able to convey any
intelligible idea. The gloss sometimes requires gloss to make it
intelligible. The commentator says that the theory of rebirth mentioned
in verse 34 is that of the Sugatas or Buddhists. That theory is refuted
in verse 35. The objection to the Buddhistic theory is that mere ignorance
and karma cannot explain rebirth. There must be an indestructible Soul.
This the Buddhists do not allow, for they believe that Nirvana or
annihilation is possible. The argument, as sketched, proceeds in this
way: the being that is the result of the rebirth is apparently a
different being. What right have we to assert its identity with the being
that existed before? Ignorance and karma cannot _create_ a Soul though
they may affect the surroundings of the Soul in its new birth. The
objections to the Buddhistic theory became clear in the verses that
follow.

807. The sense is this: it is never seen in the world that the acts of
one person affect for good or for evil another person. If Chaitra exposes
himself to the night air, Maitra never catches cold for it. This direct
evidence should settle the controversy about the unseen, viz., whether
the acts of one in a previous life can affect another in a subsequent
life if there be no identity between the two beings in two lives.

808. It is needless to say that I have considerably elaborated the second
line of the verse, as a literal rendering would have been entirely
unintelligible. For example's sake I give that rendering; "That which is
separate Consciousness is also different. That from which it is, does not
recommend self."

809. If (as has already been said) the second Consciousness be the
resulting effect of the loss or destruction itself of the previous
Consciousness, then destruction is not annihilation, and, necessarily,
after Nirvana has been once attained, there may be a new Consciousness or
new birth, and, thus, after having again attained to Nirvana the same
result may follow. The Buddhistic Nirvana, therefore, cannot lead to that
final Emancipation which is indicated into the Brahmanical scriptures.

810. The Buddhists then, according to this argument, are not at all
benefited by asserting the existence of a permanent Soul unto which each
repeated Consciousness may inhere. The Soul, according to the Brahmanical
scriptures, has no attributes or possessions. It is eternal, immutable,
and independent of all attributes. The affirmance of attributes with
respect to t