________________
166
TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER VIT.
TEXT (226).
"IF THERE WERE ABSOLUTE DESTRUCTION OF THE SOUL, THERE WOULD BE DESTRUCTION OF WHAT IS DONE AND THE BEFALLING OF WILAT IS NOT DONE'; AND IF THE SOUL ALWAYS REMAINED OF THE SAME FORM, THEN THERE COULD BE NO EXPERIENCING
OF PLEASURE, PAIN AND THE REST."-(226)
COMMENTARY.
If there were absolute destruction (of the Soul). then there would be destruction (ineffectiveness) of the act done; as the doer would not be there to come into contact with the effect of the act; and there would be 'be. falling of what is not done: as the Soul experiencing the effect of the act done would be experienced by a Soul who did not do the act.-Further, if the Soul remained of one and the same form, there could be no experieucing of Pleasure, Pain, etc. for it, just as there is none for Akasha ; specially as there would be no difference between the state of experiencing' and the state of not-experiencing'. This has been thus asserted by Kumarila- Thus both the absolute conditions being impossiblo, the Spirit (Soul) should be held to be of the nature of both Exclusion and Inclusion, just like the Serpent in the coiled and other forms. (Shlokavārtika, Atmavāda, 28)."-(226)
Objection-If the Spirit (Soul) is of the nature of both states, the state that does the act would not be the same that experiences its effects; so that this doctrine also would involve the anomaly of the des. truction of what is done and the befalling of what is not done'.
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (227).
"THE SOUL'S CHARACTERS OF DOER' AND EXPERIENCER ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE STATE ; HENCE, AS IT IS THE SOUL ITSELY THAT REMAINS THE SAME THROUGH THE VARIOUS STATES, IT IS THE Doer OF THE AOT THAT ALWAYS OBTAINS
(EXPERIENCES) THE FROIT OF THAT Aor."-(227)
COMMENTARY.
The character of being the Doer-and that of being the Experiencer—are not dependent upon the state of the Soul; they are dependent upon the Soul itself; as it is the Soul itself, -not its condition or stato-which does the Act and experiences its effects. Hence, for this reason, inasmuch as the Soul to whom the states belong remains the same and does not abandon its previous form, it is the Door himself who secures the fruit of that Act.
So that this doctrine is not open to the snid objection.-(227)
