________________
THE VEDANTA-PHILOSOPHY
175
Now, to prove the unity of the Soul (= ätmaikya) by a different approach (= naya), (we say the following:)
(11) yathā ghatādibhede 'pi mặdbhedo nā 'sti kaś cana/
(tathaiva dehabhede 'pi nā'tmabhedo 'sti kaś cana32 || Although there may be a difference between the various kinds of) pots etc., the clay (of which they are made) is in no way different. Similarly, although the bodies may differ, the Soul is in no way different. T: Although the products, like a pot, a cup etc. are different, there is no difference in their material cause. So also, there is no difference whatever in the Soul, although the bodies of deities33 etc. may differ from each other.
(12) ghatākāśe yathaikasmin rajodhūmādibhir vște /
tadvattā na hi sarvesām sukhāder na tathā'tmanah34 || When the ether in one pot becomes covered by dust, smoke and so forth, it is not that the ether in all the other pots also becomes similarly affected. So also with happiness etc., which are not of the Soul. T: The Buddhist having first found fault with the Soul-theorists (= ätmavādin) by saying: “As (your) Soul is omnipresent, if one (person) is happy, everybody else should also be happy”, the following is said for refuting the same. Although ether is all-pervading, when the ether occupying the interior of one pot is covered by dust, smoke etc., the ether inside all the other pots also does not on that account become so covered; nor does the absence of any such covering in the case of one pot cause the absence of the same in the case of all other pots. Likewise, when one person here becomes happy, all the rest also do not on that account become so; nor does the misery of one entail the misery of all the rest.
(Now,) if it is asked: "How does happiness or misery arise at all in each of these individuals (= samtāna)?”', the answer is (13) aprabodhād anātmajñaḥ svapne bhogābhimānavat35 /
cinoti karma bhunkte ca tatphalam yac chubhāśubham // 32 The second line of this stanza is missing in Mc. and has therefore been reconstructed from the Tibetan. For a different reconstruction, see A$. Pp. 52–53. The loss of this line may be due to the homoeographic 'sti kaś cana (either in the original ms. or in the copy). Cf. AS. III. 6, which is also found quoted in the Tibetan version of Sāntaraksita's Madhyamakālamkāra (see Walleser, Der ältere Vedanta, p. 20). 38 For this reference to deities, see T on stanzas 2, 4 above. 34 In (d), sukhădir would seem better than sukhāder of Mc. The first line is almost identical win ($. III. 5 (yathaikasmin ghatākāśe rajodhūmädibhir yute); the editor suggests the roll wing reconstruction of the second line from the Tibetan: na bhavanti tathā sarve i sukhādi tathātm at (p. 52). 35 Cf. numerous passages dealing with the dream-consciousness in the Upanişads,
