These represent
the heads of the different arguments urged by sceptics for showing the
non-existence of anything besides the body which is seen and felt. I
have, of course, followed the commentator in his elaboration of the sense
of the verse. There can be no doubt that the commentator is right.
805. Some idea may be formed by the English reader of the extreme
terseness of these verses by attending to the elaborations contained
within the parentheses above. The exigencies of English grammar as also
of perspicuity have obliged me to use, even in the portions unenclosed,
more words than what occur in the original Sanskrit. All these verses are
cruces intended to stagger Ganesa.
806. Both the vernacular translators have rendered this verse wrongly.
This fact is, without clearly understanding either the text or the gloss,
they have used bits of the gloss without being 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
inverse 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.
Pages:
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835