671. Some of the Bengal texts read sumahan and subuddhih in the second line. Of course, this is incorrect. The true reading is samanah and sabuddhih, meaning 'with mind and with understanding.' In the Bombay edition occurs a misprint, viz., sumanah for samanah. Nilakantha cites the correct readings.
672. The Burdwan translator misunderstands the word Linga as used in both 14 and 15. K.P. Singha also wrongly renders that word as it occurs in 15. The commentator rightly explains that Linga has no reference to Linga-sarira or the invisible body composed of the tanmatra of the primal elements, but simply means the gross body. In 14, he says, Lingat sthuladehat, Lingam tadeva dehantaram. In 15, anena Lingena Savibhutena. Adristhah means alakshitah. A little care would have removed such blunders.
673. The commentator cites the Gita which furnishes a parallel passage, viz., Indriyani paranyahurindriyebhyah param manah, etc.
674. This verse seems to show that the Rishis had knowledge of spectacles, and probably also, of microscopes. The instrument that shewed minute objects must have been well known, otherwise some mention would have been made of it by name. The commentator calls it upanetra.
675. By death on sleep.
676. Yugapat means simultaneous; atulyakalam means differing in point of time in respect of occurrence; kritsnam qualifies indriyartham; Vidwan means Sakshi; and ekah, independent and distinct. What is intended to be said here is that when the soul, in a dream, musters together the occurrences and objects of different times and places, when, in fact, congruity in respect of both time and place does not apply to it, it must be regarded to have an existence that is distinct and independent of the senses and the body.
677. The object of this is to show that the Soul has only knowledge of the pleasures and pains arising in consequence of Sattwa and Rajas and Tamas and in connection with the three states of the understanding due to the same three attributes. The Soul, however, though knowing them, does not enjoy or suffer them. He is only the silent and inactive Witness of everything.
678. The object of the simile is to show that as wind is a separate entity although existing with the fire in a piece of wood, so the Soul, though existing with the senses is distinct from them.
679. The Bengal texts read indriyanam which I adopt. The Bombay edition reads indriyendriyam, meaning the sense of the senses, in the same way as the Srutis declare that is the Prana of Prana, the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, etc., Sravanena darsanam tatha kritam is 'apprehended by the ear,' i.e., as rendered above, 'apprehended through the aid of the Srutis.'
680. The commentator uses the illustration of a tree. Before birth the tree was not; and after destruction, it is not; only in the interim, it is. Its formlessness or nothingness is manifest from these two states, for it has been said that which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future cannot be regarded as existing in the present. Tadgatah is explained by the commentator as udayastamanagatah or taddarsinah.