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

The question then is not one merely of a difference of interpretation, but it is a difference of doctrine. According to Gaurapdpa’s explanation, which appears to be the original theory, living bodies consist of two parts, one of a subtile, and one of a gross nature; the latter perishes or decomposes at death; the former may live on through the existence of the world: the latter gives cover to the former, which is the immediate vehicle of soul, and accompanies it constantly, through successive perishable bodies, until soul's liberation, or until a period of universal dissolution restore its component parts to their primitive and common parent. To this body the term of linga sartra, ‘rudimental body,’ is properly applied ; it is also called dtivéhika, that which is swifter than the wind in passing from nie to a ; and, as Mr. Colebrooke observes, “ it seems ot Eee _ prrareriefefn areca safcerat serpent fortran agafeqertan Fee rere eee Ri |p. 134 to be a compromise between an immaterial soul and the difficulty which a gross understanding finds in grasping the comprehension of individual existence, unattached to matter.” Tr. R. As. Soc. I. 32.

But some of the expounders of the Sankhya doctrines have not thought even the rudimental body sufficiently material for the purpose of independent existence, when separated from gross body ; and a third corporeal frame has been devised for its support, to which the present verse of the Kérikd and the other passages which seem to allude to a subtile form of specific or gross elementary matter relate, according to VisNana Buiksuu: ‘Having abandoned gross body, a support is necessary for the passage of rudimental body to other regions, and another species of body is established *.’ This is more particularly explained in the same writer's commentary on a somewhat obscure Satra immediately preceding: ‘ “In the body, which is the receptacle of the receptacle of that (rudimental body); for the denomination of body is applied to one as it is to the other.” That is, the receptacle or support of that rudiment, which will be described as composed of the five elements, is supported or contained in body constituted of the six organic ingredients (bones, blood, &c.); to which the name body is applied, from the same being applicable to the sense of the word adhish hina (déha, “body,” being understood apparently in either case “containing” or “ comprehending”). The corporeity of the vehicle or receptacle (adhishthdna) arises from its relation to the (aggregate) linga; the corporeity of gross body, from its being the receptacle of vehicular body. This is the meaning of the text. We have therefore three (kinds of) body See = a passage which appears opposed to alii weg ivernicatian Theslieetitiogy wthiaet ferorttfi 1 1 wefirerarad S@ warereare: u weq frre TERMUTTAT AA TAATMPYAGTS AEUTAY are Hifwaee waved Rearewrarey Wenfrerrwraret tearerfernt: ferrereurefa way tenafierarrare weed tena aatafiard: | an a witord fae)

p. 135

this, and to intimate, as GaurapApa has done, a twofold distinction only of bodies, the same writer observes, ‘ What is said in writings, upon the authority of the Védas, that there are but two (kinds of) bodies, arises from their identifying the rudimental and vehicular bodies as one, as they are mutually permanent and subtile*.’ This is no doubt correct ; but it is very unlikely that the elder writers admitted any form of the gross elements to be equally permanent and subtile as the rudiments from which they proceeded. In the institutes of Manu, for instance, although the doctrine there laid down is of a different tenor from that of the Sankhya system, we have but two kinds of bodies, a subtile and a substantial one, described : ‘ After death another body, composed of the five rudimental elements, is immediately produced, for wicked men, that may suffer the tortures of the infernal regions +.’ Manu, XII.16. We have here, then, a body composed of the five rudimental elements. In the Bhagavad Gita it is intimated that soul retains the senses and mind in the intervals of migration: ‘ At the time that spirit obtains a body, and when it abandons one, it migrates, taking with it those senses, as the wind wafts along with it the perfume of the flowers {.’

If Vicuespati be correct in his interpretation of the word purusha, the Véda makes one kind of subtile body of the size of the thumb: ‘“Yama drew forth violently the subtile body, as big as the thumb.’—The specification of the size merely denotes minuteness; extraction of soul would be absurd ; and therefore by purusha must be meant “a subtile body,” that which reposes in gross body|.’ This, agreeably to the older doctrine, would

* werey whowaayad aferdita Tina Geaerraea | te ea ATT: Be qephrargary | wk amanifaragerea yt! bt zeT artfe weranaratbax | pera darts anptantrarrar! larrrarnraft | aiqeart ged fread at sostfete t age ARTs | aM fein qaqa qeawata fe ght aes wet Ste aftr