________________
160
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER VII.
who is there that regards the Body as the Soul! Then again, the negative preposition nis', 'not' in the terın nirainakam' no-Soul ') signifies the negation of what is expressed by the following term atman (i.e. of something with Soul). So that it behoves you to explain what is that which is with Soul'; for in no case do we find the negative Prepositionnis' prefixed to a term denoting a non-entity; for instance, in the expression nimmaksikam', + without flies, the preposition is added to maksika' (denoting the Fly, a positive entity). (c) Again, if the statement the Body is not with Soul is meant to deny the Soul in the body, then the reasoning proves only what is already admitted by all; for who is there who holds that the Soul subsists in the Body 2-d) If then the statement means that 'the Body has no con nection with the Soul', then there can be no Corroborative Instance.-Lastly, all the aforesaid four cases would mean the denial of a distinctive character in regard to the Soul; and this would imply the tacit admission of the Existence of the Soul itself, in a general way; so that what was sought to be denied becomes admitted. If what is meant is that the term Soul, being a verbal entity, is transient, it must denote something that is transient, --then, in the first place, in view of the term eternal', the premiss of the above reasoning is found to be 'inconclusive', doubtful; and secondly, [the term soul' in your argument can stand either for the Body or for something other than the Body]; if it stands for the Body and such things, then the argument becomes superfluous; and if the term stands for some. thing other than the Body, etc. and your proposition declares it as denoting something transient, then the existence of something other than the Body, etc. becomes admitted ; and this goes against your doctrine."--[This is an exact quotation from Uddyotakara's Nyāyavdrtika on 3. 1. 1, Bib. Ind. Edn.. p. 346, line 18 to p. 347, line 10.)
The above is answered by the Author in the following Text :
TEXT (220).
TRAT NEGATION OF THE SOUL' WHICH OTHER PEOPLE SEEK TO PROVE IN REGARD TO THE JAR AND OTHER THINGS, THAT SAME WE ARE GOING TO PROVE IN REGARD TO THE
LIVING BODY - (220)
COMMENTARY.
The objection that has been urged above is equally applicable to your case also. For instance, it is admitted by you that the Jar and other external things are without Soul', either on the ground of their being not occupied by a Soul, or on the ground of their being the receptacle of the Soul's experiences. If it were not so, then you could not have mentioned these as the Oorroborative Instance in your argument which is stated in the form- This Living Body is not without Soul, because, if it were, then it wonid be devoid of Breathing and such other functions, -liko the Jar and other things'.-Now in reference to these Jar and other things, the
