English
And according to my view he is the Supreme Seif ;* because self (sqyam)} excludes the idea of another from iis signification, [such exclusion determines the reality of one Supreme Self) and that is my object. 43. Now the words ‘Self’ and ‘Afma' are synonymous, therefore as the first excludes the idea of another, so it is natural to attribute a similar exclusion with regard to the second, 44. As then the two words last referred are identical in their signification, the use of ‘self’ in conditions of trance or fainting establish his existence likewise, as, “I myself was unconscious,” here Self establishes his presence even in that state. 45. Though for its pervasion, uniform Intelligence must be alike present in all insentient objects, as a pot, a pitcher, etc,, yet the distinction of sentiency and insentiency is not due to it, but is the work of intelligence reflected in Hoods and dependent on it. In other words objects with individual Intelligence are called sentient, while those without it are insentiont. 46. And as individual Intelligence is mistaken with the uniform, so is insentiency in the case of inanimate objects contrived to be present in uniform Intelligence. As in the instances quoted :—‘ Devadatta himself)’ "I myself,” everywhere when self is added with a personal pronoun it excludes the idem of another as if by way of emphasis, and points out strong ly the person concerned, so in a similar way when Self excludes the idea of other similar selves, my point is gained, and Ican look upon him as the one Supreme Self, “ya PANGHADAS!. 47. If pervasion constitute Supreme Self, since he follows everywete in all objects, in that case all such other ob jects asfollow everwhere [may equally be calied Supreme Self, ‘that and ‘this’ are equally present everywhere, and used in connection with all objects, which may be said to depend on them, therefore they ought with equal propriety be regarded identically equal to blm. 48. [The reply is} though the words ‘that’ and ‘thie’ like Supreme Self, are plainly perceived to be attached to all objects including even the Afma, they ate not the Supreme Self, but like other words signifying correct ot proper they are merely attached everywhere, even in conditions of extreme contrariety. 49. The algnification of ‘that’ and ‘this’ ‘self’ and ‘another,’ ‘thou’ and ‘I’ are antagonistic or opposed to each other. go. Of them, the signification of ‘Self’ opposed to that of ‘another’ is expressive of the uniform intelligence and the signification of ‘thou’ opposed to that of ‘I’ can be admitted as F iva, 51. As the distinctlon between nacre and silver Is plainly perceived, $0 even after the perception of distinction between individual Ioteltigence indicated by ‘I’ and uniform Intelligence indicated by ‘Seif’ persons fascinated with the world, attribute the uureal Jiva to the true uniform Intelligence, from illusion. $2. But this illusory attribution of resemblance of identity (sadatmadhyes) is a product of ignorance, consequently when thet is removed, the false perception of the reality of Frva is also destroyed. 53- Kowledge of self destroys ignorance with its force of envelopment, and its resulting action,—false perception of mistake ; but the force of superimposition—evolation, or pro- jection of ignorance {z¢., misapprehension]—and its result. Ang action of mistaken attribution (vikrhepadhyas) require for - their destruction the exhaustion or consumation of fructescent works. That is to say, without the exhaustion of actions ommenced to bear frait, by ‘njoying them, there tm ‘be no removal of ‘Self. 54. Ordinarily speaking, after the destraction. of a. ‘proximate or material case, fits productive action or tesalt™ yet continues for a certain time, according to a Tarkike, 00 ‘that to admit the continuance of illusory attribution, created | ‘by superimposition, or misapprehension, even after the dea ‘waction of (Aoidya) Ignorance, its material cause, is possible for a certain time, depending, as it does, upon desire of ‘enjoying fructescent works. 55. If it be urged, according to the view of o Tarkika, ‘after the cause is destroyed its product rests for a little time ‘only, but to admit such duration to a lengthened period, accord~ ‘ing to the Vedantin, is illogical, the answer Is:—If thread, out ‘of which a cloth is prodaced, be destroyed, to say that the ‘cloth escapes destruction for a short time, be correct, accord- ‘ing to a Tarkika,—then when the cause of error which ranges for an indefinite length of time is destroyed, for its product to rest for a lengthened period is not unnatural, becanse to allow adequate time to thing according to its space of dura- ‘tlon Js clearly maintainable. §6 The above fllustration is not cited by the Vedantin with the object of establishing a lengthened stay, after that of ‘the Tarkika’s momentary duration, but to shew that if he wilf ‘only cite proofs which are not admissible, but imaginary, then, why are we to abstain from tho testimony of Sruff which ‘@ppesla to experience and involves no contradiction? 57. Hence there needs be no more arguing with the dis- fhonest Tarkiks, but it is proper that we should have recourse to reason, for in the aforesaid way the Srufi has determined the mistake of the uniform Intelligence indicated by ‘self’ with individual Intelligence indicated by ‘I’ and imagined to ‘be ene. 8. And though that identity is only being conceived in a4 PANCHADASI. mistake of a Tarkika and others, who pretend to be wise without a due consideration of the purport of Srwffon the aubject. 59. Some of the opposing sects, unable to atudy the Srufi regularly in 2 consecutive manner, misapprehend the Supreme Self in an infthite variety of ways, and, incapable of rightly interpreting the Srust, cite at random such texts which they fancy support them, without considering their applicability. 60. The dullest amongst the Zokayais* says from the * Lokayata ot Lokayatikas otherwise called Sunyavadins and Charvakas were a set of heretics. ‘They condemned all ceremonial rites, including even the Sradha or rites performed in connection with death on the occasion of parents by a son, without which no Hindu can be said to be purified from the impurity of death, It would appear, they were materialists and atheists ; looking upon the present existence as the best, they were of opinion that wealth and gratification of desire are the highest ends which aman should pursue, and there is no other existence beyond this. Their principal tenets were according to Colebrooke (1) the identity of self with the physical body, (2) rejection of ether as an element, (3) atmission of perception alone as a means of proof. They were called Sunyavadins because they expounded the doctrine of ‘nothing’ preceeding every thing; in short, from nothing has been produced the universe; and Charvekas from their teacher Charvaka Muni, A Charvake calls the physical body, derived from the four elements—fire, water, air, and earth his self, and argues thus :— ‘The subject of the perception of Egoism is self. “I am a man," "Tam fat," “Tam lean,” ‘I ama Brahman,” etc, Here the physical body is perceived as the subject of Egoism, and is ac- cordingly taken for a man, or his qualities of corpulence and of Brahman, etc. Hence the body is self or what is the subject of supreme affection is self. In this way as a wife, son and the rest are conducive to the well-being of the body, and itis the seat of the highest affection, consequently the subject of the indications #f that extreme loye—ihe body, is self, and the highest aim of PANCHADASI. rit 1 gg aniform Intelligence to the physical body, the collective aggre- gate of all these, is his Self. humanity consists in feeding that with good things and clothing it with good dress, jewels, etc., and death is emancipation. Now this requirs no other proof than what actually follows in every individual and is plainly seen ; look for instance at the appearance of a prince with all gold and jewels over, an appearance expressing supreme indications of affection for that body, the care bestowed on its feed and dress, providing all comforts for it, and contrast it with the care-worn and pinched countence of a raggamuffin,— yet even here, you will find him struggling all day long, for the maintenance of the body which regards with affection and care. All these are proofs enough and as they are everywhere visible, there can be no contention against their cogencey. But this doctrine of Charvakas is clearly untenable. For if the subject of perception of Egoism (‘I') would constitute self, in that case, the organs of sense and action would be so; inasmuch as they are also perceived in the same way, as in the expressions “T see,” “Ihear," ‘‘I speak.” Thus then the organs are also perceived. as the subject of Egoism, then again in regard to an individual's affection for his body, it cannot be a subject of Egoism, consequently it is a misapplication, therefore, the physical body is not self. Moreover, wealth and riches, wife and son, as they shew good deal of affection for that body, evince a similar feeling for the organs too, congequently in the absence of the highest amount of affection, the gross body is not a subject of supreme affection, and, therefore, it is not self, Further, as the body is wanting in sentiency or intelligence, it is not self, and if a Charvaka were to say just as a mixture of quicktime with catechu and betel leaf produces the well-known red color, so the body for its being a mixture of the four elements, derives its power of knowledge.