________________
-LXI]
NOTES
47
Now, the साध्य is प्रवृतिशून्यम्. The सिद्धान्तिम् says that we can show a case which is the reverse of your syllogism. That is,
वेतनानधिष्ठितं अचेतनं अपि प्रवृत्तियुक्तम्, अचेतनत्वात्, क्षवित् ।
Here we have साध्यव्यभिचार. Now, the प्रतिपक्षिन् says that your case does not bring about the fare, because, even in your case we shall assume as the cause of . To this the faf replies:-Your argument is not sound, because a चेतन or प्रेक्षावान् can act only with the motive of स्वार्थ or But, it would be absurd to impute any motive to God, much less these two motives.
माठर, गौड° and जय°, interpret this कारिका as illustrating the प्रवृत्ति and निवृत्ति ( of प्रधान ) both while as वाच० speaks of प्रवृत्ति only.
LVIII
औत्सुक्य means इच्छा; but it is only a blind instinct or activity, which is the nature of the three is in philosophy. It is not the of the s according to whom at is the quality of a sentient being.
LXI
This has given rise to a great controversy. With whom should we construe the word? Is it which feels that there is nothing सुकुमारतर than प्रकृति or is it प्रकृति itself which feels that there is nothing than myself? The first meaning is adopted by माठर; वाच० and गौड would seem to mean that it is the author of the who feels that there is nothing सुकुमारतर than प्रकृति.
The next difficulty is about the meaing of the term सुकुमारता. जय • explains it by 'subtlety', वाच० and माठर, by bashfulness, and o by enjoyability'.
