Charaka-Samhita — trans. Kaviraj Avinash Chandra Kaviratna

At first sight one may think that there is more than one mind in one and the same person in consequence of the variety that is observable in the objects of the mind, in those of the senses (that follow the lead of the mind), and in the resolutions (or judgments) of the mind, as also in consequence of the union of all the three attributes of Goodness, Passion, and Darkness with the mind. In reality, however, there is no multiplicity of minds. If the mind were more than one, it could simultaneously attend to more than one object. (As, however, that is never seen, the theory of the multiplicity of mind must be erroneous. There cannot be, in reality, more than one mind). Therefore, all the senses are in¬ capable of acting at one and the same time.*®

.The mind is sometimes possessed by the quality of Satvia (Goodness), sometimes by that of Rajas (Passion) and sometimes by that of Tamas (Darkness). Agreeably to the kind of mind thus endued that continually attaches to a person, is that person regarded by the wise in respect of his character, for the character

* This is a very difficult passage. In most editions, it is disfigured by errors of reading. The grammatical analysis is this : * ekasmin purushe anekam satwam ; ’ one may thus think in consequence of the ‘ vyabliicharana ’ of ‘ swarthah,’ of ‘ indriyarthah, ’ and of ‘ samlcalpah as also of the ‘ yoga ’ of ‘ Satwa,’ ‘ Rajas, ’ and ‘ Tamas.’ What is implied by this is as follows : the objects of the mind are different. One sometimes feels happy, sometimes miserable, and sometimes indifferent. The objects of the senses, again, are characterised by equal variety. One sees a blue object, then a red one, then a white one, &c. ; then again, one hears a sweet sound, then a harsh sound, &c. The ideas carried to the mind by the different senses are widely different from one another. Even the same sense, at different times, carries different notions to the mind. From this admitted variety of feelings and ideas one may conclude that the mind instead of being single is many ; that it is one mind that feels happy, another that feels miserable, a third that has knowledge of form, a fourth that has perception of sound, &c. Turning one’s attention, again, to the moral conduct of a person, one and the same person is seen now engaged in a righteous act, now indulging in passion, and now perpetrating sinful and wicked deeds. Thus, from the union of Satwa (Goodness), Rajas (Passion), and Tamas (Darkness), with the same person, the argument in favor ' of a multiplicity of minds may become stronger. The author then says that this is not so, for, if many, the mind Could at the same time attend to many things. But that is admittedly impossible. Hence, there is but a single mind. It follows from this that the senses, which cannot •work unless the mind leads them, though many, cannot work all together at the same time, for in working they shall have to wait for their single leader. — T.

p. 86

must depend upon the preponderance of the quality that manifests itself in a person.*4

The senses become capable of seizing their respective objects only when they are led by the mind.f8

The five senses are vision, hearing, scent, taste, and touch. The materials that enter into the composition of the five senses are space, wind, light, water, and earth. The resting places of the five senses are the two eyes, the two ears, the nose, the tongue, and the skin or whole body. The five objects of the five senses are sound, touch, form, taste, and scent. The five percep¬ tions derived from the five senses are the perception of form through vision, &c. These perceptions spring from a union of the senses, the objects of the senses, mind, and the soul, and are of two kinds, viz., transitory and durable or leading to certitude. This about the five and twenty topics (of knowledge or enquiry). J8

Mind, the functions of the mind, the Understanding, and the Soul constitute, in brief, the substances and qualities that are

* In brief, what is implied by this is that he who repeatedly manifests the quality of Goodness is regarded to be Good in respect of his character : he who repeatedly gives way to Passion is regarded as Passionate : and he who repeatedly perpetrates wicked and sinful acts is regarded as under the lead of Darkness. Not that the good man is never expected to do what is wicked, or that the wicked are incapable of never doing what is good ; only, in determining one’s character, we must be guided by the predomi¬ nance of the particular quality that is manifested in one’s acts. — T.