1661. Chakre literally means 'I made'. The commentator explains it as equivalent to swayam avirbhut.
1662. Vipriya evidently means 'what is not agreeable.' There was evidently a dispute between Yajnavalkya and his maternal uncle Vaisampayana, the celebrated disciple of Vyasa. This dispute is particularly referred to in the next verse. Vaisampayana had been a recognised teacher of the Vedas and had collected a large number of disciples around him. When, therefore, the nephew Yajnavalkya, having obtaining the Vedas from Surya, began to teach them, he was naturally looked upon with a jealousy, which culminated (as referred to in the next verse) into an open dispute about the Dakshina to be appropriated in the Sacrifice of Janaka. The Burdwan translator incorrectly renders the word vipriya which he takes to mean as 'very agreeable.' In the Vishnu Purana it is mentioned that a dispute took place between Yajnavalkya and Paila. The latter's preceptor, Vyasa, came, and taking his side, asked Yajnavalkya to return him the Vedas which he had obtained from him. Yajnavalkya vomited forth the Vedas. These were instantly devoured by two other Rishis in the form of Tittiri birds. These afterwards promulgated the Taittiriya Upanishads.
1663. This shows that I was then regarded as the equal of Vaisampayana himself in the matter of Vedic knowledge. Sumanta and Paila and Jaimini, with Vaisampayana, were the Rishis that assisted the great Vyasa in the task of arranging the Vedas.
1664. This is called the fourth science, the three others being the three Vedas, Axis culture, and the science of morality and chastisement.
1665. Prakriti is regarded as something in which Sattwa, Rajas, and Tamas reside in exactly equal proportion. All the principles of Mahat, etc. which flow from Prakriti, are characterised by these three attributes in diverse measure.
1666. By Mitra is meant here the deity giving light and heat. By Varuna is meant the waters that compose the universe.
1667. Kah, the commentator explained, is anandah or felicity.
1668. The comparison lies in the folly of the two persons indicated. One churning ass's milk for butter is only a fool. Similarly, one failing to understand the nature of Prakriti and Purusha from the Vedas is only a fool.
1669. Gives a literal rendering of this verse for showing how difficult it is to understand the meaning. The commentator correctly explains the sense which is as follows: anyah or the other is the Soul as distinguished from its reflection upon Prakriti, that is the Soul in its real character as independent of Prakriti. What is said here is that when the Soul, in its real character beholds, or acts as a witness of everything (i.e., as exists in the states of wakefulness and dream), becomes conscious of both itself (the Twenty-fifth) and Prakriti (the Twenty-fourth) when, however, it ceases to behold or act as such witness (i.e., in the state of dreamless slumber of Yoga-samadhi), it succeeds in beholding the Supreme Soul or the Twenty-sixth. In simple language what is said here is that the Soul becomes conscious of both itself and Prakriti in the state of wakefulness and dream. In Samadhi alone, it beholds the Supreme Soul.
1670. What is said here is that the Twenty-sixth or the Supreme Soul always beholds the Twenty-fifth or the Jiva-soul. The latter, however, filled with vanity, regards that there is nothing higher than it. It can easily, in Yoga-samadhi, behold the Twenty-sixth. Though thus competent to behold the Supreme Soul, it fails ordinarily to behold it. The commentator sees in this verse a repudiation of the doctrine of the Charvakas and the Saugatas who deny that there is a Twenty-sixth Tattwa or even a Twenty-fifth which they identify with the Twenty-fourth.