________________
126
YOGABINDU
But then a soul (supposed to be absolutely eterpal) must be either a doer or an enjoyer, but never both a door and an enjoyer or peither a doer por an epjover.
एकान्तकर्तृभावत्वे कथं भोक्तत्वसंभवः । भोक्तभावनियोगेऽपि कर्तृत्वं ननु दुःस्थितम् ॥४८०॥ ekāntakaflbhāvatce katham bhoklğlvasambhavaḥ /
bhoktrbhāvaniyoge' pi karlstvam nanit duhsthitam /;4801/ For how can a soul that is absolutely of the nature of a doer be also an enjoyer ? Similarly, it is difficult to see how a soul that is absolutely of the nature of an enjoyer can also be a doer.
न चाकृतस्य भोगोऽस्ति कृतं वाऽभोगमित्यपि । उभयानुभयभावत्वे विरोधासंभवौ ध्रुवौ ॥४८१॥ na cõkstasya bhogoʻsii krtan va'bhogam ity api /
ubhayānubkayabhāvalve virodhāsaibhavau dhruvau 11481/1 One cannot enjoy the fruit of what one has not done; similarly one cannot fail to enjoy what one has done. And the opponent will be contradictiog himself if he says that a soul is both a doer and an enjoyer, while it is impossible for a soul to be neither a doer nor an enjoyer,
यत्तथोभयभावत्वेऽप्यभ्युपेतं विरुध्यते । परिणामित्वसङ्गत्या न त्वागोऽत्रापरोऽपि वः ||४८२॥
fat tathobhayabhāvatre' py abhyupetam virudhyale /
· pariņāmitvasangatjā na tvägo'trāparo' pi vaḥ 1/482|| Certainly, even the position that a soul is both a doer and an enjoyer goes against the opponent's basic thesis (that a soul is possessed of an absolutely fixed nature), and this because in that case a soul turns out to be something that undergoes transformation. For the rest, there is nothing faulty about the position in question.
एकान्तनित्यतायां तु तत्तथैकत्वभावतः । भवापवर्गभेदोऽपि न मुख्य उपपद्यते ॥४८३।। ekāntanilyalājām tu tat tathaikatvabhāvalaḥ /
bhavāpavargabhedo'pi na mukhya upa padyate //483|| Moreover, if a soul is absolutely eternal it will be untenable to genuinely distinguish in it a state of worldly existence and a state of moksa, for this soul will now be possessing one nature. 1. A reads f57.
