1671. Tatsthanat is explained by the commentator as Varasya avaradhisrhanat, i.e., in consequence of vara overlying the avara. The instance of the string and the snake is cited. At first the string is erroneously taken for the snake. When the error is dispelled, the string appears as the string. Thus the Supreme and the Jiva-soul come to be taken as one when true knowledge comes.
1672. The ordinary doctrine is that the Jiva-soul is indestructible, for it is both unborn and deathless, its so called births and deaths being only changes of the forms which Prakriti undergoes in course of her association with it, an association that continues as long as the Jiva-soul does not succeed in effecting its emancipation. In this verse the ordinary doctrine is abandoned. What is said here is that the Jiva-soul is not deathless, for when it becomes identified with the Supreme Soul, that alteration may be taken as its death.
1673. This is a very difficult verse. Pasya and apasya are drashtri and drisya, i.e., knower and known (or Soul and Prakriti) Kshemaya and Tattwo are drik and drisya, i.e., knowledge and known. One that sees no difference between these that is, one that regards all things as one and the same, is both Kevala and not-Kevala, etc, meaning that such a person, though still appearing as a Jiva (to others) is in reality identifiable with the Supreme Soul.
1674. This may mean that as men speak, and as speech is Brahma, all men must be regarded as utterers of Brahma. If, again, Brahma be taken to mean the Vedas in special, it may imply that all men utter the Vedas or are competent to study the Vedas. Such an exceedingly liberal sentiment from the mouth of Yajnavalkya is compatible only with the religion of Emancipation which he taught.
1675. The doctrine is that unless acts are destroyed, there can be no Emancipation.
1676. Literally, 'these are not obstacles by external nature,' and are therefore irremovable by personal exertion of the ordinary kind.
1677. Sanchodayishyanti implies questioned. Here it means questioning the king internally or by Yoga power.
1678. Utsmayan is explained by the Commentators as 'priding himself upon his own invincibleness.' Ayaya bhavam implies her determination to make the king dumb. Visesayan is abhibhavan.
1679. Sammantum is explained by the Commentator as equivalent to samyak jnatum.
1680. It is difficult to say in what sense the word vaiseshikam is used here. There is a particular system of philosophy called Vaiseshika or Kanada; the system believed to have been originally promulgated by a Rishi of the name of Kanada. That system has close resemblance to the atomic theory of European philosophers. It has many points of striking resemblance with Kapila's system or Sankhya. Then, again, some of the original principles, as enunciated in the Sankhya system, are called by the name of Visesha.