Bhashya
न, समानजातीयेनैवोपकारदर्शनात्— यत् आदित्यादि-विलक्षणं ज्योतिरान्तरं सिद्धमिति, एतदसत्; कस्मात्? उप-क्रियमाणसमानजातीयेनैव आदित्यादिज्योतिषा कार्यकरण-संघातस्य भौतिकस्य भौतिकेनैव उपकारः क्रियमाणो दृश्य-ते; यथादृष्टं चेदम् अनुमेयम्; यदि नाम कार्यकरणादर्था-न्तरं तदुपकारकम् आदित्यादिवत् ज्योतिः, तथापि कार्यकर-णसंघातसमानजातीयमेवानुमेयम्, कार्यकरणसंघातोपकार-कत्वात्, आदित्यादिज्योतिर्वत् ।यत्पुनः अन्तःस्थत्वादप्रत्य-क्षत्वाच्च वैलक्षण्यमुच्यते, तत् चक्षुरादिज्योतिर्भिः अनैका-न्तिकम्; यतः अप्रत्यक्षाणि अन्तःस्थानि च चक्षुरादिज्यो-तींषि भौतिकान्येव ।तस्मात् तव मनोरथमात्रम्— विलक्षण-मात्मज्योतिः सिद्धमिति ।कार्यकरणसंघातभावभावित्वाच्चदिना, देहस्यैव दर्शनादिक्रिया न व्यतिरिक्तस्येति, तन्न ;यदि हि देहस्यैव दर्शनादिक्रिया, स्वप्ने दृष्टस्यैव दर्शनं नस्यात् ; अन्धः स्वप्नं पश्यन् दृष्टपूर्वमेव पश्यति, न शाक-द्वीपादिगतमदृष्टरूपम् ; ततश्च एतत्सिद्धं भवति- यः स्वप्नेपश्यति दृष्टपूर्वं वस्तु, स एव पूर्वं विद्यमाने चक्षुषि अद्रा-क्षीत्, न देह इति ; देहश्चेत् द्रष्टा, स येनाद्राक्षीत् तस्मि-न्नुद्धृते चक्षुषि स्वप्ने तदेव दृष्टपूर्वं न पश्येत् ; अस्ति चलोके प्रसिद्धिः- पूर्वं दृष्टं मया हिमवतः शृङ्गम् अद्याहंस्वप्नेऽद्राक्षमिति उद्धृतचक्षुषामन्धानामपि ; तस्मात् अनुद्धृते-ऽपि चक्षुषि, यः स्वप्नदृक् स एव द्रष्टा, न देह इत्यवगम्यते ।तथा स्मृतौ द्रष्टृस्मर्त्रोः एकत्वे सति, य एव द्रष्टा स एवस्मर्ता ; यदा चैवं तदा निमीलिताक्षोऽपि स्मरन् दृष्टपूर्वंयद्रूपं तत् दृष्टवदेव पश्यतीति ; तस्मात् यत् निमीलितं तन्नद्रष्टृ ; यत् निमीलिते चक्षुषि स्मरत् रूपं पश्यति, तदेवअनिमीलितेऽपि चक्षुषि द्रष्टृ आसीदित्यवगम्यते ।मृते चदेहे अविकलस्यैव च रूपादिदर्शनाभावात्- देहस्यैव द्रष्टृत्वेमृतेऽपि दर्शनादिक्रिया स्यात् ।तस्मात् यदपाये देहे दर्शनंन भवति, यद्भावे च भवति, तत् दर्शनादिक्रियाकर्तृ, न देहइत्यवगम्यते ।चक्षुरादीन्येव दर्शनादिक्रियाकर्तृणीति चेत्,न, यदहमद्राक्षं तत्स्पृशामीति भिन्नकर्तृकत्वे प्रतिसंधा-नानुपपत्तेः ।मनस्तर्हीति चेत्, न, मनसोऽपि विषयत्वात् रूपादिवत् द्रष्टृत्वाद्यनुपपत्तेः ।तस्मात् अन्तःस्थं व्यति- रिक्तम् आदित्यादिवदिति सिद्धम् ।यदुक्तम्- कार्यकारणसं- घातसमानजातीयमेव ज्योतिरन्तरमनुमेयम्, आदित्यादिभिः तत्समानजातीयैरेव उपक्रियमाणत्वादिति- तदसत्, उपका- र्योपकारकभावस्यानियमदर्शनात् ; कथम् ? पार्थिवैरिन्धनैः पार्थिवत्वसमानजातीयैस्तृणोलपादिभिः अग्नेः प्रज्वलनोपकारः क्रियमाणो दृश्यते ; न च तावता तत्समानजातीयैरेव अग्नेः प्रज्वलनोपकारः सर्वत्रानुमेयः स्यात्, येन उदकेनापि प्रज्व- लनोपकारः भिन्नजातीयेन वैद्युतस्याग्नेः जाठरस्य च क्रिय- माणो दृश्यते ; तस्मात् उपकार्योपकारकभावे समानजाती- यासमानजातीयनियमो नास्ति ; कदाचित् समानजातीया मनुष्या मनुष्यैरेवोपक्रियन्ते, कदाचित् स्थावरपश्वादि- भिश्च भिन्नजातीयैः ; तस्मात् अहेतुः कार्यकारणसंघातस- मानजातीयैरेव आदित्यादिज्योतिर्भिरुपक्रियमाणत्वादिति ।यत्पुनरात्थ- चक्षुरादिभिः आदित्यादिज्योतिर्वत् अदृश्य- त्वात् इत्ययं हेतुः ज्योतिरन्तरस्य अन्तःस्थत्वं वैलक्षण्यं च न साधयति, चक्षुरादिभिरनैकान्तिकत्वादिति- तदसत्, चक्षुरादिकरणेभ्योऽन्यत्वे सतीति हेतोर्विशेषणत्वोपपत्तेः ।कार्यकारणसंघातधर्मत्वं ज्योतिष इति यदुक्तम्, तन्न, अनु-मानविरोधात्; आदित्यादिज्योतिर्वत् कार्यकारणसंघाताद्-र्थान्तरं ज्योतिरिति हि अनुमानमुक्तम्; तेन विरुध्यतेइयं प्रतिज्ञा- कार्यकारणसंघातधर्मत्वं ज्योतिष इति ।तद्भा-वभावित्वं तु असिद्धम्, मृते देहे ज्योतिषः अदर्शनात् ।सामान्यतो दृष्टस्यानुमानस्य अप्रामाण्ये सति पानभोजना-दिसर्वव्यवहारलोपप्रसङ्गः; स चानिष्टः; पानभोजनादिषुहि क्षुत्पिपासादिनिवृत्तिमुपलब्धवतः तत्सामान्यात् पान-भोजनाद्युपादानं दृश्यमानं लोके न प्राप्नोति; दृश्यन्ते हिउपलब्धपानभोजनाः सामान्यतः पुनः पानभोजनान्तरैःक्षुत्पिपासादिनिवृत्तिमनुमिन्वन्तः तादर्थ्येन प्रवर्तमानाः ।यदुक्तम्- अयमेव तु देहो दर्शनादिक्रियाकर्तेति, तत् प्रथ-ममेव परिहृतम्-स्वप्नस्मृत्योः देहादर्थान्तरभूतो द्रष्टेति ।अने-नैव ज्योतिरन्तरस्य अनात्मत्वमपि प्रत्युक्तम् ।यत्पुनः ख-द्योतादेः कादाचित्कं प्रकाशाप्रकाशकत्वम्, तदसत्, पक्षाद्य-वयवसंकोचविकासनिमित्तत्वात् प्रकाशाप्रकाशकत्वस्य ।य-त्पुनरुक्तम्, धर्माधर्मयोरवश्यं फलदातृत्वं स्वभावोऽभ्युप-गन्तव्य इति- तदभ्युपगमे भवतः सिद्धान्तहानात् ।एतेनअनवस्थादोषः प्रत्युक्तः ।तस्मात् अस्ति व्यतिरिक्तं च अ-न्तःस्थं ज्योतिः आत्मेति ॥
In plain words
No -- because we only ever see one thing helped by another of its own kind. So the claim that an inner light, distinct from the sun and its kin, has been proven -- that doesn't hold. Why not? Because what we actually observe is this: a material thing gets help from another material thing -- the body-and-senses complex is helped by the sun's light, and both are physical. That's simply matching the inference to what's seen. And even if you insist this helper is technically a separate entity from body-and-senses, it's still enough of a helper of that aggregate to belong to the very same class as sunlight -- so it can't be something wholly other. As for saying this light is 'distinctive' because it's hidden within and beyond the senses -- that reasoning proves too little, because the eye's own light is just as hidden and just as ungraspable, and it's plainly material. So all you've really shown is a wish -- that some special light of the Self exists, not a proof. Then comes another try: since seeing only happens while the body-and-senses complex exists, by day, seeing must belong to the body alone, not to anything separate. But that's wrong too. If seeing belonged to the body alone, then in a dream you could never see something you'd only ever seen once before. Take a blind man dreaming: he only dreams of things he once actually saw, never some strange island he never laid eyes on. So this much is settled: whoever, in a dream, sees a thing seen before is the very person who once saw it with a working eye -- not the body. Because if the body were the seer, then once the eye it once saw with is later removed, that same body could never, in dream, see that old, familiar thing again. And yet everyone knows the everyday fact: 'I saw the Himalaya's peak years ago; tonight I saw it again in a dream' -- said even by people who are now blind, their eyes long gone. So it follows: even while the eye is intact, it is the dreamer within who does the seeing, not the body. The same goes for memory. If the one who sees and the one who remembers are truly one and the same, then whoever is the seer is also the rememberer. And once you grant that, someone who shuts their eyes and calls up a remembered shape sees it just as vividly as if it were right there. So a shut eye clearly isn't the seer -- because whatever, eyes closed, still sees the remembered shape, was already the seer even when the eyes were open. And in real death, the body still whole, nothing broken, there is simply no more seeing. If the body itself did the seeing, a corpse would go on seeing. So whatever comes and goes with the presence or absence of seeing is the true agent of seeing, and it isn't the body. Then maybe the eye and the other senses themselves do the seeing? No -- because then 'I saw that' and 'I'm now touching it' could never be tied together as one person's experience, if two different agents were doing the seeing and the touching. The mind, then? No again -- the mind is itself something we're aware of, an object like any other, so it can no more be the seer than a shape or a colour can. So it's settled: this light sits within, and it is distinct, exactly as sunlight is distinct from what it lights up. Now, back to the objection that this inner light must belong to the same class as the body because it's only ever helped by same-class things, like sunlight: that isn't so, because there's no fixed rule that a helper and the thing it helps must share a class. Take fire: it's true that grass and twigs, being earthy like the fuel they feed, help a fire blaze. But that doesn't mean fire can only ever be helped by earthy things, because water, of an entirely different kind, feeds both lightning and the fire of digestion. So there simply isn't a rule locking helper and helped into the same class or a different one. Sometimes people help people, their own kind; sometimes it's plants or animals, a different kind entirely, that do the helping. So it's no proof at all that this inner light must be material just because the sun's light happens to help the body. And your further point -- that this light's imperceptibility, like sunlight's own imperceptibility to touch or hearing, doesn't really prove it's inward or distinctive, since that same imperceptibility is true of the eye's own light too -- that fails as well, once you add the missing piece: this light is also other than the sense organs themselves, and that qualification is exactly what makes the reasoning hold. As for calling light a mere property of the body-complex -- that clashes with the very inference already established, that light is a separate reality from the body, the way sunlight is. And your claim that light depends on the body existing -- that was never actually shown, since light isn't seen to vanish from a body that's dead but still whole. If you go on to say that ordinary inference can't be trusted here, notice what that costs you: the whole of ordinary life, eating, drinking, everything, runs on exactly this kind of inference. People who've felt hunger and thirst relieved before don't need fresh proof each time; they simply reach for food and drink again, trusting the same pattern that has always held -- and that's exactly what people are seen to do. Deny that kind of inference, and the entire fabric of daily life falls apart, which nobody actually wants. Your claim that the body alone does the seeing was already dealt with at the very start, in the matter of dream and memory: the seer there is shown to be something other than the body. And that same argument also answers your other worry, that this inner light might not really be the Self. As for the firefly, flashing on and off, that proves nothing either; its dimming and brightening simply comes from its wing opening and closing, nothing more. And your claim that merit and demerit must, by their own inherent nature, ripen into results without any need for an aware agent -- grant that, and you give up your own school's foundational teaching. And with that, the worry about an endless regress falls away too. So this stands: there is a light, distinct from the body, sitting within -- and that light is the Self.
Close to the Sanskrit
No -- because help is observed only from something of the same class. As for the claim that an inner light, distinguished from the sun and so on, has been established -- this is not so. Why? Because it is seen that help is rendered only by something of the same class as the thing helped: the material aggregate of effect and instrument is helped only by something material, by the light of the sun and so on -- an inference that simply matches what is observed. Even granting that this helper is a distinct entity from effect and instrument, like the light of the sun and so on, still what is inferred can only be of the same class as that aggregate, because it has the very property of helping it, just as the light of the sun and so on does. As for what is said to establish distinctiveness on the ground of being situated within and being imperceptible -- that reason is inconclusive with respect to the lights of the eye and the rest, since the lights of the eye and the rest, too, are imperceptible and situated within, and yet are simply material. Therefore this is nothing but wishful thinking on your part -- that a distinctive light of the Self has been established. And because seeing follows upon the existence of the effect-and-instrument aggregate, by day, the activity of seeing and the rest belongs to the body alone, not to anything distinct -- that is not so. For if seeing belonged to the body alone, there would be no seeing, in dream, of what had only been seen before. A blind man, seeing a dream, sees only what he had seen before, not some unseen form located in a place like Śāka-dvīpa. And from this it is established: he who, in dream, sees a thing seen before, is the very one who earlier saw it with the eye then present -- not the body. For if the body were the seer, then once the eye by which it saw had since been removed, it would not, in dream, see that same previously-seen thing. And it is well known in the world: 'I saw the Himalaya's peak before; today I saw it in a dream' -- said even by blind people whose eyes have been removed. Therefore it is understood that, even while the eye has not been removed, it is the dream-seer who is the true seer, not the body. Likewise, given the identity of seer and rememberer in the case of memory, the very one who is the seer is the rememberer. And this being so, one who, eyes closed, remembers a previously-seen form sees that very form as if it were being seen. Therefore, that which is merely closed is not the seer; that which, with the eye closed, sees the remembered form, is understood to have been the seer even when the eye was open. And because, when the body is dead yet still physically intact, there is no seeing of forms and the rest, it follows that if the body alone were the seer, seeing would occur even in the dead body. Therefore it is understood: that whose absence stops seeing and whose presence brings it about is the agent of seeing -- not the body. If it be said that the eye and the rest are themselves the agents of seeing -- no, because it would be impossible to connect 'I saw that' and 'I now touch that' if they had different agents. If it be said, then, that it is the mind -- no, because the mind too is itself an object of awareness, so it cannot be the seer either, any more than form and the rest can. Therefore it is established that the light is situated within and distinct, just as the sun and so on. As for what was said -- that an inner light of the same class as the effect-and-instrument aggregate is what should be inferred, because it is helped only by things of that same class, the sun and so on -- that is not so, because no fixed rule of the helped-and-helper relation is observed. How so? It is seen that the kindling of fire is helped by earthy fuels -- grass, reeds and the like -- of the same class as earthiness. But it does not follow that fire's kindling must always be inferred to be helped only by things of that same class, since it is seen that both lightning-fire and digestive fire are helped even by water, which is of a different class. Therefore, in the relation of helped and helper, there is no fixed rule of same class or different class. Sometimes people of the same class are helped by other people; sometimes by plants, animals and the like, which are of a different class. Therefore it is no valid proof that the inner light must be of the same class as the effect-and-instrument aggregate merely because it is helped by the lights of the sun and so on. As for what you have further said -- that this reason does not establish the inner light's being situated within or its distinctiveness, because it is inconclusive with respect to the eye and the rest -- that is not so, because the reason holds once qualified by the added clause 'while also being other than the organs, the eye and the rest.' As for what was said -- that being a light is merely a property of the effect-and-instrument aggregate -- that is not so, because it contradicts the earlier inference: for the inference already stated is that light is a distinct entity from that aggregate, just like the light of the sun and so on; and by that, this present assertion is contradicted. As for the claim that light's existence depends on the body's existence -- that is itself unestablished, since light is not observed to be absent in a dead body that is otherwise intact. If an inference of the ordinary, generally observed sort were held invalid, the consequence would be the collapse of the entire practice of eating, drinking and the rest -- and that is an unwanted consequence. For, in the case of eating and drinking, one who has found relief from hunger and thirst before still goes on, on the strength of that same general pattern, to take food and drink again; people who have already eaten and drunk are seen to infer, on the strength of that same pattern, relief from hunger and thirst through further acts of eating and drinking, and to act for that very purpose. As for what was said -- that the body alone is the agent of seeing -- that has already been answered at the very outset: in the matter of dream and memory, the seer is shown to be an entity distinct from the body. By this very argument, the claim that the inner light is not the Self has also been refuted. As for the intermittent shining and non-shining of the firefly and the like -- that proves nothing, because such shining and non-shining is caused by the contraction and expansion of the wing and other such parts. As for what was further said -- that it must be granted as an inherent property that merit and demerit necessarily give their fruit -- granting that would cost you your own established doctrine. By this, the fault of infinite regress, too, has been answered. Therefore it is established: there exists a light, distinct from the body and situated within -- and that light is the Self.