^295:2 He is absorbed in prana. Or should it be pranah as nominative?

^296:1 According to another reading we might translate, 'Speech takes away all names from that body; and prana, in which speech is absorbed, thus obtains all names.'

^296:2 I read udulham or ududham, instead of adudham, explained by the commentator as aduduhat. Professor Cowell translates, 'Speech verily milked one portion thereof,' which may have been the original purport of the writer.

^297:1 Professor Cowell has translated a passage from the commentary which is interesting as showing that its author and the author of the Upanishad too had a clear conception of the correlative nature of knowledge. 'The organ of sense,' he says, 'cannot exist without pragna (self-consciousness), nor the objects of sense be obtained without the organ, therefore--on the principle, that when one thing cannot exist without another, that thing is said to be identical with the other--as the cloth, for instance, being never perceived without the threads, is identical with them, or the (false perception of) silver being never found without the mother of pearl is identical with it, so the objects of sense being never found without the organs are identical with them, and the organs being never found without pragna (self-consciousness) are identical with it.

^299:1 The other text says, 'whom he wishes to draw after him; and whom he wishes to draw away from these worlds.' Ramatirtha, in his commentary on the Mait. Up. 3, 2, quotes the text as translated above.