"Suka said, 'I have now understood that there are two kinds of creation,
viz., one commencing with Kshara (which is universal), and which is from
the (universal) Soul. The other, consisting of the senses with their
objects, is traceable to the puissance of the knowledge. This last
transcends the other and is regarded to be the foremost.Literally, 'Tamas and Rajas and Sattwa have the attribute of Jiva for their essence.' The particular attribute of Jiva here referred to is the Jnanamaya kosha. Jiva, again, is all accident of the Soul. The Soul comes from the Supreme Soul. Thus the chain of existence is traced to the Supreme Soul. In verse 20 again it is said that the body, which by itself is inanimate, when it exists with the Soul, is an accident of Jiva as uninvested with attributes. I desire,
however, to once more hear of that course of righteousness which runs in
this world, regulated by the virtue of Time and according to which all
good men frame their conduct.I follow Nilakantha substantially in his interpretation of this verse. Two kinds of creation are here referred to as those of which Vyasa has spoken in the previous Sections. The first is Ksharat prabhriti yah sargah, meaning that creation which consists of the four and twenty entities commencing with Kshara or Prakriti. The other creation, consisting of the senses with their objects, represents buddhaiswarya or the puissance of the buddhi, these being all buddhikalpitah. This second creation is also atisargah which means, according to the commentator, utkrishtah and which is also pradhanah or foremost, the reason being bandhakatwam or its power to bind all individuals. I take atisargah to mean 'derivative creation,' the second kind of creation being derived from or based upon the other, or (as I have put it in the text) transcends or overlies the other. In the Vedas there are both kinds of
declarations, viz., do acts and avoid acts. How shall I succeed in
ascertaining the propriety of this or that? It behoveth thee to expound
this clearly.It is explained in previous sections how the course of righteousness is regulated by the character of the particular Yuga that sets in. Having obtained, through thy instructions, a thorough
knowledge of the course of conduct of human beings, having purified
myself by the practice of only righteousness, and having cleansed my
understanding, I shall, after casting off my body, behold the
indestructible Soul.'Vyasa has already explained the character of the two apparently hostile declarations. The meaning of Suka's question, therefore, is that if two declarations are only apparently hostile,--if, as explained in the Gita, they are identical,--how is that identity to be clearly ascertained? The fact is, Suka wishes his sire to explain the topic more clearly.

"Vyasa said, 'The course of conduct that was first established by Brahma
himself was duly observed by the wise and pious persons of old, viz., the
great Rishis of ancient times. The great Rishis conquer all the worlds by
the practice of Brahmacharya. Seeking all things that are good for
himself by fixing the mind on the knowledge,The course of conduct of human beings,' i.e., the distinctions between right and wrong. Vimuktatma is taken by the commentator to imply tyaktadehah. The second line may also mean 'having cast off (by Yoga) the consciousness of body, I shall behold my own Soul.' practising severe
austerities by residing in the forest and subsisting on fruits and roots,
by treading on sacred spots, by practising universal benevolence, and by
going on his rounds of mendicancy at the proper time to the huts of
forest recluses when these become smokeless and the sound of the husking
rod is hushed, a person succeeds in attaining to Brahma.I do not follow the commentator in his interpretation of this line. Abstaining
from flattery and from bowing thy heads to others, and avoiding both good
and evil, live thou in the forest by thyself, appeasing hunger by any
means that comes by the way.'

"Suka said, 'The declarations of the Vedas (already referred to in
respect of acts) are, in the opinion of the vulgar, contradictory.
Whether this is authoritative or that is so, when there is this conflict,
how can they be said to be scriptural?'When the huts become smokeless,' i.e., when the cooking and the eating of the inmates are over. 'When the sound of the husking rod is hushed,' i.e., when the pestle for cleaning rice no longer works, and consequently when the inmates are not likely to be able to give much to the mendicant. I desire to hear this: how
can both be regarded as authoritative? How, indeed, can Emancipation be
obtained without violating the ordinance about the obligatory character
of acts?'

"Bhishma continued, 'Thus addressed, the son of Gandhavati, viz., the
Rishi, applauding these words of his son possessed of immeasurable
energy, replied unto him, saying the following.'

"Vyasa said, 'One that is a Brahmacharin, one that leads a life of
domesticity, one that is a forest recluse, and one that leads a life of
(religious) mendicancy, all reach the same high end by duly observing the
duties of their respective modes of life. Or, if one and the same person,
freed from desire and aversion, practises (one after another) all these
four modes of life according to the ordinances that have been laid down,
he is certainly fitted (by such conduct) to understand Brahma. The four
modes of life constitute a ladder or flight of steps. That flight is
attached to Brahma. By ascending that Right one—succeeds in reaching the
region of Brahma. For the fourth part of his life, the Brahmacharin,
conversant—with the distinctions of duty and freed from malice, should
live with his preceptor or his preceptor's son. While residing in the
preceptor's house, he should go to bed after the preceptor has gone to
his, and rise therefrom before the preceptor rises from his.There is an apparent conflict between the two declarations. If both are authoritative, they cannot be regarded to be scriptural declarations in consequence of their conflict.. if one is so and the other not so, the scriptural character of the latter at least is lost. The scriptures cannot but be certain and free from fault. How then (the question proceeds) is the scriptural character of both to be maintained? All
such acts again as should be done by the disciple, as also those which
should be done by a menial servant, should be accomplished by him.
Finishing these he should humbly take his stand by the side of the
preceptor. Skilled in every kind of work, he should conduct himself like
a menial servant, doing every act for his preceptor. Having accomplished
all acts (without leaving any portion undone), he should study, sitting
at the feet of his preceptor, with eager desire to learn. He should
always behave with simplicity, avoid evil, speech, and take lessons only
when his preceptor invites him for it.The Burdwan translator makes a ridiculous blunder in rendering Jaghanyasayi, which he takes to mean 'sleeping on a wretched bed.' Jaghanya implies, here as elsewhere, subsequence in point of time. Become pure in body and mind,
and acquiring cleverness and other virtues, he should now and then speak
what is agreeable. Subduing his senses, he should look at his preceptor
without eyes of longing curiosity.Both the Vernacular translators have misunderstood the last part of the second line., It does not mean that the disciple should approach the preceptor when summoned, implying that he should be prompt to answer the summons, but that he should not disturb his Preceptor by clamouring for lessons or instruction. He should go to his preceptor for taking lessons only when his preceptor summons him for it. He should never eat before his
preceptor has eaten; never drink before his preceptor has drunk; never
sit down before his preceptor has sat down; and never go to bed before
his preceptor has gone to bed. He should gently touch his preceptor's
feet with upturned palms, the right foot with the right and the left with
the left. Reverentially saluting the preceptor, he should say unto him,
'O illustrious one, teach me. I shall accomplish this (work), O
illustrious one! This (other work) I have already accomplished. O
regenerate one, I am ready to accomplish whatever else thy reverend self
may be pleased to command.' Having said all this, and having duly offered
himself unto him (thus), he should accomplish whatever acts of his
preceptor wait for accomplishment, and having completed them inform the
preceptor once more of their completion. Whatever scents or tastes the
Brahmacharin may abstain from while actually leading a life of
Brahmacharya may be used by him after his return from the preceptor's
abode. This is consistent with the ordinance. Whatever observances have
been elaborately laid down for Brahmacharins (in the scriptures) should
all be regularly practised by him. He should, again, be always near his
preceptor (ready within call). Having contributed to his preceptor's
gratification in this way to the best of his powers, the disciple should,
from that mode of life, pass into the others (one after another) and
practise the duties of each. Having (thus) passed a fourth part of his
life in the study of the Vedas, and observance of vows and fasts, and
having given the preceptor the (final) fee, the disciple should,
according to the ordinance, take his leave and return home (for entering
into a life of domesticity).Meaning, he should cast submissive or humble glances instead of staring boldly or rudely. Then, having taken spouses, obtaining
them in the ways indicated in the ordinances, and having carefully
established the domestic fire, he should, observant all the while of vows
and fasts, become a house-holder and pass the second period of life.'"