Charaka-Samhita — trans. Kaviraj Avinash Chandra Kaviratna

If it is the mother’s or the father’s Soul that passeth into the offspring, then the Soul would pass in two ways, that is to say, either it would pass wholly or in measure.6 If it passes wholly, then the death of either the mother or the father or of both would occur instantaneously.^ (If it be said that instead of passing

* No one sees the sclerotica or the retina of the eye by which he sees other objects. No one has direct cognisance of the auricular drum against which the waves of air beat for producing the sensation of hearing ; &c. The Senses, then, in consequence of which ‘ Pratyaksha ’ is admitted to exist, are themselves not ‘ Pratyaksha.’ — T.

•f The Commentator gives the following examples for illustrating what is said here. Of objects very close to the senses but which are not yet perceived, collyrium applied to the eyes is one ; of objects very distant, birds soaring aloft are an example ; of covered objects, pots and utensils sunk in water may be cited. When one suffers from jaundice, one sees all things yellow, i. e., fails to perceive the real hue of objects spread out before one’s eyes. When the mind is otherwise engaged ; such, for instance, as the lover’s inability to hear what others say when he is gazing at the face of his lady-love. Then, again, when a particular fruit is mixed up with others of its class, though the entire heap is before the eyes yet the particular one cannot be differentiated. So also when a meteor shoots down at midday, the sun’s light overpowers its brilliancy and makes it invisible. Of minute things before the eyes but unperceived are Worms and written characters placed at a little distance. — T.

$ The argument contained in these two verses is this s if it is the mother’s, or the father’s, or the mother’s and the father’s Soul that passes into the offspring, ( that is, if the Soul that is seen in the offspring is the mother’s or the father’s or of both), then either the whole of the mother’s Soul or the father’s, or of both, would so pass, or only a portion of the same would so pass. If the whole of the mother’s or the whole of the father’s Soul passes into the offspring, then immediately after birth

p. 116

CHAR AKA -SA M HIT A

wholly, the Soul passes in measure, it should then be answered that) the Soul is subtile and it can have no portion, (not being divisible like a gross object).7 (If it be said that it is the Under¬ standing and the Mind of the parents that pass into the offspring, it may be answered that) the nature of both the Understanding and the Mind has been settled. They are even as the Soul (i. e., subtile and indivisible). Those who hold this opinion {-viz., that the Soul of the offspring is derived from the parents) would fail to account for the origin of the four orders of being, (that is to say, the viviparous, the oviparous, vegetable, and the filth-born. The two first orders may derive their souls from parents. But the other two cannot, for parents they have none like the two first).8 It should be known that whatever attributes appertain to the nature of the six ingredients (viz., earth, water, light, wind, space, and soul), appertain also to their combinations and divisions. The action of those six ingredients is the cause (of living creatures).*9 The Soul, as an element in the constitution of creatures, is without a begin¬ ning. That, therefore, which has no beginning, cannot be conceived to have been created by any other being. If, however, that other be the Soul which is to be regarded as the cause (of the birth of of the offspring, either the mother or the father or both would die, becoming Soul-less. The word ‘ nirantaram ’ in the second line of 7 is grammatically connected with the first line. — T