{ननु स्वलक्षणाभासम् ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। ।}
इत्यादिभिः
{॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। तेन कर्तापि कल्पितः ॥}
इत्यन्तैः । तत्र श्लोकद्वयेन आत्मनो ध्रुवस्य दृश्यानुपलब्ध्या अभाव उक्तः प्रत्यक्षात्मवादिनः प्रति । तत्र श्लोकत्रयेण स्मृत्यनुसंधानं संस्कारात् सिद्धम् इति अन्यबासिद्धत्वात् आत्मानुमानाय न पर्याप्तम् ---- इति प्रोक्तम् अनुमेयात्मवादिनः प्रति । तत्र श्लोकेन ज्ञानादि गुणैर्गुणिनि प्रतिपत्तिः ---- इति अनुमानं निरस्तम् । एवम् आत्मानं निराकृत्य , ततो ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिसंबन्धरूपमैश्वर्य निराकर्तुं ज्ञानस्य स्वरूपमेव व्यतिरिक्तं वाद्यन्तरमते , सांख्यमते च अयुज्यमानम् ---- इति निरूपितं श्लोकद्वयेन । तत एकेन क्रिया नाम न काचित् क्वचिदपि अस्ति ---- इति कथितम् । तत्र साधकं प्रतिक्षिप्य बाधकं च उपन्यस्यति । ततः संबन्धस्य श्लोकेन नास्तित्वं प्रतिपादितं प्रमाणाभावं वदता । श्लोकेनैव तत्र बाधकं प्रमाणमुक्त्वा , न आत्मा स्थिरो नापि ज्ञातृत्वकर्तृत्वलक्षणम् अस्य ऐश्वर्यम् ---- इति स्वपक्ष उपसंहृतः ---- इति पूर्वपक्षस्य पिण्डार्थः ।
अथ ग्रन्थार्थो व्याख्यायते ।
ननु स्वलक्षणाभासं ज्ञानमेकं परं पुनः ।
साभिलापं विकल्पाख्यं बहुधा नापि तद् द्वयम् ॥ §०§
नित्यस्य कस्यचिद् द्रष्टुस्तस्यात्रानवभासतः ।
अहंप्रतीतिरप्येषा शरीराद्यवसायिनी ॥ §१§
ननु इति आक्षेपे ; इह आत्मा संवित्स्वभावः स्थिरः इति तावदयुक्तम् , स्थिरस्यापि स्वप्रकाशस्य अप्रकाशनात् । तथा हि ---- घटप्रकाशो घटविकल्पो घटप्रत्यभिज्ञा घटस्मृतिः घटोत्प्रेक्षा ---- इत्यादिरूपेण ज्ञानान्येव प्रकाशन्ते भिन्नकान्तानि भिन्नविषयाणि भिन्नकाराणि च । तत्र नीलस्य प्रकाशः स्वलक्षणाभासं ज्ञानम् स्वम् अन्याननुयायि स्वरूपसंकोचभाजि , लक्षणम् देशकालाकाररूपं यस्य आभासः प्रकाशनम् अन्तर्मुखं यस्मिन् बहिर्मुखीनस्वरूपधारिणि ज्ञाने तत् अविकल्पकम् विषयभेदे ऽपि एकजातीयम् , स्वरूपवैचित्र्ये ऽपि कारणाभावात् । विकल्पे हि वैचित्र्यकारणम् अभिलापः , स च अत नास्ति ; न हि अभिलापो नीलस्य धर्मः , न च चक्षुर्ग्राह्यः , ततो ऽसौ प्राच्यः स्मर्तव्यः , अप्रबुद्धे च संस्कारे न स्मृतिः , तत्प्रबोधश्च वस्तुदर्शनोत्थितः इति वस्तुदर्शनसमये ऽभिलापस्मृतिर्नास्ति ।
In plain words
“But surely, the of a ”
and so on, as far as
“the doer too is therefore constructed”
with which they end. In that passage, two verses state, against those who hold that the is known by perception, that a constant does not exist, since what would be perceptible is not perceived. There, three verses declare, against those who hold that the is to be inferred, that the linking done by memory is established from , and so, being explained otherwise, is not enough for inferring an . There, one verse throws out the inference “Through qualities such as knowledge one comes to know what has the qualities.” Having set aside the in this way, then, to set aside sovereignty, which takes the form of a relation to the of knowledge and action, two verses show that the very form of knowledge, taken as something separate, does not hold together, either on another disputant’s view or on the view. Then one verse says that there is no such thing as action anywhere at all. There he first rejects what would prove it and then puts forward what cancels it. Then a verse that states there is no for relation sets out that relation does not exist. And in one verse, having stated there the that cancels it, he draws his own side to a close: “The is not stable, nor has it a sovereignty marked by being the knower and being the doer.” This is the sense in sum of the .
Now the meaning of the text is set out.
But surely, one knowing has the of a , and a further one, again, has verbal expression with it, is called and is manifold; nor does that pair
belong to any permanent seer, since he does not appear here. This sense of “I” too settles on the body and the like.
“Nanu” marks an objection. Here, to begin with, it is not right to say that the is stable and has for its own nature, since a stable thing, self-luminous though it be, does not shine. Consider: it is only acts of knowing that shine, in such forms as the of a pot, the of a pot, the of a pot, the memory of a pot, the imagining of a pot, and so on; and they differ in their loveliness, in content and in form. Of these, the of blue is the knowing that “has the of a ”. “Sva” is its own: following after nothing else, held within the narrowing of its own form. “Lakṣaṇa” is the mark that consists of place, time and form. “” is shining, turned inward. A knowing that bears a form turned outward, and in which there is the of that whose mark is its own: that is the knowing meant. It is free of , and of one kind even where its content differs, since there is no cause for variety in its form either. For in the cause of variety is verbal expression, and that is not present here. For verbal expression is not a property of blue, nor is it grasped by the eye; so it is something from before, which has to be remembered. And while the is not awakened there is no memory, and its awakening rises from seeing the real thing; so at the moment of seeing the real thing there is no memory of verbal expression.