Verse 296-297

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

स्यान्मतं विषयाकारा बुद्धिरादौ विवर्त्तते ।
तया व्यवसितं चार्थं पुरुषः प्रतिपद्यते ॥ २९६ ॥
प्रतिबिम्बोदयद्वारा चैवमस्योपभोक्तृता ।
न जहाति स्वरूपं तु पुरुषोऽयं कदाचन ॥ २९७ ॥

syānmataṃ viṣayākārā buddhirādau vivarttate |
tayā vyavasitaṃ cārthaṃ puruṣaḥ pratipadyate || 296 ||
pratibimbodayadvārā caivamasyopabhoktṛtā |
na jahāti svarūpaṃ tu puruṣo'yaṃ kadācana || 297 ||

The following might be urged—“first of all the cosmic intellect becomes evolved in the form of the object; and when this object has been ‘determined upon’ (defined) by cosmic intellect, the spirit attains it. thus his character of being the ‘enjoyer’ is through the appearance of the reflection; and the spirit never renounces his own nature.”—(296-297)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following text provides another explanation of the Soul being the ‘enjoyer’—from the standpoint of the other party:—[see verses 296-297 above]

The Spirit is not held to the ‘enjoyer’ in the sense that he becomes modified; what is meant is that he becomes so by way of the appearance therein of the object ‘determined’ by Cosmic Intellect. That is to say, the object, first of all, enters as a reflected image in the mirror of Cosmic Intellect,—this reflected image of the object then becomes transferred into Spirit, which is the second reflecting mirror; and this is what constitutes the Spirit being the ‘enjoyer’ (of the object); and not his undergoing modification. By the mere transference of the reflected image, the Spirit does not renounce his own nature, because, like the Mirror he remains just as he was.—Thus, in the argument that was urged above (by the Buddhist against the Sāṃkhya) to the effect that ‘what is non-differentiated from the non-enjoyer cannot be the enjoyer etc. etc,’ (under Text, 288)—the Reason is found to be ‘inconclusive—(296-297)

The answer to this is supplied in the following—[see verse 298 next]