feelings of touch) which exist in the skin. Therefore air being conquered is always Mithil4 is on fire, nothing of mine is burnt (in it).’ The verse occurs in the Mahabhfrata, Santi Parvan (Moksha Dharma), chap. 178, st. 2, and also chap. 276, st. 4. See too Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. i, p. 429. ' This is not clear. I have followed Nflakassha's text. Arguna Misra’s is in the earlier part more intelligible, ‘ Whose is this to-day, whose to-morrow?’ But I cannot find that there is any Vedic text to this effect. Nilakassha cites on his text {sopanishad, P- 5 The meaning here seems to be, ‘When I considered as to whom the things I saw in my thoughts belonged to, I remembered the Vedic text that one should not wish to obtain another’s property, and so, thinking about the matter with that caution, I could not make out that there was anything which I could call my own.’ * This is the alternative conclusion he has come to. * The sense of smell enjoys the smell, my self has nothing to do with it. Cf. Git4, p. 55, also Maitri, pp. 112, 113.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.