________________
218
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER VII.
TEXT (337).
The Puigala CANNOT BE SPOKEN OB AS 'DIFFERENT TROM TAK Thought
phases,-AS IN TRAT CASE THIS DOCTRINE WOULD BE THE SAME AS THOSE OF THE Tairthika Philosophers' ;-NOR CAN IT BH SPOKEN OF AS THE SAME' (NON-DIFFERENT); AS, IN
THAT CASE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS MORE THAN ONE (MANY) AND SO FORTH ;BENCE IT IS BEST TO REGARD IT AS 'INCAPABLE OF BEING SPOKEN OP' (AS EITHER TIE ONT OR THE
OTHER).—(337)
COMMENTARY
If the Pudwala wero hold to be different from the Thought-phases, then it would come to be the viow of tlie' Soul 'propounded by the Tairthika Philosophers,—wlich would mean the acceptance of the doctrine of the Eternal
Soul '; and it is not possible (as shown above) for the Eternal Soul to be the doer and the enjoyer, because it is always undifferentiated, like Akasha ; and the Blessed Lord also has denied the Eternal Soul; whose words- all entities are devoid of the Soul 'would this become contradicted.
"In that case, the Pudgala may be regarded as non-different from the Thought-phases”.
Nor can it be spoken of as 'non-different from the Thought-phases.If the Thought-phases, Colour and the rest, were tho Pudgala, then, as it would be non different from many Thought-phases, the Pudgala itself would have to be regarded as many,-like the various forms of the Thought-phases; and the Pudgala is held to be one ; as has been asserted in the sentence- The Pudgala is one, and is born in the world as one; and so also the Tathāgata'. -The phrase and so forth is meant to include 'non-enternality and such other characters. Under the circumstances, the Pudgala would be something linble to destruction, like the Thought-phases; which would mean that there is destruction of what has been done' [i.c. there would be no seruing of the fruit of one's deeds to the man, who would be disappearing every moment); and the Blessed Lord bas rejected the doctrine of the absolute destruction of things. From all this il follows that the Pudgala is 'incapable of being spoken of' (either as the same as, or as different from, the Thouglitphases).-(337)
The following Text proceeds to show that like other things, the Pudgala also cannot be regarded as existing, because it is incapable of being spoken of this conclusion being deducible from your own words -
