The Sānkhya Kārikā, with the Bhāshya of Gauḍapāda — trans. H. T. Colebrooke and H. H. Wilson (1837)

p. 181

Chandrika has, ‘ Linga, from designating, apprising*:’ Gavrapapa, as above, ‘ It merges into nature at the season of dissolution :’ and VAcHEspati, ‘ Linga is so termed because it suffers resolution (/aya), or from its characteristic indication of the source from which it proceeds +. See also remarks on ver. 10. p. 43.

XLI.

As a painting stands not without a ground, nor a shadow without a stake, &c. so neither does subtile person subsist supportless, without specific (or unspecific) particles.

BHASHYA.

As a picture without the support of a wall or the like does not stand ; as the shadow does not stand without the stake (the gnomon of a dial); that is, without them does not exist. The term et cetera comprises (other illustrations); as, water cannot be without coldness, nor coldness without water; fire without heat; air without touch; ether without extension ; earth without smell; so by this illustration it is intimated that it, the rudiment (/inga), does not subsist without unspecific or rudimental particles. Here also specific elements are implied, or body composed of the five gross elements ; for without a body, having specific particles, where can the place of the /inga be; which, when it abandons one corporeal frame, takes refuge in another. Supportless; devoid of support. Subtile (person); instrument of thirteen kinds: this is the meaning of the text.

For what purpose (these subtile clements are embodied) is next described.

p. 182

COMMENT.

In the preceding verse it was stated that subtile person migrated, or as soon as deprived of one body it took refuge in another. It is now explained why this must be; and that it proceeds from the necessity of something to give to subtile principles asylum and support.

The text accordingly states, that the ‘rudiment,’ the dinga, cannot exist without such support; but with regard to the support itself there is some difference of opinion, the passage being variously read and interpreted.

Gavrapana reads the expression, aviséshair vind, ‘without unspecific particles ;; by which he states that he means the ‘ rudimental particles,’ the fan mdtras. He adds, that specific particles, gross elementary bodies, are also necessary ; using the terms avisésha and visésha as they were before employed (ver. 38), to represent severally the rudimental and gross elements. VAchespati and Narayana read the phrase viséshair vind, ‘without specific particles ;’ but they use the term ‘specific’ apparently in its general acceptation of ‘ species,’ without reference to its technical employment in ver. 38; for they confine its purpose to that of ‘ subtile bodies.” ‘Withont specific particles; without subtile bodies: that is the meaning ®.’ S. Tatwa Kaumudi. ‘Without specific particles; without very subtile bodies: the rudiment (/inga), being unsupported, does not remain; but being supported by subtile bodies it exists +.’ S. Chandrikd. So far therefore, although the reading be different, the interpretation appears to be the same. The dinga, or ‘ rudiment'—for it is to be observed, that it is this which is spoken of by both text and comment, and not the linga sarira, ‘rudimental body'—cannot subsist without a bodily frame. Whence that frame is derived, Gavrapava makes sufficiently clear. The liaga, or ‘rudiment, consists of but thirteen principles—the unclothed faculties and senses: the rudimental body, by which they are aggregated and

* faan faarafcha qeratizfcrd: | 1 faarecfirqerwd

p. 133

defended, is a tan mdtrika body, composed of the rudimental elements (p. 123). This again, for worldly existence, is enveloped in a bodily frame of gross elementary composition.

It may, however, be suspected that the authors of the S. Tatwa Kaumudi and the Chandrikd have not attended to the distinction, and that they intend by their ‘ specific or subtile bodies’ only one of the ‘species,’ or viséshas, which may be intimated in ver. 38; a modification of the gross elements enclosing, not the naked ‘ rudiment,’ the linga, but the ‘rudimental body,’ the linga sarfra. Such, at any rate, is the interpretation of Visnana Buixsuu, who, commenting on this stanza of the Kdrikd, explains ‘ specific particles, those which are called subtile amongst gross ; a species or variety of gross elements :’ and he says, that ‘the definition of subtile body which is given in the preceding stanza, “ composed of intellect with other subtile elements” (p. 128), as compared with the expression of the present verse, proves that there is a distinction made between subtile body and the specific variety of the gross elements, which is also called subtile *.’