etc., implies that the bearing
of the sceptre is only a mode of life like that of holders of the
triple-stick. Both the king and the Sannyasin are free to acquire
knowledge and both, therefore, may attain to Emancipation notwithstanding
their respective emblems. In the emblems themselves there is no efficacy
or disqualification.

1684. The object of this verse is to show that all persons, led by
interest, become attached to particular things. The littleness or
greatness of those things cannot aid or bar people's way to Emancipation.
'I may be a king, says Janaka, and thou mayst be a mendicant. Neither thy
mendicancy nor my royalty can aid or obstruct our Emancipation. Both of
us, by Knowledge, can achieve what we wish, notwithstanding our outward
surroundings.'

1685. Hence, by changing my royal life for that of a bearer of the
triple-stick I can gain nothing.

1686. Yukte in the first line means in the Yogin. The Bombay reading
Tridandanke is a mistake for Tridandakam. The Bombay text reads na
muktasyasti gopana, meaning that 'there is no relief for one that has
fallen down after having arisen in Yoga.' The Bengal text reads
vimuktasya. I adopt the Bengal reading.

1687. What the king says is that he, the king, had made no assignation
with the lady is consequence of which she could be justified in entering
his body. The word Sannikarsha here means sanketa. Both the vernacular
translators render this word wrongly.

1688. These faults and merits are set forth in the verses that follow.

1689. Saukshmyam, is literally minuteness. It means ambiguity here. I
have rendered verse 81 very closely to give the reader an idea of the
extreme terseness of these verses. For bringing out the meaning of the
verse, the following illustration may serve. A sentence is composed
containing some words each of which is employed in diverse senses, as the
well-known verse of Parasara which has been interpreted to sanction the
remarriage of Hindu widows. Here, the object indicated by the words used
are varied. Definite knowledge of the meaning of each word is arrived at
by means of distinctions, i.e., by distinguishing each meaning from every
other. In such cases, the understanding before arriving at the definite
meaning, rests in succession upon diverse points, now upon one, now upon
another. Indeed, the true meaning is to be arrived at in such cases by a
process of elimination. When such processes become necessary and or
seizing the s