^64:1 Satta in the original; it is rendered sattva by the commentators. Perhaps satta is the Prakrit for svatma; at any rate, the context of the next verse proves that soul is intended.

^64:2 Amurta. In later philosophy murtatva is defined as the possessing of definite and limited form (parikkhinnaparimanavattvam) or the possessing of action (kriyavattvam or vegavattvam). Amurta dravya are with the Vaiseshikas: the air (akasa), time, space, and Atman. These are also called nityadravya. Amurta is here apparently synonymous with arupin, formless, compare XXXVI, 4, where dharma, adharma, akasa, and kala are enumerated as the 'formless things without life.'

^65:1 Literally, the nights. It seems to have been the custom at the time when the Sutras were composed, to reckon the time by nights, though the reckoning by days is not quite uninstanced in the Sutras.

^65:2 This is the explanation of duhao by the commentators, who apparently think that the parents and the sons are meant. The word in question is originally an adverb, but it is also (cf. Thirteenth Lecture, verse 18) taken by the commentator as a numeral, and rendered dvayoh. A genitive of the dual occurs in XIX, 90.

^66:1 Cyprinus Rohita.

^67:1 It was considered a privilege of the king to confiscate the property of a man who had no heir; compare Gautama XXVIII, 42, Vasishtha XVII, 83-86, &c.

^67:2 This apparently refers to the birds mentioned in the last verse. The commentators labour to interpret them as 'pleasures,' but that will not make good sense.

^68:1 Kulala in the original. Kulala in Sanskrit denotes the wild cock, Phasianus Gallus. The word seems to be derived from kulaya by assimilation of the y to the preceding consonant, compare saliya for saliya = sarita = sarit. In the sense of bird the word kulala seems to be used in the well-known stanza of 'A Bhartrihari: brahma yena kulalavan niyamito brahmandabhandodare, unless here kulala is an early corruption for kulayin.

^68:2 The commentators assign these verses to the two sons of Bhrigu; but then the verses do not construe. Besides the mention of the 'large kingdom' in the first line seems to prove that the king, and not the Brahmans, is to be understood as the person addressed. In the last line I separate pagigghaha kkhayam (scil. tavam), instead of pagiggh'ahakkhayam. It is, however, just possible that the next verse is to be connected with the preceding ones; in that case, we must read pagiggh' and interpret it in conformity with the scholiast as a gerund.