^301:1 M. reads asrameshv evavasthitas tapasvi kety ukyata ity, etad apy uktam, &c. This would mean, 'For it is said that he only who has dwelt in the asramas is also called a Tapasvin, a real ascetic; and this also has been said, that no one obtains self-knowledge except an ascetic.' This is not impossible, but the commentator follows the text as printed by Cowell. AI. reads atmagnanenadhigamah, karmasuddhi.

^301:2 M. reads manasa prapyate tv atma hy atmaptya na nivartata iti.

^301:3 M. reads pura eta, which may be right.

^301:4 Rathitah is a very strange word, but, like everything else, it is explained by the commentator, viz. as ratham prapito rathitvam ka prapita iti yavat. Nevertheless the reading of M. seems to me preferable, viz. atha yaih paripurno 'bhibhuto 'yam tathaitais ka, taih sarvair vimukta svatmany eva sayugyam upaiti. I should prefer vimuktas tv atmany eva, and translate, 'But then, freed from all those things by which he was filled and likewise was overcome by them, he obtains union with the Self.'

^302:1 M. reads the second time abhivady asmiti, which is no improvement. It might have been ativadyasiti.

^302:2 M. reads Yamah prano.

^302:3 This is, of course, the personal Brahma of the Hindu triad. To distinguish this personal Brahma from the impersonal, I sometimes give his name in the nom. masc., Brahma, and not the grammatical base, Brahman.

^302:4 M. reads ya va asya. The commentator explains ya vasyah by vasayogyah; or ya va yah by kaskit, admitting a Vedic irregularity which is not quite clear.