________________
II ADHYAYA, 2 PÂDA, 40.
523
difficulties whether that body, which as body must consist of parts, be viewed as eternal or as non-eternal.
38. If you say, as in the case of the organs; we deny this, on account of enjoyment and so on.
It may possibly be said that, in the same way as the enjoying (individual) soul, although in itself without a body, is seen to rule the sense-organs, the body, and so on, the great Lord also, although without a body, may rule the Pradhana. But this analogy cannot be allowed 'on account of enjoyment,' and so on. The body's being ruled by the soul is due to the unseen principle in the form of good and evil works, and has for its end the requital of those works. Your analogy would thus imply that the Lord also is under the influence of an unseen principle, and is requited for his good and evil works.-The Lord cannot therefore be a ruler.
39. Finiteness or absence of omniscience.
'Or' here has the sense of 'and.' If the Lord is under the influence of the adrishta, it follows that, like the individual soul, he is subject to creation, dissolution, and so on, and that he is not omniscient. The Pasupati theory cannot therefore be accepted. It is true that the Sûtra, 'but in case of conflict (with Scripture) it is not to be regarded' (Pa. Mi. Sa. I, 3, 3), has already established the nonacceptability of all views contrary to the Veda; the present adhikarana, however, raises this question again in order specially to declare that the Pasupati theory is contrary to the Veda. Although the Pasupata and the Saiva systems exhibit some features which are not altogether contrary to the Veda, yet they are unacceptable because they rest on an assumption contrary to the Veda, viz. of the difference of the general, instrumental and material causes, and imply an erroneous interchange of higher and lower entities.-Here terminates the adhikarana of 'Pasupati.'
40. On account of the impossibility of origination. The Sutras now proceed to refute a further doubt, viz.
Digitized by Google
