________________
(c) SANKHYA DOCTRIND OF THE SOUL'.
193
TEXT (287).
As RDGARDS THIS DOCTRINE, IT SENTIINCE'IS HELD TO BE ONE ONLY, THEN HOW IS IT THAT, IN THE COGNITIONS OF COLOUR, SOUND AND OTHER OBJECTS, WHAT IS CLEARLY PERCEIVED IS A FORM BESET WITH DIVERSITY ?--
(287).
COMMENTARY To explain-When the Sanya says that " Sentience is the Soul's own form ", what becomes postulated is that sentience is eternal and of one form,inasmuch as it is non-different from the Soul who is eternal and of one form. This however is contrary to facts of perception; inasmuch as in the Cognitions of Colour, Sound and other things, what is clearly-distinctly-perceived, througlı their own Cognition itself is a form beset with diversity, -i.e. a diverse character is perceived ;-and this could not be possible if Sentience were only one.-(287)
The following Text shows that the said doctrine is open to the charge of being contrary to doctrines of the Sankhya himself :
TEXT (288).
ITSENTIENCE'IS OF ONE TORM AND CONTINUES TO ESIST TOR ALL TIME, THEN, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TOR. THE SENTIENT SOUL TO BE
THE ENJOYER OF THINGS OF MANY KINDS 1-(288)
COMMENTARY.
The Soul is of one form, and yet the enjoyer of many kinds of things, this involves self contradiction: specially as it cannot be distinguished from the state in which one is not the enjoyer.-(288)
It might be argued that "there is no self-contradiction, because of the presence of the desire to see and other characters".
The following Test supplies the answer to this :
TEXT (289).
THE DESIRE TO SEE AND THE LIKE, WHICH ARE DIVERSE, DO NOT COME INTO EXISTINCE AS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE SPIRIT'S EXPERIENCE; FOR, IF THEY DID SO, THEN THE SOUL
TTSELF WOULD BE SOMETHING produced.-(289)
COMMENTARY.
If, in regard to colour, etc. the desire to see desire to hear' and so forth-which are different from one another,-be assumed to be the basis of
13
