e object of the
action. This is declared in scriptural passages also, as, for instance
(B/ri/. Up. III, 4, 2), 'Thou couldst not see the seer of sight.' The
individual soul is, moreover, capable of inwardly ruling the complex of
the organs of action, as it is the enjoyer. Therefore the internal ruler
is the embodied soul.--To this reasoning the following Sutra replies.
20. And the embodied soul (also cannot be understood by the internal
ruler), for both also (i.e. both recensions of the B/ri/had Ara/n/yaka)
speak of it as different (from the internal ruler).
The word 'not' (in the Sutra) has to be supplied from the preceding
Sutra. Although the attributes of seeing, &c., belong to the individual
soul, still as the soul is limited by its adjuncts, as the ether is by a
jar, it is not capable of dwelling completely within the earth and the
other beings mentioned, and to rule them. Moreover, the followers of
both /s/akhas, i.e. the Ka/n/vas as well as the Madhyandinas, speak in
their texts of the individual soul as different from the internal ruler,
viz. as constituting, like the earth, and so on, his abode and the
object of his rule. The Ka/n/vas read (B/ri/. Up. III, 7, 22), 'He who
dwells in knowledge;' the Madhyandinas, 'He who dwells in the Self.' If
the latter reading is adopted, the word 'Self' denotes the individual
soul; if the former, the individual soul is denoted by the word
'knowledge;' for the individual soul consists of knowledge. It is
therefore a settled matter that some being different from the individual
soul, viz. the lord, is denoted by the term 'internal ruler.'--But how,
it may be asked, is it possible that there should be within one body two
seers, viz. the lord who rules internally and the individual soul
different from him?--Why--we ask in return--should that be
impossible?--Because, the opponent replies, it is contrary to scriptural
passages, such as, 'There is no other seer but he,' &c., which deny that
there is any seeing, hearing, perceiving, knowing Self, but the internal
ruler under discussion.--May, we rejoin, that passage not have the
purpose of denying the existence of another ruler?--No, the opponent
replies, for there is no occasion for another ruler (and therefore no
occasion for denying his existence), and the text does not contain any
specification, (but merely denies the existence of any other seer in
general.)
We therefore advance the following final refutation of the opponent'
|