1061. The Bengal reading buddhah is preferable to the Bombay reading Suddhah which would be pleonastic in view of what follows in the second line.
1062. Lokam is explained as lokyate iti lokah, i.e., objects of enjoyment such as wife, etc., aturam, is afflicted with faults or defects. Ubhayam kritakritam is as the commentator explains, sokasokarupam or aropitam and anaropitam.
1063. Many of the verses of this and the previous section correspond with those of section 194 ante. Many verbal changes, however, are noticeable. In consequences of those changes, the meaning sometimes becomes lightly and sometimes materially different.
1064. Gocharaebhyah, literally, pastures, is used here to signify all external and internal objects upon which the senses and the mind are employed. Their proper home or abode is said to be Brahma.
1065. The absence of anything like precision in the language employed in such verses frequently causes confusion. The word atma as used in the first line is very indefinite. The commentator thinks it implies achetanabuddhi, i.e., the perishable understanding. I prefer, however, to take it as employed in the sense of Chit as modified by birth. It comes, I think, to the same thing in the end. The 'inner Soul' is, perhaps, the Soul or Chit as unmodified by birth and attributes.
1066. Abhavapratipattyartham is explained by the commentator as 'for the attainment of the unborn or the soul.'
1067. The commentator explains the first line thus: yatha sarvani matani tatha etani vachansi me. He takes the words: yatha tatha kathitani maya as implying that 'I have treated of the topic yathatathyena.'
1068. The commentator explains that tasya tasya has reference to gandhadeh. Pracharah means vyavahara. Pasyatah is Vidushah.
1069. i.e., one that only knows the Vedas and has observed the vow of Brahmacharya is not a superior Brahmana. To become so requires something more.
1070. I follow the commentator closely in rendering this verse. Sarvavit is taken in the sense of Brahmavit. Akamah is one contented with knowledge of Self. Such a man, the Srutis declare, never dies or perishes. The two negatives in the last clause nullify each other. The Burdwan translator, with the gloss before him, for he cites copiously from it, misunderstands the negatives. K.P. Singha is correct.