say, we obtain
deliverance; I perceive this law of birth has also concealed in it
another law as a germ; you say that the 'I' (i.e. the soul of Kapila)
being rendered pure, forthwith there is true deliverance; but if we
encounter a union of cause and effect, then there is a return to the
trammels of birth; just as the germ in the seed, when earth, fire,
water, and wind seem to have destroyed in it the principle of life,
meeting with favorable concomitant circumstances will yet revive,
without any evident cause, but because of desire; so those who have
gained this supposed release, likewise keeping the idea of 'I' and
living things, have in fact gained no final deliverance; in every
condition, letting go the three classes and again reaching the three
excellent qualities, because of the eternal existence of soul, by the
subtle influences of that (influences resulting from the past), the
heart lets go the idea of expedients, and obtains an almost endless
duration of years. This, you say, is true release; you say 'letting go
the ground on which the idea of soul rests,' that this frees us from
'limited existence,' and that the mass of people have not yet removed
the idea of soul, and are therefore still in bondage. But what is this
letting go gunas (cords fettering the soul); if one is fettered by these
gunas, how can there be release? For guni (the object) and guna (the
quality) in idea are different, but in substance one; if you say that
you can remove the properties of a thing and leave the thing by arguing
it to the end, this is not so. If you remove heat from fire, then there
is no such thing as fire, or if you remove surface from body, what body
can remain? Thus guna is as it were surface, remove this and there can
be no guni. So that this deliverance, spoken of before, must leave a
body yet in bonds. Again, you say that by clear knowledge you get rid of
body; there is then such a thing as knowledge or the contrary; if you
affirm the existence of clear knowledge, then there should be someone
who possesses it (i.e. possesses this knowledge); if there be a
possesor, how can there be deliverance from this personal 'I'? If you
say there is no 'knower,' then who is it that is spoken of as 'knowing'?
If there is knowledge and no person, then the subject of knowledge may
be a stone or a log; moreover, to have clear knowledge of these minute
causes of contamination and reject them thoroughly, these being so
rejected, there must