________________
the body of the soul, its natural freedom cannot be made manifest. And moreover because this moksha or freedom is constitutional (swabhava) with the very soul itself, it cannot be said to be derived out of or result from anything else.
Then again it can't be maintained that karma removes ne-science (Avidya) for there is a gulf of difference in the essential nature between karma and knowledge. To make it more clear, ne-science or non-knowledge (ajnana) is subreption as to the true nature of one's own self, while knowledge (jnåna) as opposed to ne-science is the realization of the true nature of the same. Hence ne-science which is of the nature of the subreption is contradictory to knowledge which is of the nature of true realization. And in this way we may well interprete that light of knowledge dispells darkness of ne-science. Therefore karma and knowledge are altogether opposite to each other in kind. But karma does not stand in such relation of opposition to ne-science. Hence karma cannot be said to remove ne-science (ajnana). Taking an alternative position, if we
615
