नित्योपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धिप्रसङ्गोऽन्यतरनियमो
वान्यथा ॥ ३२ ॥
nityopalabdhyanupalabdhiprasaṅgo’nyataraniyamo
vānyathā || 32 ||
nityopalabdhi-anupalabdhi-prasaṅgaḥ—There would result perpetual perceptiuon or non-perception; anyataraniyamaḥ—limitation of the power of either of the two; vā—or else; vānyathā—otherwise;
32. Otherwise (i.e. if the intellect or mind be not accepted) there would result either perpetual perception or perpetual non-perception, or else the limitation of the power of either of the two (viz. the soul or the senses).
What is the necessity of accepting an internal organ (Antahkarana), of which the intellect is only a mode? The Sutra says that if it be not accepted, the senses being always in contact with their objects, there would always result perception of everything, for all the requisites, viz. the soul, the senses, and the objects, are present. If, however, this be denied, then it would mean that knowledge can never result, and nothing would ever be cognized. So the opponent will have to accept the limitation of the power either of the soul or of the senses. Such a thing is not possible in the Atman, which is changeless. Nor can it be said that the power of the senses, which is not impeded either in the previous moment or in the subsequent moment, is so limited in the middle. Hence we have to accept an internal organ (Antah-karana), through whose connection and disconnection perception and non-perception take place. The Sruti also refers to a common experience of ours, “I was absent-minded, I did not hear it” (Brih. 1. 5. 3). Hence there exists an internal organ, of which the intellect is a mode, and it is the connection with this that causes the Atman to appear as the individualized soul, as explained in Sutra 29.