Charaka-Samhita — trans. Kaviraj Avinash Chandra Kaviratna

It has been asked that if man is to be regarded as having man for his progenitor, why then do not the children born of idiots and others resemble their parents ? The answer to this is as follows : verily, in the seed from which the body springs, there are particular portions from which particular limbs grow. When a particular portion of the seed, therefore, is burnt up or consumed, the particular limb which would have grown out of it becomes deformed. No deformities, again, occur if no portion of the seed becomes burnt up or consumed.

This answers both the questions (viz., about the presence or absence of deformities in the human body)fM

The senses, again, of all persons are derived from the Self. The reason of their presence or absence is dependent on the acts of previous births.

Hence, the children born of idiots and the rest need not neces¬ sarily resemble their progenitors.^80

* In spite of the air of learning with which this passage has deen invested, it does not require any penetration to see that as an answer; to BharadwHja’s objections, it has no value. Divested of surplusage, the answer is that the foetus takes a human shape because it is born of a human womb. The analogy, again, between a wax-mould and the human womb is scarcely correct. By waxmould is meant a mould of clay prepared with the aid of wax. First a wax figure is made. It is then covered up with clay. The clay is exposed to the heat of the sun. When dry and hard, it is placed upon a fire so that the wax comes out through holes and leaves a hollow mould within. — T.

j- The original is so terse that it is very difficult to render it as it is. I, therefore, expand it a little and give the sense in an intelligible form. What is said is this : the father’s semen, mixing with the mother’s blood, forms what is called the seed. In this seed are portions adapted to produce particular parts of the body. Thus there is a portion from which the eyes would grow ; another from which tho ears would grow ; etc. What the Bisbi asserts is that if particular portions of the seed become diseased or lose their power, those particular limbs which would have grown from them be¬ come necessarily ill-formed or uuformed. The seed of blind parents may in itself be perfect, and hence the children of blind parents may have eyes. — T.

J Of the five entities which have been mentioned as the cause ol con¬ ception or the foetus, the Self ' is one. From the Self, it has already been

CHARAKA SAMHITA.

It is not true that the Self is knower only when the senses are present, and that he is not knower when these are absent. The fact is, the Self is never dissociated from Mind. Agreeably to the character of the Mind w:th which the Self is associated, the Self derives the kind of knowledge he has.*1

( Here are some verses.)

In the absence of the senses the Actor cannot have any know¬ ledge of acts. That act can never be accomplished in the absence of those senses with which it is accomplished.32

With even the knowledge of how to make it, the potter, in the absence of clay, never sets himself to make a pot.

Listen now to this Science of Self : knowledge of Self consti¬ tutes a Power that is infinite (in strength).38

Withdrawing the corporal senses, and restraining the mind also that is (naturally) restless, and entering into the sphere of Self, he that has knowledge of Self, completely resting on his own know¬ ledge , and expanding his ken over all, knows completely all entities.*84 said {vide this- Lesson ante ) one derives' one’s period of life, knowledge of Self, mind, the senses, the life-breaths, will, apprehension, the incidents of form or features, voice, complexion, pleasure and pain, desire and aversion, etc.

By * Baiva ’ is meant the unexhausted acts of previous lives. — T.

* What Punarvasu says in these verses is this : there are two sources of knowledge: 1st, the senses, and 2nd, the Self as existing in his true or unmodified nature. Without the senses, the knowledge which is derived through the senses cannot be acquired. But this knowledge is not the whole complement of knowledge which the Self has or may acquire. By yoga or samadhi, the Self, restraining the seuses aud the miud, can withdraw into his own proper or true sphere. Iu this state, he becomes omniscient. The Self, as the object of ordinary observation, is always seen to exist in a state of union with the senses and the mind. Hindu philosophy recognises the existence of Self as dissociated from the senses and; the mind. That is his true and unmodified state. Indeed, the Self is then said to exist in swarupa. While existing in swarupa, he becomes infinite and identifiable with [Brahman. He then possesses all the attributes which characterise Brahman, vis., omnisCHARAKA SAMHITA. 735

(If this does not satisfy thee) thou mayst accept, O Bhara¬ dwaja, another notion which is a well-settled conclusion.