365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of S奴tra 4.17:

啶むう啷佮お啶班ぞ啶椸ぞ啶�啷囙�曕�嵿し啶苦い啷嵿さ啶距�氞�� 啶氞た啶む�嵿い啶膏�嵿く 啶掂じ啷嵿い啷� 啶溹�嵿�炧ぞ啶むぞ啶溹�嵿�炧ぞ啶むぎ啷� 啷� 啷�.啷оキ 啷�

tadupar膩g膩pek峁�itv膩c cittasya vastu j帽膩t膩箩帽腻迟补m || 4.17 ||

tad鈥攖丑别谤别产测, 耻辫补谤腻驳补鈥�colouring, 补辫别办峁�i迟惫腻迟鈥攂ecause of the needing, cittasya鈥攆or the mind, by the mind, vastu鈥攁n object. 箩帽腻迟补鈥攌苍辞飞苍, a箩帽腻迟补m鈥攐r unknown,

17. The mind needing to be coloured thereby an object may be known or unknown.鈥�177.

The Sankhya-pravachana commentary of Vyasa

[English translation of the 7th century commentary by 痴测腻蝉补 called the 厂腻峁卥丑测补-pravacana, 痴测腻蝉补bh膩峁�ya or Yogabh膩峁�ya]

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

鈥楾he mind standing in need of being coloured thereby, an object may be known or unknown.鈥� Objects are in nature similar to that of loadstone; the mind is similar in characteristic to iron. Objects coining into contact with the mind colour it. Whatever object colours the mind, that object becomes known. That which becomes known is an object. That which is not thus known is the 笔耻谤耻峁�a and is unknown. The mind is changeful, because it assumes the natures of known and unknown objects.鈥�77.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

[English translation of the 9th century Tattvavai艣膩rad墨 by V膩caspatimi艣ra]

Let that be. If the object were self-dependent and also unintelligent, it would never be illuminated. If now it were to become illuminated, its non-intelligence too would disappear. No existence can remain as such when it gives up its nature. Nor is it proper

that the nature of an unintelligent object should receive the illumination of its characteristic by being the receptacle of the action of the senses. Because if it became the characteristic of the object then it would, like the qualities of blueness, &c., be the common attribute of all the 笔耻谤耻峁�as. This being so, if one man became learned, all would become learned. No one would remain ignorant. Nor is it proper that the present should be characteristic of the past and the yet unmanifested. Hence to say that an object is self-dependent and t hat it is the sphere for the act of perception is but a wish of the mind For this reason says:鈥斺�楾he mind needing to be coloured by contact therewith, an object may be known or unknown.鈥� Even though an object is by nature non-intelligent, it colours the mind by coming into contact therewith through the passage of the senses, because such is the mirror of the mind, the power of consciousness being reflected into it, enlivens the mind with the colour of the object therein, and thus knows it. It does not however produce any sort of clearness, &c., in the object. Nor is it that the power of consciousness is unrelated to the mind, because it has been said that its reflection passes into it. Although the mind being all-pervading, and the senses being of the nature of the principle of individuality, cannot come into relationship with the object, still the relationship of the object is with the mind which functions in the body. It is for this reason that they have been said to be of the nature of the loadstone, and that the mind possesses a characteristic similar to iron and that they colour it by having come into contact with it through the passage of the senses. Says that it is for this reason that the mind is changeful: 鈥極n account of the object being known, &c.鈥欌��17.