Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2 - Shloka (Verse) 42

व्याख्या-- 'कामात्मानः'-- वे कामनाओंमें इतने रचे-पचे रहते हैं कि वे कामनारूप ही बन जाते हैं। उनको अपनेमें और कामनामें भिन्नता ही नहीं दीखती। उनका तो यही भाव होता है कि कामनाके बिना आदमी जी नहीं सकता, कामनाके बिना कोई भी काम नहीं हो सकता, कामनाके बिना आदमी पत्थरकी जड हो जाता है ,उसको चेतना भी नहीं रहती। ऐसे भाववाले पुरुष 'कामात्मानः' हैं।
स्वयं तो नित्य-निरन्तर ज्यों-का-त्यों रहता है, उसमें कभी घट-बढ़ नहीं होती, पर कामना आती-जाती रहती है और घटती-बढ़ती है। स्वयं परमात्माका अंश है और कामना संसारके अंशको लेकर है। अतः स्वयं और कामना--ये दोनों सर्वथा अलग-अलग हैं। परन्तु कामनामें रचे-पचे लोगोंको अपने स्वरूपका अलग भान ही नहीं होता।
'स्वर्गपराः'-- स्वर्गमें बढ़िया-से-बढ़िया दिव्य भोग मिलते हैं, इसलिये उनके लक्ष्यमें स्वर्ग ही सर्वश्रेष्ठ होता है और वे उसकी प्राप्तिमें ही रात-दिन लगे रहते हैं।
यहाँ 'स्वर्गपराः' पदसे उन मनुष्योंकी बात कही गयी है, जो वेदोंमें, शास्त्रोंमें वर्णित स्वर्गादि लोकोंमें आस्था रखनेवाले हैं।
वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिनः'-- वे वेदोंमें कहे हुए सकाम कर्मोंमें प्रीति रखनेवाले हैं अर्थात् वेदोंका तात्पर्य वे केवल भोगोंमें और स्वर्गकी प्राप्तिमें मानते हैं ,इसलिये वे 'वेदवादरताः' हैं। उनकी मान्यतामें यहाँके और स्वर्गके भोगोंके सिवाय और कुछ है ही नहीं अर्थात् उनकी दृष्टिमें भोगोंके सिवाय परमात्मा, तत्त्वज्ञान, मुक्ति, भगवत्प्रेम आदि कोई चीज है ही नहीं। अतः वे भोगोंमें ही रचे-पचे रहते हैं। भोग भोगना उनका मुख्य लक्ष्य रहता है।
'यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः'-- जिनमें सत्-असत्, नित्य-अनित्य, अविनाशी-विनाशीका, विवेक नहीं है, ऐसे अविवेकी मनुष्य वेदोंकी जिस वाणीमें संसार और भोगोंका वर्णन है, उस पुष्पित वाणीको कहा करते हैं।
यहाँ 'पुष्पिताम्' कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि भोग और ऐश्वर्यकी प्राप्तिका वर्णन करनेवाली वाणी केवल फूल-पत्ती ही है, फल नहीं है। तृप्ति फलसे ही होती है, फूल-पत्तीकी शोभासे नहीं। वह वाणी स्थायी फल देनेवाली नहीं है। उस वाणीका जो फल--स्वर्गादिका भोग है, वह केवल देखनेमें ही सुन्दर दीखता है, उसमें स्थायीपना नहीं है।
'जन्मकर्मफलप्रदाम्'-- वह पुष्पित वाणी जन्मरूपी कर्मफलको देनेवाली है; क्योंकि उसमें सांसारिक भोगोंको ही महत्व दिया गया है। उन भोगोंका राग ही आगे जन्म होनेमें कारण है (गीता 13। 21)।
'क्रियाविशेषबहुलां भोगैश्वर्यगतिं प्रति'-- वह पुष्पित अर्थात् दिखाऊ शोभायुक्त वाणी भोग और ऐश्वर्यकी प्राप्तिके लिये जिन सकाम अनुष्ठानोंका वर्णन करती है, उनमें क्रियाओंकी बहुलता रहती है अर्थात् उन अनुष्ठानोंमें अनेक तरहकी विधियाँ होती हैं, अनेक तरहकी क्रियाएँ करनी पड़ती हैं, अनेक तरहके पदार्थोंकी जरूरत पड़ती है एवं शरीर आदिमें परिश्रम भी अधिक होता है (गीता 18। 24)।

जिनमें निश्चयात्मिका बुद्धि नहीं है वे इस आगे कही जानेवाली पुष्पित वृक्षोंजैसी शोभित सुननेमें ही रमणीय जिस वाणीको कहा करते हैँ। कौन कहा करते हैं अज्ञानी अर्थात् अल्पबुद्धिवाले अविवेकी जो कि बहुत अर्थवाद और फलसाधनोंको प्रकाश करनेवाले वेदवाक्योंमें रत हैं। तथा हे पार्थ जो ऐसे भी कहनेवाले हैं कि स्वर्गप्राप्ति आदि फलके साधनरूप कर्मोंसे अतिरिक्त अन्य कुछ है ही नहीं।

If the authoritative intellect in the form of Sankhya and Yoga is one only, then why does that very one not become steady in the minds of all? To that He says 'yeṣām' (of whom), etc. 'Te' (They)—who speak this flowery speech; of the desirers whose minds are stolen by that. Due to the power of desire, the resolute intellect is generally not steady—He says 'te. yām', etc. 'Imām' (This)—due to being well-known as taken up by the injunction of study, the speech of the nature of Karma Kanda is intended. Its 'being spoken of' (vaksyamanatva) should be seen in 'kriyāviśeṣabahulām' etc. Just as the Kimshuka tree is experienced as shining endowed with flowers, but is not seen to possess fruit enjoyable by men; similarly, this speech of the nature of Karma Kanda is perceived as delightful in the state of being heard, due to the appearance of the relation of means and end; but this does not become the possessor of unsurpassed fruit, because the fruit of the performance of action is non-eternal; thinking thus, He says 'puṣpitām' (flowery). It appears as a sentence (vākya) because of the appearance of meaningfulness, but in reality, it is not a sentence because it is a semblance of meaning (arthābhāsa)—he says 'vākyalakṣaṇām'. He indicates the speakers' lack of knowledge of the purport of Vedic sentences with 'avipaścitaḥ' (the unwise). 'Vedavādāḥ'—Vedic sentences; and they are illuminators of many eulogies (arthavada), fruits, means, and subsidiaries of injunctions; 'rati' in them means attachment, being devoted to them; possessing that is also their qualification—he says 'vedavāda' (ratāḥ). He states the fruit of being devoted to Karma Kanda with 'nānyat' (there is nothing else). Saying 'There is no God or Liberation', being atheists, they do not possess right knowledge—this is the meaning.

'But for the irresolute, the resolute intellect does not exist due to the abundance of obstacles'—with this intention He speaks 'yām' etc. in three (verses). 'Yām imām'—this (speech) to be described; 'puṣpitām'—shining like a flowering tree that does not yield fruit, delightful merely to hear; of the form 'We drank Soma, we became immortal' etc.—such speech they speak. 'Avipaścitaḥ'—devoid of intelligence; 'vedavādaratāḥ'—delighting in the 'vāda'—arthavada (eulogy)—of the Veda, such as 'Imperishable indeed is the merit of the performer of Chaturmasya sacrifice'; therefore arguing 'na anyat'—there is nothing else like liberation etc. other than heaven. 'You, however, must accept My view alone'—indicating this, He says 'O Pārtha'.

Non-Vedic views might be irresolute, but not Vedic ones? (Answer): For even among them (Vedic followers), some speak of actions as having only heaven etc. as fruit—to this He says 'yām imām'. 'Which they speak, by that...'—is the connection. Relative to the fruit of liberation, they speak speech endowed with the 'flowers' of heaven etc. 'Vedavādaratāḥ'—delighting in the Vedic statements denoting action etc. Delighting only in what is said superficially by the Vedas. Saying 'there is nothing else'—because by texts like 'The Vedas have the Unseen as subject', 'The gods are fond of the cryptic' (Aitareya 1.14, Brihadaranyaka 4.2.2), 'It prescribes Me, it denotes Me' (Bhagavatam 11.21.43), etc., they (Vedas) generally speak of the Lord indirectly.

He explains the second half itself with 'yām imām' etc. 'Yām puṣpitām'—speech beautiful from a distance like a flowering tree; of the form 'Imperishable indeed is the merit of the performer of Chaturmasya', 'We drank Soma, we became immortal'—such speech they speak. 'Avipaścitaḥ'—the irresolute, the deluded. Because 'vedavādaratāḥ'—delighting in the arthavadas (eulogies) within the Veda, such as 'He whose Juhu (ladle) is made of Parna wood does not hear evil verse' etc.; having fixed faith (there). Therefore, arguing that other than action, Self-knowledge and its fruit Liberation 'do not exist'.

'Yām imām puṣpitām'—speech having fruit only like a flower (trivial) and beautiful at first glance; 'avipaścitaḥ'—those of little knowledge; speak (speech) which exists regarding the attainment of enjoyment and power. 'Vedavādaratāḥ'—attached to those statements of fruits like heaven etc. in the Vedas. 'Nānyadastīti vādinaḥ'—due to excessive attachment to that, saying that there is no other fruit greater than heaven etc. 'Kāmātmānaḥ'—whose minds are inclined to desire; 'svargaparāḥ'—devoted to heaven; yielding the fruit called rebirth and action at the end of the fruit like heaven etc.; 'kriyāviśeṣabahulām'—abounding in specific rites due to being devoid of knowledge of Reality. The connection is: those who speak this speech which exists regarding the attainment of their enjoyment and power.

Objection: Why do even the desirers not abandon miserable desires and form the resolute intellect itself? To that He says 'yām' etc. 'Puṣpitām'—delightful at first sight like a poisonous creeper; they speak the speech—the Shruti of fruits like heaven etc.—as excellent and intent on the supreme fruit itself. Of those whose minds are stolen by that speech, the resolute intellect is not formed—this is the connection with the third (verse). Why do they speak thus? Because 'avipaścitaḥ'—deluded. The reason therein: The 'vādāḥ'—arthavadas (eulogies) in the Veda—like 'Imperishable indeed is the merit of the performer of Chaturmasya', 'We drank Soma, we became immortal', etc.—delighting only in them. Therefore, saying that other than this, there is no Supreme Principle to be attained.

And by 'ityādinā' (etc.), it will be said immediately after. In the Upanishads, the ascent to heaven etc. by the path of smoke etc. is frequently proclaimed for the ignorant; therefore, due to the absence of injunction itself, the 'ārādupakārakatva' (being a remote auxiliary/unseen result) is also refuted. All this is said by 'avirodhācca'—meaning due to the absence of contradiction with scripture etc. And in the other view, there would be contradiction with scripture—this is the idea. Regarding the qualification for liberation, however, all this is different. For thus—the human goal of liberation is indeed the attainment of the nature as it is. How can that be desired if not ascertained? And how can the means to it be performed without knowledge of it and without desire for it? And since the knowledge of the true nature is enjoined, there is entry into the means; so how can the means be fully performed without it? And how can the experience of the fruit characterized by the manifestation of nature happen to one devoid of self-determination? Thus, there is contradiction with logic. And scriptures enjoin knowledge of Self-truth as helpful to liberation in every way. Therefore, in its absence, there would be contradiction with scripture. Objection: What is this 'oneness' of the resolute intellect? Not oneness of individual, because a continuous stream of such intellect is impossible (?). Nor uniformity due to unity of subject, because that is not possible due to the difference of intermediate subjects like subsidiary and principal. Nor unity due to having a collection as object, because that similarity exists even in optional actions? To this, it is said—'eka-phala-sādhana-viṣayatayā' (due to having the means to a single fruit as object). He explains that very thing—'ekasmai' (for one), etc. 'Sarvāṇi' (all)—of all actions, obligatory, occasional, and optional, performed by the seeker of liberation, since they assist the means to liberation directly or indirectly, 'Liberation' is the one principal fruit. Statements of intermediate fruits like 'He lives the full life' (Chandogya 4.11.2) etc. are only to show utility for that—this is the idea.

And this intellect is not brought in as something new. What then? It is resolute. The resolute intellect is indeed one, the innate understanding of everyone; but due to the influence of the objects to be ascertained, it attains multiplicity.

Seeing no utility of the verse "Yam imam" in the present context, the connection is stated by "Syuh". Nor indeed are Vedic [teachings] irresolute. "Then what is relevant here?" To this, it is said "Te'pi". Some, while relying on the resolute doctrine—the Vedic doctrine—say that all Vedic actions indeed have heaven etc. as fruits. But you intend that only desire-driven actions have heaven etc. as results, while desireless actions performed with the intellect of offering to God are for knowledge. And thus, the inconsistency in your statement remains in that state; this is the purport. [He] says—censure is for the purpose of demonstrating their semblance to being Vedic; this is to be supplied. Since the course of enjoyment and power is also contextual, to prevent the error that "taya" refers to it, he excludes it by "Yam". Otherwise the word "yat" would be expectant and unconnected; this is the purport. How is speech flowery? To this he says "Moksha" etc. The comparison is due to extreme smallness. How is "delighting in the Veda-vada" a statement of censure? To this he says "Veda" etc. How is this obtained from this word and how is this also censure? To this he says "Vedaih". The word "vada" here exists in the sense of superficial exposition. And the designation will be stated here. And the subject superficially to be propounded is action etc., and this is with restriction. The meaning is like "Water-eater, Air-eater". If asked "Whence the restriction?", it is due to the strength of the subsequent phrase; [so] he recites them—"Na anyat". Their censure would occur if there exists something other than the superficially apparent meaning. "What is that and from where?" To this he says "Paroksha". It is stated, "like explicit statements in some places." Therefore he says "Prayah". "Devas" means those identifying with the Vedas. To indicate that manner, "Mam vidhatta" etc. is cited as example. The Vedas speak.

Why does the resolute intellect not occur even for the irresolute, given the equality of the evidence (means)? Having raised this doubt, [he] says in three [verses] that it does not occur due to the existence of obstacles. The connection is: For the unwise whose minds are stolen by that speech which they utter—'this [flowery] speech'—the resolute intellect does not exist. 'This'—well-known as being acquired through the injunction of study. 'Flowery'—pleasing at first sight like a flowering Palasha tree, due to the appearance of the connection between means and end, and due to the absence of unsurpassed fruit. Why is there an absence of unsurpassed fruit? To that, he says 'giving birth, action, and fruit'. 'Birth' characterized by connection with a new body, senses, etc.; and 'action' dependent on that, caused by identification with various castes and stages of life; and 'fruit' dependent on that, characterized by son, cattle, heaven, etc., which is perishable—[that speech] gives these intensely, without interruption like a water-wheel; thus [it is described]. Why is it so? To this he says 'abounding in specific rites towards the attainment of enjoyment and power'. Enjoyment dependent on drinking nectar, sporting with Urvashi, fragrance of Parijata, etc.; and power which is the cause of that, [namely] lordship over Devas etc.; towards the attainment of these two; abounding in specific rites like Agnihotra, Darshapurnamasa, Jyotishtoma, etc., which are the means. Meaning: expounding a multitude of rites for attaining enjoyment and power in great abundance. Indeed, it is well known that the Karma-kanda is far more extensive everywhere than the Jnana-kanda. They speak such speech characterized by the Karma-kanda; they accept it as excellent, having heaven etc. as the ultimate fruit. Who? Those who are 'unwise'—devoid of the knowledge of the purport generated by inquiry. Therefore 'delighting in the Veda-vada'. The statements—eulogies (Arthavadas)—that exist in the Veda, such as 'The merit of the performer of Chaturmasya sacrifice is indeed imperishable,' etc.; delighting only in those; satisfied by false confidence that 'this is exactly so' regarding the truth of the Vedic meaning. O Partha, therefore 'saying there is nothing else'. Those accustomed to saying that there is no Jnana-kanda other than the Karma-kanda because the entire Veda is intent on action, and that there is no unsurpassed fruit of knowledge other than the fruit of action. The meaning is: speakers of meanings contrary to the Jnana-kanda through great elaboration. Why are they haters of liberation? Because they are 'full of desire'—consisting of desire due to the mind being agitated by hundreds of desired objects. This being so, why do they not desire liberation too? Because they are 'intent on heaven'—those for whom heaven alone, characterized by being with Urvashi etc., is the highest, superior goal. Being deluded that there is no human goal beyond heaven, due to the absence of discrimination and dispassion, they are unable to bear even the talk of liberation; this is the import. And of them—who are attached to the aforementioned enjoyment and power, whose minds are absorbed due to not seeing the defects like perishability etc.; whose minds—discriminative knowledge—are stolen, covered, by that speech abounding in specific rites; for such people, who are unable to know even the well-known fact that Arthavadas are for praise [and that] the validity of the Veda is in the subject of its purport which is uncontradicted by other means of knowledge... the resolute intellect is not formed in the 'Samadhi'—in the internal organ (mind). Meaning: it does not occur. Or, the resolute intellect regarding the Samadhi (concentration/Self) does not occur for them. Because the locative case is equal in the sense of location or subject matter. 'Vidhiyate' is the verbal ending in the reflexive passive. By the derivation 'everything is deposited in this,' Samadhi means the internal organ or the Supreme Self; thus there is no assumption of an obscure meaning. However, in the explanation that Samadhi is the state of 'I am Brahman' and the resolute intellect is not produced for the sake of that, only the conventional meaning is respected. This is the idea: Although desire-driven Agnihotra etc. are not different from those [performed] for purification, yet due to the defect of desire for fruit, they do not accomplish purity of the heart (ashaya-shuddhim). Purity suitable for enjoyment is indeed not useful for knowledge. To show exactly this, 'of those attached to enjoyment and power' is mentioned again. But actions done without desire for fruit generate purity useful for knowledge; thus the difference in fruit between the wise and the unwise is established. And this will be propounded in detail later.

Objection: Knowing thus the supremacy of the fruit, why does everyone not form the resolute intellect in this very way? Having raised this doubt, he says 'Yam imam' etc. in three [verses]. Those who utter this 'flowery'—which speech is devoid of fruit etc., pleasing like a creeper with bad flowers when seen from nearby—[and who] praise it excessively as being the fruit; for them the resolute intellect is not formed. Meaning: it is not produced. 'Objection: They also possess knowledge stated in the scriptures; how do they speak thus?' In anticipation of this, he says 'Avipaschitah'. Meaning: fools, ignorant. He reveals their foolishness through adjectives: 'Delighting in the Veda-vada'—doing actions with fruits stated in the Vedas is alone proper, not desirelessly; [thinking] thus, they are 'so' (delighting in Veda-vada); therefore 'saying there is nothing else'—accustomed to saying there is no fruit of action other than what is stated in the Vedas.

'Yam imam'—which is being described; 'flowery'—shining like a flowering tree, pleasing to hear; 'speech'—characterized by sentences; [they] utter. Who? 'The unwise'—those of little intelligence. Meaning: non-discriminating. 'Delighting in the Veda-vada'—delighting in Vedic sentences revealing many eulogies (Arthavadas), fruits, and means. O Partha, 'there is not anything else'—other than actions which are means for fruits like heaven, cattle, etc.—saying thus; 'disputants'—accustomed to speaking. And they...

He describes the difference in intellect of the irresolute with 'Yam imam' etc. The followers of Jaimini speak of the Vedic speech—constituting all sections—as entirely 'flowery', eminently endowed with the nature of agent, action, and fruit. The meaning is that they become delighted in heaven etc., which stand in the place of flowers, with the idea that they are the fruit. Because they are delighted in 'Veda-vadas'—arguments about action teaching results. And it should not be said that it is a true fruit because it is taught by the Veda; because that fruit is taught by the Veda with a different import, from sentences like 'That which is not mixed with sorrow...' And thus this speech is 'flowery', not bearing fruit. The core meaning is that they become deluded, their minds allured merely by the fragrance in them.

याम which? इमाम् this? पुष्पिताम् flowery? वाचम् speech? प्रवदन्ति utter? अविपश्चितः the unwise? वेदवादरताः takign pleasure in the eulogising words of the Vedas? पार्थ O Partha? न not? अन्यत् other? अस्ति is? इति thus? वादिनः saying.Commentary Unwise people who are lacking in discrimination lay great stress upon the Karma Kanda or the ritualistic portion of the Vedas? which lays down specific rules for specific actions for,the attainment of specific fruits and ectol these actions and rewards unduly. They are highly enamoured of such Vedic passages which prescribe ways for the attainment of heavenly enjoyments. They say that there is nothing else beyond the sensual enjoyments in Svarga (heaven) which can be obtained by performing the rites of the Karma Kanda of the Vedas.There are two main divisions of the Vedas -- Karma Kanda (the section dealing with action) and Jnana Kanda (the section dealing with knowledge). The Karma Kanda comprises the Brahmanas and the Samhitas. This is the authority for the Purvamimamsa school founded by Jaimini. The followers of this school deal with rituals and prescribe many of them for attaining enjoyments and power here and happiness in heaven. They regard this as the ultimate object of human existence. Ordinary people are attracted by their panegyrics. The Jnana Kanda comprises the Aranyakas and the Upanishads which deal with the nature of Brahman or the Supreme Self.Life in heaven is also transitory. After the fruits of the good actions are exhausted? one has to come back to this earthplane. Liberatio or Moksha can only be attained by knowledge of the Self but not by performing a thousand and one sacrifices.Lord Krishna assigns a comparatively inferior position to the doctrine of the Mimamsakas of performing Vedic sacrifices for obtaining heaven? power and lordship in this world as they cannot give us final liberation.

Partha, O son of Prtha; those devoid of one-pointed conviction, who pravadanti, utter; imam, this; yam puspitam vacam, flowery talk, which is going to be stated, which is beautiful like a tree in bloom, pleasant to hear, and appears to be (meaningful) sentences [Sentences that can be called really meaningful are only those that reveal the self.-Tr.]; who are they? they are avipascitah, people who are undiscerning, of poor intellect, i.e. non-discriminating; veda-vada-ratah, who remain engrossed in the utterances of the Vedas, in the Vedic sentences which reveal many panegyrics, fruits of action and their means; and vadinah, who declare, are apt tosay; iti, that; na anyat, nothing else [God, Liberation, etc.]; asti, exists, apart from the rites and duties conducive to such results as attainment of heaven etc.
And they are kamatmanah, have their minds full of desires, i.e. they are swayed by desires, they are, by nature, full of desires; (and) svarga-parah, have heaven as the goal. Those who accept heaven (svarga) as the supreme (para) human goal, to whom heaven is the highest, are svarga-parah. They utter that speech ( this is supplied to construct the sentence ) which janma-karma-phala-pradam, promises birth as a result of rites and duties. The result (phala) of rites and duties (karma) is karma-phala. Birth (janma) itself is the karma-phala. That (speech) which promises this is janma-karma-phala-prada. (This speech) is kriya-visesa-bahulam, full of various special rites; bhoga-aisvarya-gatim-prati, for the attainment of enjoyment and affluence. Special (visesa) rites (kriya) are kriya-visesah. The speech that is full (bahula) of these, the speech by which that is full (bahula) of these, the speech by which these, viz objects such as heaven, animals and sons, are revealed plentifully, is kriya-visesa-bahula. Bhoga, enjoyment, and aisvarya, affluence, are bhoga-aisvarya. Their attainment (gatih) is bhoga-aisvarya-gatih. (They utter a speech) that is full of the specialized rites, prati, meant for that (attainment). The fools who utter that speech move in the cycle of transmigration. This is the idea.

The ignorant, whose knowledge is little, and who have as their sole aim the attainment of enjoyment and power, speak the flowery language i.e., having its flowers (show) only as fruits, which look apparently beautiful at first sight. They rejoice in the letter of the Vedas i.e., they are attached to heaven and such other results (promised in the Karma-kanda of the Vedas). They say that there is nothing else, owing to their intense attachment to these results. They say that there is no fruit superior to heaven etc. They are full of worldly desires and their minds are highly attached to secular desires. They hanker for heaven, i.e. think of the enjoyment of the felicities of heaven, after which one can again have rirth which offers again the opportunity to perform varied rites devoid of true knowledge and leads towards the attainment of enjoyments and power once again.
With regard to those who cling to pleasure and power and whose understanding is contaminated by that flowery speech relating to pleasure and lordly powers, the aforesaid mental disposition characterised by resolution, will not arise in their Samadhi. Samadhi here means the mind. The knowledge of the self will not arise in such minds. In the minds of these persons, there cannot arise the mental disposition that looks on all Vedic rituals as means for liberation based on the determined conviction about the real form of the self. Hence, in an aspirant for liberation, there should be no attachment to rituals out of the conviction that they are meant for the acisition of objects of desire only.
It may be estioned why the Vedas, which have more of love for Jivas than thousands of parents, and which are endeavouring to save the Jivas, should prescribe in this way rites whose fruits are infinitesimal and which produce only new births. It can also be asked if it is proper to abandon what is given in the Vedas. Sri Krsna replies to these estions.