Sāṁkhya Karika with Nārāyaṇa Commentaries | Part 4


Ekādashendriyavadhā, saha buddhivadhair aśaktir upadishṭā |
saptadaśadhā buddhir, viparyayās tushṭisiddhīnām  |49|

49. Defects in the eleven organs together with aberrations of the intellect have been termed disability. Intellectual aberrations are seventeen, by inversion of contentment and perfection.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

The sub-divisions of disability are next enumerated, Defects, etc.

Injuries or defects of the eleven organs, viz., ear, skin, eye, tongue, nose, voice, hands, feet, the excretory and the reproductive, and mind. They are as follows: deafness, leprosy, blindness, loss of taste and smell, dumbness, distortion, lameness, impotence, iliac passion, and intoxication.

With aberrations of the intellect, incompetence thereof to its work. How many forms there are of intellectual defects, this is now stated, are seventeen, etc.: contentment is said to be of nine kinds, similarly perfection of eight; from the inversion or opposites thereof.

Ādhyātmikāsh catasraḥ, prakṛtyupādānakālabhāgākhyāḥ |
bāhyā viṣayoparamāc, ca pañca nava tushṭayo abhimatāḥ  |50|

50. Nine sorts of contentment are enumerated: four internal, named from nature, means, time and luck; and five external, relating to abstinence from objects of sense.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

The nine divisions of contentment are next described, Nine Sorts, etc.:

‘Knowledge of Soul as distinguished from Nature and the rest is the means to salvation; but this knowledge is a product of Nature and will be attained by its means;' he who thinks thus and withdraws from action, his is the contentment named from Nature, [also] termed ambha.

Others reason thus : ‘this knowledge comes not from Nature alone, otherwise the house-holders would also acquire it, but it is obtained by leading a hermit's life ;' thus through indolence and the like [causes] they remain content; this is contentment named from means, termed salilam, also styled paribrajya.

‘This paribrajya also will bring it [only] in due course of time; therefore time being supreme, knowledge will come at its proper moment; consequently do not exert.' This contentment is named from time, and is termed megha.

‘Even in the due season it will come only by force of luck, therefore luck alone is the cause thereof and no other; consequently exert not.' This is the contentment named from luck, and is termed vrishti. These are the four internal.

The external [forms of] contentment, proceeding from abstinence from sense-objects, are five, [so called] because of the absence of a knowledge of Soul as distinct from Nature and the rest. From an observation of the evils attending acquisition, preservation, waste, enjoyment and injury, follows five-fold abstinence; from the same cause contentment is also five-fold. 'Acquisition is attended by the troubles of begging, wandering, etc.; therefore exert not’; this [form of] contentment is called pāram.

Acquiescence, which is based upon the idea that it is a trouble to have to guard against thieves and the like the little that has been acquired, is named supāram.

'Even the little thus protected will be lost by enjoyment’; contentment based upon this reflection is pārā - pāram.

'The continued enjoyment of sense-objects, sound, etc., gives rise to lust, this brings pain upon the subject by [successive] gain and loss of objects’; contentment founded on this consideration is styled anuttamāmbhas.

From such enjoyment results harm to animals; abstention from sense-objects on the observation of this evil is contentment known as uttamāmbhas.

Thus the four external and the five internal make up the nine forms of contentment, [which are], ambhas, salilam, megha, vrishti, pāram, supāram, pārāpāram, anuttamāmbhas, and uttamāmbhas.

Ūhaḥ śabdo adhyayanaṃ, duḥkhavighātās trayaṃ suhritprāptiḥ |
dānaṃ ca siddhayogo, siddhi pūrvo ankushas trividhaḥ  |51|

51. The eight [means to] perfection are reasoning, hearing, study, suppression of threefold pain, intercourse with friends, and purity. The three foregoing [dispositions] are checks to perfection.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

The eight varieties of perfection are now enumerated, The eight, etc.:

Reasoning, discursive power, special perception, in fact. Hearing, conversancy with collocations of words, connected by subject and predicate. Study, learning the Śāstras from the instructions of teachers. Suppression of pain, the means for the removal thereof, which are three-fold because pain is of three kinds. Intercourse with friends, association with men spiritually-minded. Purity, from the root daip, to purify; internal and external cleanliness. Perfection is that which perfects. That perfection which consists in the removal of pain is primary inasmuch as it is the result; the other five helping to effect this result, are subsidiary; this is to be understood.

Reasoning and the rest are thus designated in the gloss: tāratāra, sutāra, pramoda, mudita, modamāna, ramyaka, and sadāmudita.

To indicate the excellence of perfection and the inferiority of obstruction, disability and contentment, it is said, the three foregoing, etc.: The three foregoing, aforementioned, obstruction, disability, [and] contentment, are curbs to perfection, preventive thereof by displacement of causes, etc. They are like iron hooks because inimical to perfection. Hence obstruction, disability, and contentment are to be abandoned; this is the sense.

Na vinā bhāvair liṅgaṃ, na vinā lingena bhāvenavinivṛttiḥ |
lingākhyo bhāvākhyas, (tasmād dvividhaḥ pravartate sargaḥ)  |52|

52. If there were no conditions there would be no subtle person, [and] if there was no subtle person there would be no evolution of the conditions. Thence a two-fold creation proceeds, by name personal and objective.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

‘But since there is no experience apart from sense-objects there has been the creation of ether and the other [gross elements] ; what, however, is effected by the supersensible creation?’ In reply it is said, If there were, etc.:

Without conditions, perceptible objects, the subtle mark, that is, the supersensible set of intellect, etc., will not have experience; this is the meaning.

[Again], without the subtle mark, Intellect and the rest, there will be no evolution of conditions or objects, no experience of them will be brought about. Such is the sense. An object by itself does not cause experience, or there would be universal experience, [it is a cause of it] only when known; knowledge, again, cannot be without the senses and the internal organs; thus either presupposes the other. Therefore, since both is necessary, [there is a two-fold creation], [one] personal, liṅgam being that which indicates the supersensible set of intellect etc., but produces no intuition of it; [the other] objective, [a condition] being that which is, reached or apprehended by means, of the senses, that is, the assemblage of objects known  by perception.

Ashṭavikalpo devas, tiryagyoniṣ ca pañcadhā bhavati |
mānushakash catvekavidhaḥ, samāsato bhautikaḥ sargaḥ  |53|

53. The divine race is of eight sorts, the non-human of five, and man is alone in his class. Such briefly is the world of created beings.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

The divisions of the existential creation are next enumerated, The divine race, etc.:

Celestial eight-fold: according to the division of Brahma, Prājāpatya, Aindra, Pitrya, Gaṅdharva, Yakṣa, Rākṣasa, [and] Piśācha. Such is the meaning.

Horizontal-movers are five-fold, through the division of animals, birds, reptiles, insects and immovables.

Human is of one kind. Briefly, that is, neglecting racial inter-differences, as Brāhmaṇa, etc.

Elemental, corporeal, thus excluding jar and the like. [But] some speak of jar, etc., as included in the class of immovables.

Ūrdhvaṃ sattvavishās, tamovishālash ca mūlataḥ sargaḥ |
madhye rajovishālo, brahmādiḥ stambaparyantaṃ  |54|

54. The creation extends from Brahmā and the rest to a stock.  Above goodness prevails, below the creation is full of darkness; passion predominates in the middle.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

The specialities of the [elemental] creation are next described, The creation, etc.:

Above the terrestrial globe goodness predominates; for, though passion and darkness are to be found there, yet we are told there is an excess of goodness.

Below, among the horizontal-movers who tend downwards, darkness predominates; the other two constituents are not absent, but this is found in excess.

In the middle, in the terrestrial globe passion predominates; though goodness and darkness are there, yet, from an observation of [man’s] addiction i to virtue and vice, passion is considered to have greater strength.

From Brahmā, etc. This creation extending from Brahmā to a stock is thus situated (or constituted) according to difference of spheres. Stock, that is, a fixed thing.

Tatra jarāmaraṇakṛtaṃ, duḥkham prāpnoti cetanaḥ puruṣaḥ |
liṅgasyā  vinivrittes, tasmād duḥkhaṃ svabhāvena  |55|

55. In them the sentient Soul experiences pain, owing to decay and death, till the subtle person returns; hence pain is of the essence [of bodily existence].

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Having portrayed the creation, [the author] now proceeds to describe the pain that attends upon it and serves to stimulate the dispassion by which emancipation from it is to be obtained, In them, etc.:

Since in them, the three orders of creation, Soul, though sentient, yet undergoes pain due to disease and death, therefore pain is by nature; the creation, etc., of intelligent beings, is by its very nature afflicted with pain. So the holy sage Patañjali has said, “Through functional, ideal and congenital troubles, and because of the conflict between the functions of the several modes, all intelligent beings suffer pain.” Here 'functional trouble’ is pain due to disease, etc.; 'ideal trouble’ means the pain due to fear of death, [as when a man says], ‘I have not been [born] and shall not be;' [and] ‘congenital trouble’ implies the pain due to re-birth.

How long does Soul suffer pain? It is replied, till the, etc.: until the liṅgam, intellect and the rest, do not return; the subtle mark having ceased with [the attainment of] knowledge, final beatitude is gained; this is the sense.

Ityeṣa prakṛtikṛtau, mahadādiviṣayabhūtaparyantaḥ |
pratipuruṣavimokshārthaṃ, svārtha iva parārtham ārambhaḥ  |56|

56. This evolution of Nature from intellect to the special elements is for the deliverance of each [individual] Soul; the activity, as if for itself, is for the benefit of another.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

[The author] concludes by pointing out the reason of activity in the Prime Cause alone, This evolution, etc.

“Iti” is used to conclude. This from Intellect etc. to the special elements is an evolute of Nature, created, according to the mode already indicated, by Nature alone, and not by God or Fate. Special element, the earth, such is the purport.

God is not the cause because His existence is affected by the dilemma of its being at once dependent as well as independent upon virtue, and because of want of proof. Nor Fate either, since [upon this hypothesis], there is a disjunction of causality with the effect,—it being inapplicable to the action of uncreated [and uncombined J atoms at the time of general dissolution, —and therefore it cannot be the cause of every [possible] product. This will indicate [the line of reasoning].

Since [Nature] is insentient, it has no purpose of its own and its activity is for the sake of another. But for whom is the evolution? The answer is, for the deliverance, etc.: of each individual soul, this is meant. Here experience is discarded, and the purpose of liberation [alone] spoken of, in order to indicate that created existence being common to all, it will not be put an end to by the emancipation of one; therefore each Soul is mentioned. As the sage Patañjali has observed in his corresponding (or cognate) work, “Soul has that alone for its object; [and] for one that has attained its end Nature both is and is not, because it is common to others.”

Since there is no dispute about [ the possibility of ] activity for the sake of another, it is said, the activity, etc. : In the same way as a person energises for himself, the evolution of Nature is for the benefit of another, all activity having for its cause some necessity (or purpose). There is no need to expatiate.

Vatsavivriddhinimittaṃ, kshīrasya yathā pravṛttir ajñasya |
puruṣavimokshanimittaṃ, tathā pravṛttiḥ pradhānasya  |57|

57. As the secretion of the unintelligent milk is for the purpose of the nourishment of the calf, so the activity of Nature is for the purpose of the liberation of Soul.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

But how can there be activity in insentient Nature? It is answered, As the secretion, etc.:

From observing the secretion of milk, etc., to be connected with the needs of nutrition and the like of a calf by affirmative and disjunctive concomitance, [we infer that] activity is not restricted to the sentient but may be accomplished by any [entity brought into being by] active destiny.  Therefore there is nothing to hinder the activity of insentient Nature for the emancipation of Soul; this is the purport.

It should not be thought that the production of milk Is due to the influence of God, and thus activity is confined to the sentient. Why so? Because God cannot be proved, and even if proved, in the absence of need there is nothing to urge the desire-fulfilled One [to action]. It is not to be supposed that [He does this] through compassion, for since pain is not possible for creatures before creation [itself], compassion in the form of desire for the suppression of pain is also not possible in Him. Therefore though insentient itself, it develops for a purpose, like milk and similar [unconscious objects].

Autsukyanivrittyarthaṃ, yathā kriyāsu pravartate lokaḥ |
puruṣavimokshārthaṃ, pravartate tadvad avyaktam  |58|

58. As people engage in works for the purpose of relieving desires, so does the Unmanifested principle for the purpose of liberating Soul.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

But activity is always seen to aim at some end, and Nature seems to have none, As people, etc.:

Eagerness, desire that this is fit to be enjoyed by me. To relieve this people engage in sexual and other pleasures, for the non-gratification of desire brings pain. And the desire ceases with the attainment of the object, so that is the end.

Similarly Nature, the unmanifested principle, being also led by the desire that the object of Soul should be effected by me, sets about to realise that end, [viz.,] the liberation of Soul. That desire does not cease till the object is gained and so long as it is unsatisfied there may be evil. Therefore the evolution is for the sake of another, as if for some purpose of its own. Enough.

Rangasya darṣayitvā, nivartate nartakī yathā nṛtyāt |
puruṣasya tathātmānam, prakāṣya vinivartate prakṛtiḥ  |59|

59. As a dancer, having exhibited herself on the stage, desists from the dance, so does Nature cease, when she has manifested herself to Soul.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Let the activity of Nature be thus; when does it cease? and when is the emancipation of Soul accomplished? In reply it is said, As a dancer, etc.

The word stage here means the stagers. As a dancer, self-satisfied, full of dalliance and of wanton and playful gestures, and decked with various ornaments, having exhibited herself with songs and dances to the spectators on the stage, ceases,—she has then accomplished her end and received largesse, and thinks “I have been seen by them”; so Nature also ceases, after having shown herself to Soul in the modes of Intellect etc., ending in joy and sorrow, and having produced the knowledge discriminating between ‘you’ and ‘I’.  Nature [then] moves away, and Soul, from which the has thus receded, attains salvation.

Nānāvidhair upāyair, upakāriṇy anupakāriṇaḥ puṃsaḥ |
guṇavaty aguṇasya satas, tasyārtham apārthakaṃ carati  |60|

60. Nature, generous and endowed with the ‘qualities,’ accomplishes by manifold means, and without benefit [to herself], the purpose of Soul, [which is] thankless and uncomposed of the constituents.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

‘But activity for the sake of another is seen to take place with a view to recompense; Nature, however, obtains all benefit in return from Soul’. To this it is replied, Nature, generous, etc.:

Nature, endowed with the ‘qualities,’ therefore generous, benefiting Soul, the spectator, which is not composed of the constituents, inasmuch as existent and having intelligence for its nature; and so is thankless, incapable of conferring benefits.

And having no purpose of its own, does [she], by manifold means, [viz.,] intellect, egoism, the senses, mind, etc., accomplish or effect the object of [Soul].

This is the character of the virtuous that they confer favours without having received any themselves. Consequently it is not the rule that activity for the sake of another is with a view to profit, for there is an exception. No need to expatiate.

Prakṛteḥ sukumārataraṃ, na kiṃcid astīti me matir bhavati |
yā dṛṣṭāsmīti punar, na darśanam upaiti puruṣasya  |61|

61. My opinion is that nothing exists more bashful than Nature, who knowing that ‘I have been seen’ does not appear again before Soul.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Let this be so. [But] an actress, who, after having shown her dance to the stage-goers and received reward, ceases, may [be seen to] engage again [in it] through curiosity. Similarly the Prime Agent too, having exhibited herself to Soul and ceased from knowledge, may evolve again.’ To meet this it is said, My opinion etc.

More bashful or modest. I have been seen/ thinking this she does not appear again before Soul, does not become an object of sight. As a youthful and virtuous lady of family, having been seen secretly or while going by a man at the door, blushes with modest shame and quickly moves away,—she disappears from the gaze of the stranger feeling ‘ I have been seen by him ’; so Nature, when seen with the eye of knowledge by the stranger Soul, feels abashed like the matron and does not expose herself again to his view. It is only when discriminative knowledge [has been attained by Soul] that there is an obstruction to [further] evolution on the part of [Nature]; such is the sense.

Tasmān na badhyate addhā, na mucyate nāpi saṁsarati kaścit |
saṃsarati badhyate mucyate ca nānāśrayā prakṛtiḥ  |62|

62. Wherefore not any [Soul] is bound, or is liberated, or migrates; it is Nature, which, in connection with various beings, is bound, is released, and migrates.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Let this be so; but if soul be without modes and modifications, how can there be bondage for it in the shape of pleasure and pain? nor can there be liberation for it, since bondage and emancipation must have a common subject. Thus “with the purpose of soul’s liberation” is a meaningless phrase. On the pretence of concluding [the author] removes this doubt, Wherefore, etc.:

In reality Soul, being without union, is free of bondage and liberation; so it is said in the Śruti: “There is no destruction [for it] and no origin; [it] is neither bound nor active, nor desirous of salvation, nor liberated; this is the truth.”  Such is the sense.

How then does it seem bound and so forth? The reply is: It is Nature, etc. It is Nature which, as the resting-place of various souls, seems so on account of intellect and the other modes. Thus bondage and the rest are attributed to Soul owing to connection with consciousness in which it resides, and not because they are there too. This is the meaning.

Rūpaiḥ saptabhir eva tu badhnāty ātmānam ātmanā prakṛtiḥ |
saiva ca puruṣasyārthaṃ prati, vimocayaty ekarūpeṇa  |63|

63. By seven modes does Nature bind herself by herself, and by one mode does she free herself for the benefit of Soul.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Well, it has been said that the bondage of pleasure or pain is attributed to soul through connection with Nature. [But] how does the latter bind or liberate? [The author] replies. By seven modes, etc.:

With reference to [one] object of Soul, [viz.] experience, it binds Soul  by herself, [that is], in the form of consciousness, by seven modes, [viz.,] virtue, dispassion, power, vice, ignorance, passion and weakness ; with reference to the [other] object, [viz.,] liberation, characterised by repose in itself, it frees by one mode, [viz.,] knowledge, [it] releases [Soul] from migration. This shows that [even] in the absence of asceticism and dispassion, knowledge can bring about salvation. So it is said in the Vedānta, “On the acquisition of perfect knowledge and on the restriction (or cessation) of the two [asceticism and dispassion], liberation is surely attained; but obvious pain ceases not." The two, that is, asceticism and dispassion; obvious pain, viz. that attendant upon obvious actions. Of dispassion in the shape of rejection of objects of sense, the result is not salvation but only absence of hankering after those objects, the associated evils having been seen; similarly of asceticism in the form of control of intellect, which may be effected by restraint, etc., the result is non-perception of duality and not emancipation. For the Śrutis lay down that that is attainable by knowledge alone. Enough.

Evaṃ tattvābhyāsān, nāsmi na me nāham ity aparishesham |
aviparyayād viśuddhaṃ, kevalam utpadyate jñānam.  |64|

64. So by a study of the principles is the final, incontrovertible and only one knowledge attained that I am not, naught is mine, and the ego exists not.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Let isolation (or beatitude) be by knowledge, but whence is it, and of what form? Hence it is said, So by a study, etc.:

By means of the study already described which brings about a cognition of Soul, by continued meditation and reflection, arises the one knowledge [or] intuition which makes [us] acquainted only with self; such is the import. It is by the mind aided by meditation that the knowledge of self without an alternative is gained, [and] not by testimony or inference, for, it is implied, that these are not competent thereto. As is said by the sage Patañjali in his cognate (philosophical) work, “Knowledge that embraces the (supreme) Truth is different from knowledge derived from testimony and inference, because it has a distinct object.”

The form is next described, I am not, etc.: that is, I am not the agent, this shows that I am distinct from Intellect; nor is mine, scilicet pain, this implies that pain and the like are not to be attributed [to Soul] ; the ego is not, this indicates the contrary of egotism.

Complete, which has no other end. So it is said in the Yoga Sūtras, “knowledge thereof is finally seven-fold.” Pure from negating doubt, authoritative, capable of exterminating the impression of untrue knowledge. Such cognition, productive of an intuition of self is described as a knowledge of principles. This is the sense.

Tena nivrittaprasavām, arthavaśāt saptarūpavinivrittāḥ |
prakṛtim paśyati puruṣaḥ, prekṣakavad avasthitaḥ svasthaḥ  |65|

65. With this [knowledge] Soul, unmoved and self-collected, as a spectator, con-templates Nature, who has ceased from production [and] consequently reverted from the seven forms [to her original state].

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

What does Soul after attaining a knowledge of principles? It is replied, with this, etc.:

Possessed of the knowledge before mentioned Soul looks at Nature, self-collected like a spectator, when the Primal Agent, having produced effects which cause experience and perception of difference, has ceased therefrom. As a spectator on the stage beholds, unmoved and unaffected, a dancer who is singing and dancing, so Soul too contemplates Nature in those productive stages. This Primal Evolvent by its own attributes binds Soul and [then] releases it.

Dṛṣṭā mayety upekṣata, eko dṛṣṭāham ity uparatānyā |
sati saṃyoge api tayoḥ, prayojanaṃ ṇāsti sargasya  |66|

66. The one disregards because ‘I have seen;’ the other desists because ‘I have been seen;’ [and] notwithstanding their conjunction there is no occasion for [further] evolution.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

‘But since there is a constant conjunction of Nature and Soul, why does the former cease [from production]?’ To [meet] this [objection] it is said, The one, etc.:

Notwithstanding their conjunction, there is nothing that urges to creation, no occasion or concomitant cause thereof; therefore among them the other, [viz.] Nature, desists, [that is], leaves off creating; this is the construction. And why is there no [creation]? It is replied, the one disregards, etc. Among them one, [viz.,] soul, disregards, beholds without interest, knowing “I have seen Nature, which is different from me and [yet] by contact binds me;” any prompting towards further experience becomes extinct [in it], as in a spectator who has seen the dancer. This is because of Nature’s evolution the concomitant cause is the non-apprehension by Soul of the different character of the world-stuff; when this is seen that [cause] ceases to operate; such is the meaning.

Samyagjñānādhigamād, dharmādīnām akāraṇaprāptau
tiṣṭhati saṃskāravaśāc, cakrabhramivad dhritaśarīraḥ  |67|

67. The attainment of adequate knowledge renders virtue and the rest inoperative; [Soul, however,] like a wheel revolving from the effect of [previously-received] impulse, remains [for a while] invested with a frame.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

‘But the text in the Śruti, “Of him who has beheld the all-pervasive [Spirit] the heartstrings crack, all doubts are resolved, and [the effects of] works fail,” indicates that on liberation consequent upon the attainment of a knowledge of principles, [there is] a destruction of the body with the failure of all effects. How can then Nature be seen, for to knowledge a frame is necessary. The reply is, The attainment, etc.:

Adequate knowledge, that which is capable of destroying false knowledge. By the rise or origination of that, virtue and the rest, of conditions different from those which originate the body, accumulated and in the process of acquisition, [are reduced to] the condition of burnt seeds. As before demonstrated, [they are] by discriminative knowledge rendered inoperative, incapable of producing the due results in their proper state. Through the influence of impulse, the invisible force bringing body into being, the existent frame re-mains, as the revolution of the wheel ceases not through inertia even when the potter’s work has ended. What has been begun is destructible only by fruition.  Therefore it is said in the Śruti? “The delay is only so long as liberation is not attained, then we merge in the Supreme Spirit.’’ So by lord Vyāsa also in the Vedānta, “others reduce it by experience.” ‘On acquisition of a knowledge of principles there is a destruction of effects:’ here on the removal of the prior privation of such knowledge the non-production of the results at first is alone meant, and not the destruction of the body also. This is the substance.

Prāpte śarīrabhede, caritārthatvāt pradhānavinivrittau |
aikāṅtikam ātyantikam, ubhayaṃ kaivalyam āpnoti  |68|

68. When owing to gratification of ends, [its ] separation from the body takes place and Nature ceases to act, [ Soul ] obtains both absolute and final isolation.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

‘But if [Soul] stays even after a knowledge of principles has arisen, when does it attain liberation?’ It is replied, When owing to gratification, etc.:

When separation from the body or its destruction takes place through exhaustion of destiny, [ and when ] because of fulfilment, [that is], satisfaction of the needs of experience and liberation by means of intellect and the rest, Nature ceases to act with reference to Soul. With the death of the body [Soul] attains isolation [or] freedom from pain marked by two qualities. The two are named: final, certain, absolute, characterised by an absence of the regeneration of the genus pain. The isolation is two-fold, because of these qualities. The substance of the whole is that a person who has envisaged the ego and whose infinite impurities have been consumed by experience through exhaustion of destiny, obtains true, certain and absolute freedom from pain.

Puruṣārthaṃjñānam idaṃ, guhyam paramarshiṇā samākhyātam |
sthityutpattipralayāc, cintyate yatra bhūtānām  |69|

69. This abstruse knowledge, which is for the benefit of Soul, and in which the origin, production and dissolution of beings are considered, has been thoroughly expounded by the great sage.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

For the assurance of the wise it is said, This abstruse knowledge, etc.:

The knowledge which effects Soul’s benefit or purpose, viz., final beatitude, and [which is] abstruse, not intelligible to the many, has been expounded by the great sage Kapila.

Yatra (where) is a locative of purpose, the sense being, in order to acquire which knowledge.

Etat pavitram agryam, munir āsuraye anukampayā pradadau |
āsurir api pañcaśikhāya tena bahulīkṛtaṃ tantram  |70|

70. This, the first of purifying doctrines, the sage imparted to Āsuri out of compassion; and Āsuri [taught it] to Pañcaśikhā, by whom it was extensively made known.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

It is next traced how the knowledge of principles expounded by the sage has descended, This, the first, etc.:

Pure, sacred; first, chief of all holy [sciences]. The sage, Kapila, gave or imparted to Āsuri out of compassion. He again explained it to Pañcaśikhā, who made it known extensively by instruction to disciples. This is the sense.

Śiṣyaparamparayāgatam, īśvarakrishṇena caitad āryābhiḥ |
saṃkṣiptam āryamatinā, samyag vijñāya siddhāntam  |71|

71. Received from a succession of disciples, it was compendiously composed in Ārya metre by the pious-minded Iśvara Kṛṣṇa, who had adequately learnt the demonstrated truth.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

Did Īśvara Krishna receive it directly? It is replied, Received from, etc.:

Āryā is the name of a metre; a poem composed in that is also called an āryā. In the said Āryā. How? After having learnt the demonstrated truth by adequate study and meditation.

Saptatyāṃ khalu ye arthās te arthāḥ kṛtsnasya ṣaṣṭitantrasya |
ākhyāyikāvirahitāḥ, paravādavivarjitāḥ ca api  |72|

72. The subjects dealt with in seventy- stanzas comprise the whole [science] consisting of sixty topics, excluding anecdotes as well as controversial matters.

Nārāyaṇa Bhāṣya

It is next said that inasmuch as it indicates the meaning of the doctrine it is a scientific treatise and not [merely] an introduction, The subjects, etc.:

Of the doctrine comprising sixty topics, [viz.,] Soul, Nature, etc., the whole meaning is expounded in the seventy kārikās. How? Without the anecdotes, exclusive of illustrative tales and the like. Also, purged of Controversy, without reference to the six systems of philosophy. For instance, in the aphorisms of Kapila in six books, the fourth [contains] anecdotes [and] the fifth refutation of others’ opinions; these are absent here, this is the Sense. In another work the sixty things are thus enumerated: “Soul, Nature, intellect, egoism, the three constitutive powers, the elemental rudiments, the sense-organs, and the gross elements, these are remembered as the ten radicals;  obstruction is five-fold, contentment nine, disabilities of the instruments are believed to be twenty eight; these together with the eight perfections make up the sixty topics.” Now, since here the sixty topics are discussed [and considered], this is not an introduction but a principal work; this has been demonstrated.