________________
(0) SANKHYA DOOTRINE OF THE SOUL'.
197
TEXTS (296.297).
THE FOLLOWING MIGHT BE URGED-" FIRST OF ALL THE COSMIC INTELLECT BECOMES EVOLVED IN THE FORM OF THE OBJECT; AND WHEN THIS OBJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED UPON' (DEVINED) BY COSMIC INTELLECT, THE SPIRIT ATTAINS IT. THUS HIS CHARACTER OF BEING THE 'ENJOYER' IS THROUGH THE APPEARANCE OF THE REFLECTION; AND THE SPIRIT NEVER BENOUNCES HIS OWN
NATURE."—(296-297)
COMMENTARY
"The Spirit is not hold to the enjoyer in the sense that he becomes modified; what is meant is that he becomes so by way of the appearance therein of the object determined by Cosmic Intolleet. That is to say, the object, first of all, enters as a reflected image in the mirror of Cosmio Intellect,--this reflected image of the object then becomes transferred into Spirit, which is the second reflecting mirror; and this is what constitutes the Spirit being the enjoyer' (of the object); and not his undergoing modification. By the mere transference of the reflected image, the Spirit does not renounce his own nature, because, like the Mirror he remains just as he was.—Thus, in the argument that was urged above (by the Buddhist against the Sarikhya) to the effect that
what is non-differentiuted from the non-enjoyer cannot be the enjoyer etc. etc.' (under Text, 288)-the Renson is found to be 'inconclusive'-(206-297)
The answer to this is supplied in the following
TEXT (298).
OUR ANSWER TO THIS IS AS FOLLOWS IF THE REFLECTION APPEARS IN
THE SAME FORM (AS THR REFLECTING SUBSTANCE), THEN THU SAME LIABILITY TO APPEARANCE AND DISAPPEARANCE REMAINS.-IE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS DIFFERENT,
THEN THE SPIRIT CANNOT BE THE enjoyer.-(298)
COMMENTARY
You hold that the reflection of the object in Cosmic Intellect becomes transferred to the Spirit, who is like a second mirror;now if this reflection in Spirit is non-different from the Spirit itself, then the Spirit rernains liable to
appearance and disappearance' as urged above; for the simple reason that he is non-different from identified with the Reflection, which is liable to appearance and disappearance.-If, on the other hand, the viow held is that the Reflection is something different from the Spirit, then he cannot be the
enjoyer'; as his condition would not be different in any way from what it was when he was not the enjoyer':-Nor can it be right to regard the Spirit's
