Summary: mind on the soul only, into the eternal nothingness he comes, into me. 19. Oft see the canopied spot silent, void of all fear, with heart on the soul, void of all craving; so shall the man of the Rule fare to that peace which abides with me. 20. The sufferer relinquishes the fruit of action ere yet it is tasted; the disinterested man in all his acts lets it fall as fruit over a gate into a neighbour’s field; 21. Purified of touch-senses, ruled, steadfast, given over to the soul, Void of desire and driven by desire, of ego- ereffacing, he shall come upon peace in extinction. 22. The man to soul all souls deem alike is ever a soul under the Rule; by so much a soul under the Rule, be he Renouncer or Performer, is well in the eye. 23. The Yogi who with settled mind though walking and doing, with resolute soul and mind only for friut, meets good and evil alike, is the best The men of the Rule are those that 34. And the whole world is to them but a hill of pain, O Kan« gta; they come not there in twain who live to the soul. 35. The man who has of himself gained the soul, who is given over to the will of the soul, and has the soul supreme over mind and sense-instrument, shall find peace and rest by proper conduct in the Rule. 36. The man of the Rule who is given over at work to the soul, who finds peace in the soul, and whose soul is captive to the soul, sees equilibrium in all things, be it rough or smooth. 107 BHAGAVADGITA 32. That native Rule which a man in love of the peaceful soul receives not, which a man in wrath hij ethers not, that Rule 1s not in him; CHAPTER IV. By self-giving knowledge duty 1s done and whatev 1s .10633. The Rule, withA grave-stone Book beating on one’s breast dwelt in by a self less m thinking, is to knowing it by the unfledged-hearted as the man of the Rule." The man where he dwells. comes not affect${ to affect it'; the fussy cleat Four dead nor those that resent seeing in day-dreamts ‘Confusing (and scarce but living), those who confuse seeing for doing, drift$ alike by not seeing and by seeing.’ LessON THE FIFTH 1. Arjuna said: ‘Thou praisest unstinted Renunciation, Krishna, and also the Rule of Self-giving Knowledge. Tell me decisively which one shall best secure my honour?’ Bhagavadgita shall win to bliss, and by that bliss at whati The Blm all the Law of Requital, thus being disjointed, at work in Hitmas doubt, may be made whole afterward in soul rebuilding.’ 2. The Supreme Lord answered: ‘Renunciation, O faultless Prince, and Self-giving Knowledge alike lead to the soul’s bliss; but of these twain self-giving Knowledge excels Renunciation in action. 3. He that has no hate for any beings, friendly alike to all, and merciful alike amid friends and foes, comes nigh to the Rule of Self-giving Knowledge beyond Renunciation. 4. That man whose soul is free from the taint of attachment, and who has the soul alone for his bliss and Beyond, and whose acts are devoted to the soul, is deeme} the palmiest of wor-thy worshipper2; of the seers, he is the best, he who keeps equal in pleasantness and in pain, in praise and in blame, toward every creature. 5. And again, O son of Pritha, the man of the soul who is void of all wishes, who is cleansed of heart and soul, of gentleness and pridelessness. 6. Whose soul is alike in love and hate, like and unlike, stoic and fearful, alike in evil and good repute, who is the same for foes and friends and in honour a
tributed to an authoritative text (Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma-Sutras) that ‘ Brahman affirms the universe through ‘ word, name, and form’ is a saying beyond which the theologian may indeed not pass, though it is little more than a paraphrase of that directly taken over from the Upanishads. A further note may be added in correction of what was implied by the abrupt quotation from Roth at p. 245. There are other schools of Aryan thought than those of Yama, Vyasa, and Samkara; and Hinduism would seem to owe its range and flexibility to the fact that these no less authen- tic and well-attested schools of thought have ever co-existed with and even legitimately claimed to expound the accepted tradition. No Hindu possessing elementary knowledge of his religion would maintain that this faith lacks a sacerdotal basis. The scholar whose creed is not based on a text of religious authority may ignore a priesthood. But that text does exist. Roth, indeed, asserts that it is the recitation of the Vedic texts that exercises the amuletic effect described. ‘ The reciter descends from his proper sphere; it is as if he took the God-client under his protection,’ he says. This protection is due, not to the demigods or to the departed ancestors from whom the expected reward for sacrifices is sought, but to the manes, who are properly propitiated only with libations of milk and water. This, however, like the obligation of the recitation of the Vedic texts, is, it may be said, not a necessary part of ‘ Hinduism,’ since the humanistic motive and practice, as illustrated in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, have retained their force under such diverse interpretation.WriteBarrier.