By the
inference of reason, there is similitude, in respect of attribute or
property, between the eye, vision, and form. The commentator explains
this clearly Drashtri-darsanadrisya nam trayanamapi gunatamatyam
upapannam. This is indicated with a little variation in the next verse.
K.P. Singha skips over the line. The Burdwan translator gives an
incorrect version.
1315. Manas is mind, Buddhi is Understanding, and Kshetrajna is the Soul.
What, however, is Chitta is difficult to ascertain, unless it means vague
or indefinite perception. In some systems of philosophy the Chitta is
placed above the Understanding.
1316. The Bengal reading yathagantam is preferable to the Bombay reading
yatha mama.
1317. The first line of 27 is grammatically connected with the last line
of 26. The second line of 27 is very abstruse. The grammatical
construction is this: tayorbhavayogamanam (sushuptau) pratyaksham
(drishtam); (tadeva) nityam, ipsitam (cha). What is meant by this is that
in ordinary men, the notions during wakefulness are not the notions they
cherish during dreams: nor are their notions during dreams identifiable
with those they entertain while wakeful. There is similarity but not
identity. In eternal Sushupti, however, which is Emancipation, the
notions of wakefulness pass into those of dream and those of dream pass
into those of wakefulness, i.e., both (or, rather, the same, for there is
then perfect identity between them) become directly apprehensible in
Sushupti or Emancipation.
Pages:
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935