इति । स एव हि स्वात्मना सन् वक्तव्यो यस्य अन्यानुपहितं रूपं चकास्ति ; न च भारूपानुपहितं जडं नाम किञ्चित् , तेन जडानां हि शक्तिराविष्क्रियते जडान्प्रति ---- इत्येतत् तावत् निरुत्थानमेव । ये तु अन्ये जडेभ्यो जीवन्त ---- इति नाम प्रसिद्धाः तेषामपि शरीरप्राणपुर्यष्टकशून्याकाराः तावत् जडा एव इति तेषामपि किमुच्यते । अत एव घटशरीरप्राणसुखतद्भ्।अवरूपं यल्लग्नं भाति तदेव जीवरूपभूतं सत्यम् ; तस्य च आपाते यद्यपि बहुत्वं भाति तथापि तत् जडात्मकवेद्यशरीराद्युपाधेः । ततस्तत् अपारभार्थिकम् अन्योन्याश्रयात् , जीवा हि जडभेदात् भेदभागिनः जडाश्च जीवभेदात् , एतद्देहो ऽयम् एतद्वेद्यो ऽयम् ---- इति भेदम् उपेयुः , नीलपीतादिभावभेदास्तु प्रमातृसंलग्नतया भेदभूमिमेव परमधिरूढा इति । किम् तेन । तदयं जीवानामभेद एव संपन्न इति जीवन् प्रमाता ---- इति जातम् । जीवनं च जीवनकर्तृत्वं तच्च ज्ञानक्रियात्मकम् , यो हि जानाति च करोति च स जीवति ---- इत्युच्यते । तदयं प्रमाता ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तियोगाद् ईश्वर ---- इति व्यवहर्तवयः पुराणागमादिप्रसिद्धेश्वरवत् ; तद्प्रसिद्धावपि सर्वविषयज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिमत्त्वस्वभावमेव ऐश्वर्यं तन्मात्रानुबन्धित्वादेव सिद्धम् ; तदपि च कल्पितेश्वरे राजादौ तथा व्याप्तिग्रहणात् , यो यावति ज्ञाता कर्ता च स तावति ईश्वर्प् राजेव , अनीश्वरस्य ज्ञातृत्वकर्तृत्वे स्वभावविरुद्धे यतः ; आत्मा च विश्वत्र ज्ञाता कर्ता च ---- इति सिद्धा प्रत्यभिज्ञा । ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तो एव स्वाभाविक्यौ अप्ररूढभेदोन्मेषे सदाशिवेश्वरौ , भेदस्य सामान्यतः प्ररोहे विद्याकले , विशोषतः प्ररोहे बुद्धिकर्मेन्द्रियगण इव भविष्यति । जडा इति अजीवन्तः , अन्ये च जीवन्त ---- इत्यापाते तावद् भाति न तु संविदापाते भातीति जीवतामिति जङ्गमा एव अमी इत्थं निर्दिष्टाः ॥४॥
ननु ज्ञानक्रिये एव कथं सिद्धे यत ऐश्वर्यव्यवहारः प्रसाध्यते ---- इति शङ्कां शमयितुमाह
तत्र ज्ञानं स्वतः सिद्धं क्रिया कायाश्रिता सती ।
परैरप्युपलक्ष्येत तयान्यज्ञानमूह्यते ॥ ५ [§०§]
अहं जानामि , मया ज्ञातं ज्ञास्यते च ---- इत्येवं स्वप्रकाशाहंपरामर्शपरिनिष्ठितमेव इदं ज्ञानं नाम , किं तत्र अन्यत् विचार्यते , तदप्रकाशे हि विश्वम् अन्धतमसं स्यात् , तदपि वा न स्यात् , बालो ऽपि हि प्रकाशविश्रान्तिमेव संवेदयते । तदुक्तम्
{विज्ञातारमरे केन बोजानीयात् ।}(बृ। २,५।१९)
इति । तन्निह्नवे हि कः प्रश्नः , किम् उत्तरं च स्यात् ---- इति । तत्र च जानामि ---- इत्यन्तःसंरम्भयोगो ऽपि भाति , येन शुक्लादेर्गुणात् अत्यन्तजडात् जानामि ---- इति ---- वपुः चित्स्वभावताम् अभ्येतिः ; स च संरम्भो विमर्शः क्रियाशक्तिर्भवति । यदुक्तम् अस्मत्परमेष्ठिश्रोस्रोमानन्दपादैः ----
{घटादिग्रहकाले ऽपि घटं जानाति सा क्रिया ।}
In plain words
For only that should be called real in its own right whose form shines unaffected by anything else; and there is nothing called insentient that is unaffected by the form of shining. So the claim “The of insentient things is brought to light for insentient things” cannot even get to its feet. As for the others, known by the name “living” as against the insentient: in them too the forms of body, , and the void are, to begin with, simply insentient; so what more is there to say of them? For this very reason, that to which the pot, the body, , pleasure and their absence cling as they shine is alone true, and it is what has become the form of the living. And though at first glance it shines as many, that is because of the limiting condition of the body and the rest, which are known and are insentient. So that manyness is not real in the highest sense, since each would rest on the other: living beings would share in difference through the difference of insentient things, and insentient things through the difference of living beings, and so they would come to difference as “This is his body”, “This is his object”; while the differences of things such as blue and yellow, clinging as they do to the , have only risen onto the ground of difference. What of that? So it is the non-difference of living beings that has come about, and the result is “the who lives”. And living is being the doer of living, and that consists of knowledge and action; for one who knows and acts is said to live. So this , because he is joined with the of knowledge and action, is to be spoken of as “the Lord”, like the Lord well known from the , the and the rest. Even where that Lord is well known, sovereignty, whose own nature is just to have the of knowledge and action over every object, is established simply because it is bound to that alone. And that too is because the pervasion is grasped in just this way in a constructed lord, a king and the like: whoever is the knower and the doer over so much is lord over that much, like a king, since being the knower and being the doer go against the own nature of one who is not lord. And the is the knower and the doer of everything: so is established. These same of knowledge and action, natural to it, will be and when the of difference has not yet taken root; and when difference grows in a general way; and, when it grows in particular, the groups of the organs of knowledge and of action, as it were. “Insentient” means not living. That the others are living shines so at first glance, to begin with, but it does not shine so at the first glance of ; and so, by “beings that live”, these are named in this way only as creatures that move.
To still the doubt “But how are knowledge and action themselves established, from which the usage ‘sovereignty’ is made good?”, he says:
Of these, knowledge is established by itself; action, lodged in the body, would be noticed by others too, and by it another’s knowledge is surmised.
“I know”, “It has been known by me, and will be known”: in this way what is called knowledge comes to rest wholly in the self-luminous “I”. What else is there to look into here? For if it did not shine, the universe would be blind darkness; or rather, not even that would be. For even a child is aware of nothing but coming to rest in . So it has been said:
“By what, my dear, could one know the knower?”
For if that were denied, what question would there be, and what answer? And in “I know” there also shines the presence of an inner stirring, by which the form “I know”, unlike white and the other qualities, which are wholly insentient, reaches the nature of . And that stirring is ; it is the of action. As our ’s ’s , the venerable , has said:
“Even at the time of grasping a pot or the like, ‘he knows the pot’: that is action.”