286.  Kutashtha is rendered by K. T. Telang as “the unconcerned one”, by Mr. Davies as “the lord on high.”  I incline to the scholiasts who explain it as “the uniform or the unchangeable one.”

287.  Sarvabhavena is explained by Sankara by Sarvatma-chintaya (thinking Me to be the soul of everything).  Sreedhara explains it as Sarvaprakarena.  Why may it not mean “with the whole soul” or “with excess of love.”

288.  I adopt Sankara’s explanation of the last compound of the first line of this sloka, Sreedhara explains it differently.

289.  Prabritti I render “inclination” and Nivritti as “disinclination.”  The inclination is, as all the commentators explain, towards righteous actions, and the disinclination,—­consequently, is about all unrighteous actions.  K. T. Telang renders these words as “action” and “inaction”.  Mr. Davies, following the French version of Burnouf, takes them to mean “the creation and its end.”

290.  Sankara seems to connect the genitive Jagatas with achitas Sreedhara connects it (which is natural) with Kshayaya, which I accept.

291.  ‘That’ evidently refers to sacrifice, penance, and gift, in the clause before.  The commentators, however, suggest that it may, besides, refer to Brahma.  I am myself not sure that it does not refer to Brahma.

292.  ’What the author wishes to lay down in these verses is that the words om, tat, and sat, have each their respective uses.  When used as directed here, such use cures the defects of the respective actions to which they are applied, it being understood that all three denote Brahma.

293.  Sanyasa I render Renunciation.  K. T. Telang does the same.  Mr. Davies renders it “abstention.”  So ‘Tyaga’ I render “abandonment.”  Mr. Davies renders it “renunciation.”  What the two words, however, mean is explained fully in the verses that follow.

294.  Both Sankara and Sreedhara explain the second line consisting of two propositions, the connecting verb bhavet being understood.

295.  I have used “when” for “whatever” to make the sentence grammatical.

296.  Davies, giving the sense correctly, does not follow the true order of the subject and the predicate.  Following Lassen, he renders kusala and akusala as “prosperous” and “unprosperous;” for medhabi K. T. Telang has rendered “talented” which has not the sanction of good usage.

297.  That is, as Sreedhara explains, one who hath renounced the fruit of actions.

298.  Kritante Sankara takes it as an adjective of Sankhye and thinks that the reference is to the Vedanta.  Sreedhara also seems to be of the same opinion.

299.  The substratum is the body.  The agent is the person that thinks himself to be the actor.  The organs are those of perception etc.  The efforts are the actions of the vital winds—­Prana, etc.  The deities are those that preside over the eye and the other senses.  The deities have no place in Kapila’s system.  Hence, if it is not the Vedanta, some system materially based upon Kapila’s and recognising the interference of the deities, seems to be indicated.  Atra is explained by Sreedhara as equivalent to “among” or “with these.”  I think, however, it means, “are here”, i.e., are enumerated here, or, in this connection.