^231:1 This translation seems the one which Sankara himself prefers, for on p. 277, when recapitulating, he says, kim brahma karanam ahosvit kaladi. In comparing former translations, whether by Weber, Roer, Gough, and others, it will be seen that my own differs considerably from every one of them, and differs equally from Sankara's interpretation. It would occupy too much space to criticise former translations, nor would it seem fair, considering how long ago they were made, and how imperfect were the materials which were then accessible. All I wish my readers to understand is that, if I differ from my predecessors, I do so after having carefully examined their renderings. Unfortunately, Roer's edition of both the text and the commentary is often far from correct. Thus in the very first verse of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, I think we ought to read sampratishthah, instead of sampratishthitah. In the commentary the reading is right. Vyavasyam is a misprint for vyavastham. In the second verse we must separate kalah and svabhavah. Yadrikhha no very unusual word, meaning chance, was formerly taken for a name of the moon! Instead of na tvatmabhavat, both sense and metre require that we should read anatmabhavat, though the commentators take a different view. They say, because there is a self, and then go on to say that even that would not suffice. Such matters, however, belong to a critical commentary on the Upanishads rather than to a translation, and I can refer to them in cases of absolute necessity only, and where the readings of the two MSS., A. and B, seem to offer some help.

^232:1 Svabhava, their own nature or independent character.

^232:2 Union presupposes a uniter.

^232:3 Atma is explained by Sankara as the givah, the living self, and as that living self is in his present state determined by karman, work belonging to a former existence, it cannot be thought of as an independent cause.

^232:4 Devatmasakti is a very important term, differently explained by the commentators, but meaning a power belonging to the Deva, the Isvara, the Lord, not independent of him, as the Sankhyas represent Prakriti or nature. Herein lies the important distinction between Vedanta and Sankhya.

^232:5 Kalatmabhyam yuktani, kalapurushasamyuktani svabhavadini. Atman is here taken as synonymous with purusha in verse 2.