English
This view is not opposed to what Surgswar ACHARYA (Barttkara) holds, as maintained by the supporters of the dis- criminating view of intelligence known by the name of Azva- cheda vadt, Cognition of external objects, a jar etc., is caused by intelligence, therefore the cause of that knowledge is intelli- gence, for which, the result is the subject to be known or de- monstrated:—and this intelligence is the subject that is to be known from Vedantic utterances, which are its proofs, 12. Therefore Surgswar wants to establish the reflex in- telligence, which resembles the Uniform or Brahma, to be a result of proof, and not the latter; forin the Upadesha Saha- shri of Sanxaractanrva (his preceptor) occurs the distinction between the two intelligences. 13. Since then, the distinction between the Uniform and Reflex Intelligences is an admitted fact, mental function, arising in the shape of Reflex Intelligence pervading a jar is the cause of its cognition, and the resulting knowledge, like ignorance, is fit for being discovered by the Uniform Intelligence. In other words, cognition or knowledge is discovered by Brahma [Uni- form Intelligence] like an unknown jar, inasmuch as the modi- fication of intellect, reflection of intelligence and external ob- jects, jaretc., all are discovered by Brahma, while for its being @ siigle subject, a jar is discovered by the reflex. 14. Thus then, mental fenction issuing through the sen- sory organs, reflex intelligence, and jar, all three, are manifes- ted by the Brahmaic or Uniform Intelligence, and for the reflex being seated in the jar only in the form of result, which it per- vades for cognizing it, that jar is discovered by the reflex intelligence. 15. ‘Therefore, the knowledge of a known jar ls discovered by both the Reflex and Uniform Intelligences, and this is cal- led by 9 Naiyayike (Anwdyabsaya) knowledge of knowledge. _ 16. From the reflex intelligence’ proceeds particular know- ledge, as “This is a jar;” while the Uniform creates an ordinary acquaintance with it, as a “known jar.” 17. Just as in the cognition of external objects, both the Reflex and Uniform Intelligences are ascertained, so are they to be considered in reference to the physical body. 18. But it may be alleged in reference to external objects, the mental function pervades them, and as inside the body there is no subject to be pervaded by the modification of intel- lect, consequently there is no necessity for admitting reflex intelligence. Therefore it is said, Egoism is present and the pervasion of reflex intelligence is required to discover it, Just as in a ball of red hot iron, fire pervades it, and is present, inti- mately combined with the iron, 80 does reflex intelligence per- vade Egoism, passions and desires, by mixing with them, 19. And as that bail of iron manifests itself and is incap. able of discovering any other object, so do the modifications of Egoism, passions, etc., with the reflex intelligence ‘discover themselves, a0. These aforesaid modifications, separated by the inter~ vals of waking and dreaming, are apt to arise, as they disap~ pear during profound slumber, trance, fainting and profound meditation. , 21. That unchangeable Intelligence which discovers the junction or union of those modifications and their want, is the Uniform Brahmaic Intelligence. 22. As in the cognition of an external object, a jar, the reflex discovers only, “This isa jar,” and the knowledge of that jar is discovered by Brahmaic Intelligence, we bave there- fore both the intelligences ; so in regard to the internal modi- fications, Egoism, etc., we have a similar play of both intelli, gences. And that double display of intelligence in juactlon 306 PANCHADASE. with those modifications make them more strongly manifested’ than external objects. 5 23. Unlike external objects which are capable of being sacertained either known or unknown, internal objects of mental perception are not; because that perception can- mot take hold of or cover itself, and ignorance is destroyed by it. 24. If it be asked, so far as intelligence goes, both the reflex and uniform are identical, why then is the former called changeable and the !atter, uniform’or unchangeable ? Because that double intelligence is liable to birth and death, therefore it is Jiva, while the uniform distinct from it is unchangeable and eterna!,—the Supreme Brahma. 25. Older professors have, in various places of theis writings, mentioned the Uniform Intelligence as the witness of mental perception and its modifications, 26, As in the reffection of face ina mirror, all the three (face, its reflection and mirror) are visibly perceptible, so by the help of the sacred writings and their arguments are to be known, Self (Uniform Intelligence) his reflection (reflected shadow of Intelligence) and its site or receptacle (the internal organ), Inthe Upadesha Sahashri, Uniform Intelligence is described as distinct from the reflex in the following wise. “It is the witness of the mind and intellect.” And in the Srust “Like the associate of the internal organ the reflex is only a reflected shadow” [of Intelligence #.¢., self}. a7. I€ it be alleged, since the Uniform Intelligence is everywhere equally present, let that Intelligence seated in the intellect, be the subject of transmigration {like the ether in a far) and there will be no necessity for imagining the reflex intelligence to be Jiva? 28 The reply is ;—That limiting of the Uniform Intellie gence would not necessarily convert it into a Jiva, just asthe ‘uniform present in a jar and wall and limited by them, or die sriminsted in that way, are no longer a Jiva. PANCHADASL. 209 ag. If it be said, from want of luminosity, the Uniform Intelligence present in a jar or wall, and bounded by them, cannot convert them into Jiva, but for the luminosity of intel- lect, the uniform intelligence seated in and bounded by it, is. Jiva: the answer is, there is no occasion for introducing luminosity or its reverse, when you seek to discriminate the Uniform Intelligence by setting a limit to it: 30. Just as the use of a measure made either of brass or a lighter substance, can bring no profit to the seller in dealing out a specified quantity of grains to a purchaser. 3t. Ifyou reply, the metallic measure bas a particular action, inasmuch as it Ss capable of reficcting an image, though as a measure it has no difference with one made of wood, then, What prevents a similar reflection of intelligence in Intellect ? 32. And though the manifestibility or luminosity of that reflection of intelligence [in intellect] is very slight, and dis- tinct from the Uniform Intelligence which is luminous, light- like, yet it is endowed with powers of discovery. And the same cause that deprives a shadow of the signs of the light whose shadow it is, and makes it manifested, produces the reflection of that light.* * In the work Vibarana, Jiva is defined as a reflection and Iswara light (subject of reflection]. According to the doctrine of Vinyaranya Swamy, Iswara is the reflection of Intelligence in Maya abounding in pure goodness, and Jiva, a reflection of in- telligence in Avidya abounding in pure goodness, which is @ proximate cause of the internal organ, Though in the Pancha- dasi, ViDvARANYA Swami mentiuns Jiva to be a reflection in the internal organ, and as that internal organ is not present in the profound slumbering condition, consequently then, there should be no Jiva also; but as Prajna, almost ignorant—a form of Jiva—continues in dreamless profound slumber, therefore what the Swam1 purports to mean is, the particle of ignorance modified or changed into the form of internal organ, and intelligence rey 208 ‘PANCHADASI "33. [Tobe more explicit]. Inasmuch as the Reflex is as- soctated and changeable, while the light of Uniform intelli- gence is unassociated and unchangeable, therefore the former flected therein is called Jiva, and that ignorance is never wanting in profound slumber, consequently Prajza also is not wanting then, Moreover, reflection of intelligence alone does not consti- tute either a Jiva or Iswara, but intelligence abiding in Maya, and the reffex intelligence with Maya, constitute Iswara; and intelligence abiding in ignorance, and the reflex intelligence with the particle of ignorance, constitute Jiva. In the associate of Iswara, there is pure goodness, for which he is omnipotent, omni- scient, etc.; while the associate of Jiva is composed of impure goodness; hence he is parviscient, parvipotent and the rest. Thia is said by the supporters of the Reflex Theory. The associates of Jiva and Iswara are identical according to the view of the author of Vibarana, who conuects them with lynoe ance, In such aconsideration, both Iswara and Jiva must be parviscient. But it is not so; because itis the nature of a thing in which there is a reflection, to impart its defects to the reflection, and not to the image: as for instance, when a face is reflected in a mirror (its associate) the defects belonging to the mirror will pre- vent a faithful reproduction of the face itself. Hence the defects, though present in the mirror, are not cognized or rendered visible till the face is reflected in a mirror, for which it is said, reflection determines defects. Similarly in the reflection of the Jiva, in the mirror of ignorance, are produced the defects caused by it, such as parviscience, etc., while Iswara (in the form of image of pure Intelligence) who is the visage, has none of them, for which He is omniscient, This is the cause of His omnipotence, omniscience etc., and the parvipotence aud parviscience of a ‘ being.