________________
(B) MIMĀMSĀ DOCTRINE OF THE SELF '.
185
TEXT (270).
IF YOUR STATES BECOME MERGED INTO THE SOUL IN THEIR OWN FORM, THEN, ON THE APPEARANCE OF HAPPINESS, UNHAPPI
NESS ALSO SHOULD BE TELT. (270)
COMMENTARY. When the States become merged in the Common Soul, they could be so merged either in their own form or in some other form; if it is the former that is meant, then on the appearance of Happiness,-i.e. when there is feeling of the State of Happiness,—Unhappiness also should be felt; us this latter also is possessed of the common character of 'feeling -(270)
If they become merged in some other form, then there would be the following difficulty:
TEXT (271)
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN THERE IS TRANSFERENCE OF ONE FORM TO
SOMETHING, THERE CAN BE NO TRANSFERENCE OF ANOTHER FORM. SO THAT IF THE STATES BECAME TRANSFERRED (MERGED INTO THE SOUL) IN THEIR OWN FORM, THEN THE SOUL ALSO WOULD BE SOMETHING LIABLE
TO ORIGINATION.-(271)
OORIMENTARY Further, the transference (inergence) of Happiness and other States into the Soul could be possible only in their owu forms; and in that case, like Unhappiness and the other States, the Soul also, being non-different from them, would be something liable to originalion.-capable of being pro. duced.-(271)
It has been asserted (under Text 227) that "the Soul's characters of Doer and Experiencer are not dependent upon the State. The answer to this is provided in the following:
TEXT (272).
IT THE CHARACTERS OF Doer AND Experiencer ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE STATE, THEN THE SAID CHARACTERS CANNOT BELONG TO THE SOUL-AS THEY CAN BELONG TO ONLY ONE WHO
HAS THAT STATE.-(272)
COMMENTARY.
If the character of Doer', etc. rested in the Souls themselves,-then these could never belong to the Soul, which never abandons its previous char
