[Continution from the caption of previous post i.e. verse no. 37..][Please see my previous quote for linked description]. Just as the perception, observation and self-consciousness of things get transmitted to the Budhhi, by taking thier own respective forms, the functions of senses too, in a similar way, becomes identified with the Budhhi in its own operation in the form of determining. It is just like the troops of the village-chief becoming one with the troops of the Governor. In a similar way Budhhi accomplishes for the Purusha experiences of all things in the form of sound etc. Now, here arises an: Objection: If the budhhi is the one that accomplishes the experiences for the Purusha(पुरुष) in respect to all the objects, then, no emancipation is ever possible. It then anserered as: it is again etc. It discriminates the difference between the Purusha(पुरुष) and the Pradhana(प्रधान). Here, the usage of the term "antram vishnashti*"[(अन्तरं विशनष्टी) {*see the sanskrit verse in previous quote}] discriminates the difference which is similar to the clause odanpaakam pachati(ओदनपाकम् पचति)― cooks the cooking of rice**. This is shown that emancipation is the purpose of the Spirit Since the difference between the पुरुष and the प्रधान is only artificial it should be transient; then, the emancipation brought about by the discrimination of that difference also must transient. This is answered as: subtle etc. The said difference is subtle, i.e. it is difficult to perceive. 'प्रधान is subject to modifications. I am different from that' ― this difference is ever existing; but due to the absence of the discrimination, the Budhhi just creates an awareness that there is no difference; but it does not create that difference due to which only transiency could be implied. Now, the Organs have been described: Now the description of specific as well as non–specific objects. (Will post next quote.. till then it is as it is.) **[The idea is this; the term vishanashti (विशनष्टी) has been explained as 'discriminates the difference'. Thus, the mention of antaram(अन्तरं) also seems to be superfluous. The example of odanpaakam(ओदनपाकं) is cited to point out that the usage of antaram(अन्तरं) is not superfluous. It only helps in emphasising the meaning of the sentence.
![[Continution from the caption of previous post i.e. verse no. 37..][Please see my previous quote for linked description].
Just as the perception, observation and self-consciousness of things get transmitted to the Budhhi, by taking thier own respective forms, the functions of senses too, in a similar way, becomes identified with the Budhhi in its own operation in the form of determining. It is just like the troops of the village-chief becoming one with the troops of the Governor. In a similar way Budhhi accomplishes for the Purusha experiences of all things in the form of sound etc.
Now, here arises an:
Objection: If the budhhi is the one that accomplishes the experiences for the Purusha(पुरुष) in respect to all the objects, then, no emancipation is ever possible. It then anserered as: it is again etc. It discriminates the difference between the Purusha(पुरुष) and the Pradhana(प्रधान). Here, the usage of the term "antram vishnashti*"[(अन्तरं विशनष्टी) {*see the sanskrit verse in previous quote}] discriminates the difference which is similar to the clause odanpaakam pachati(ओदनपाकम् पचति)― cooks the cooking of rice**. This is shown that emancipation is the purpose of the Spirit Since the difference between the पुरुष and the प्रधान is only artificial it should be transient; then, the emancipation brought about by the discrimination of that difference also must transient. This is answered as: subtle etc. The said difference is subtle, i.e. it is difficult to perceive. 'प्रधान is subject to modifications. I am different from that' ― this difference is ever existing; but due to the absence of the discrimination, the Budhhi just creates an awareness that there is no difference; but it does not create that difference due to which only transiency could be implied.
Now, the Organs have been described: Now the description of specific as well as non–specific objects. (Will post next quote.. till then it is as it is.)
**[The idea is this; the term vishanashti (विशनष्टी) has been explained as 'discriminates the difference'. Thus, the mention of antaram(अन्तरं) also seems to be superfluous. The example of odanpaakam(ओदनपाकं) is cited to point out that the usage of antaram(अन्तरं) is not superfluous. It only helps in emphasising the meaning of the sentence.](https://media.nojoto.com/content/media/5111588/2023/02/feed/42553b077131d2ce5280b98a6f15666a/42553b077131d2ce5280b98a6f15666a_default.jpg "[Continution from the caption of previous post i.e. verse no. 37..][Please see my previous quote for linked description].
Just as the perception, observation and self-consciousness of things get transmitted to the Budhhi, by taking thier own respective forms, the functions of senses too, in a similar way, becomes identified with the Budhhi in its own operation in the form of determining. It is just like the troops of the village-chief becoming one with the troops of the Governor. In a similar way Budhhi accomplishes for the Purusha experiences of all things in the form of sound etc.
Now, here arises an:
Objection: If the budhhi is the one that accomplishes the experiences for the Purusha(पुरुष) in respect to all the objects, then, no emancipation is ever possible. It then anserered as: it is again etc. It discriminates the difference between the Purusha(पुरुष) and the Pradhana(प्रधान). Here, the usage of the term \"antram vishnashti*\"[(अन्तरं विशनष्टी) {*see the sanskrit verse in previous quote}] discriminates the difference which is similar to the clause odanpaakam pachati(ओदनपाकम् पचति)― cooks the cooking of rice**. This is shown that emancipation is the purpose of the Spirit Since the difference between the पुरुष and the प्रधान is only artificial it should be transient; then, the emancipation brought about by the discrimination of that difference also must transient. This is answered as: subtle etc. The said difference is subtle, i.e. it is difficult to perceive. 'प्रधान is subject to modifications. I am different from that' ― this difference is ever existing; but due to the absence of the discrimination, the Budhhi just creates an awareness that there is no difference; but it does not create that difference due to which only transiency could be implied.
Now, the Organs have been described: Now the description of specific as well as non–specific objects. (Will post next quote.. till then it is as it is.)
**[The idea is this; the term vishanashti (विशनष्टी) has been explained as 'discriminates the difference'. Thus, the mention of antaram(अन्तरं) also seems to be superfluous. The example of odanpaakam(ओदनपाकं) is cited to point out that the usage of antaram(अन्तरं) is not superfluous. It only helps in emphasising the meaning of the sentence.")
