ततः परं विकल्पकं ज्ञानम् , सर्वस्य विकल्पस्य साक्षात् पारम्पर्येण वा निर्विकल्पकमूलत्वात् । परम् इति च अन्यरूपं सामान्यलक्षणं तस्य विषयः , स्वलक्षणे ऽतिसंकोचिनि विततविकल्पसाध्यस्य व्र्ड्धव्यावहारिकस्य , औपदेशिकस्य वा संकेतस्य कर्तुम् अशक्यत्वात् , कृतस्यापि वैयर्थ्यात् , तेन हि अननुयायिना न पुनर्व्यवहारः । तच्च बहुभेदम् , यतस्तत् अभिलापेन संजल्पात्मना शब्दरूपेण सह वर्तते । शब्दनं च इदम् ---- इति , तत् ---- इति , तदिदम् ---- इति , भवेदिदम् ---- इति , इदं वा इदम् ---- इत्यादि बहुधा भिद्यते । तच्च न विषयपक्षो वर्तते , अपि तु तस्य विकल्पस्य स्वरूपमेव विचित्रोकुर्वत् प्रतिभाति इति विकल्पो बहुभेदः । एवम् अनुभवविकल्पपरम्परा तावत् स्वप्रकाशत्वेन भाति ।
स्यादेतत् , यल्लग्नासौ परम्परा सोऽपि आभाति ---- इति ; तत्र , यतो द्वयमपि एतद् अविकल्पेतररूपं न अन्यस्य कस्यचित् एतदतिरिक्तस्य द्रष्टुः अनुभवितुः संबन्धि , दृश्यस्य तु भवतु बाह्यार्थवादे । अत्र हेतुः ---- यतः तस्य द्रष्टुः , अत एव संवित्स्वभावतोपगमात् स्वप्रकाशतायोग्यत्वात् आपन्नोपलब्धिलक्षणप्राप्तेः , अत्र एतद्बोधद्वयमध्ये नास्ति अवभासः । ननु अस्त्येव अवभासः ---- इति असिद्धा दृश्यानुपलब्धिः । तथा हि ---- अहं वेद्मि , निश्चिनोमि , स्मरामि इदम् ---- इति विदादिप्रकृत्यर्थरूपात् ज्ञानस्मृत्यादेः इदम् ---- इति च कर्मरूपात् विषयात् अतिरिक्तमेव अहम् ---- इति अनुयायिनि प्रकाशे अनुयायिरूपं भाति । क एवमाह भाति ---- इति ? भानं हि अविकल्पकम् , अहम् ---- इति शब्दानुविद्धो विकल्पप्रत्ययः । ननु तथापि किम् अनेन विकल्प्यते , शरीरसन्तानो वा कृशोऽहम् ---- इत्यादिप्रत्ययात् , ज्ञानसन्तानो वा सुख्यहम् ---- इति प्रतीतेः ? मत्वर्थीयश्च सन्तानमेव स्पृशति नातिरिक्तम् । तदेतदुक्तम् ---- अहंप्रतीतिरपि शरीरम् , आदिग्रहणात् ज्ञानम् , अवस्यति , संतानरूपतया विकल्पयति अवश्यम् ; सदृशापरभावभेदग्रहणसामर्थ्यवासनाविष्टत्वात् ---- इति । एषा इति न अस्माभिर्निह्नुता , साभिलापं विकल्पाख्यम् इत्यनेन संगृहीतत्वात् । एतदुक्तं भवति ---- अहंप्रतीतिरेव तावत् न आत्मा , तस्या अपि विकल्परूपत्वात् अस्थैर्याच्च । एतत्प्रतीतिप्रत्ययो ऽपि नास्ति अन्यः शरीरादेः , भवन्नपि वा वेद्यपक्षपतितः स्यात् ---- इति । तथापि संवित्संवेद्यव्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मनो न सिद्धिः ---- इत्येतत् अपिशब्देन द्योतितम् । एवं नास्ति आत्मा संवित्संवेद्यत्र्यतिरिक्तो दृश्यस्य तस्यानुपलब्धेः ---- इति ॥१॥ ॥२॥
अत्र आत्मवाद्यनुमानमुत्थापयति
अथानुभवविध्वंसे स्मृतिस्तदनुरोधिनी ।
कथं भवेन्न नित्यः स्यादात्मा यद्यनुभावकः ॥ §०§
In plain words
“A further one”: after that comes the knowing with , since every , directly or through a chain, is rooted in what is free of . And “further” also means of another form: its content is the . For on the , narrowed to the utmost, no convention can be made, whether one learned from the dealings of elders or one given by instruction, since a convention has to be achieved through that spreads wide; and even if one were made it would be useless, for with what does not follow on there are no further dealings. And this knowing is of many kinds, since it goes along with verbal expression, which is inner speech and has the form of words. And this wording divides in many ways: “this”, “that”, “that is this”, “this would be”, “this or this”, and so on. This does not lie on the side of the content; rather, it appears as making the form of the itself varied. So is of many kinds. In this way, to begin with, the chain of experience and shines as self-luminous.
Suppose one says: “That to which this chain clings shines too.” That will not do, since this pair, the one free of and the other, does not belong to any seer or experiencer apart from them, though on the view that objects are outside, let it belong to what is seen. The reason given here is “since he does not appear here”. That seer is fit to be self-luminous for this very reason, that he is granted to have for his own nature, and so he has come to meet the conditions for being perceived; yet here, in the midst of these two awarenesses, he has no appearance. But surely he does appear, and so the non-perception of the perceptible is not established. Consider: in “I know this”, “I make sure of this”, “I remember this”, there shines, running through them all, “I”, set apart from knowing, remembering and the rest, which are the sense of roots such as vid, and from the content “this”, which stands as the object of the verb, within a that runs through them. Who says that it “shines”? For shining is free of , while “I” is a awareness shot through with a word. But then, even so, what does it construct? The continuum of the body, from awarenesses such as “I am thin”, or the continuum of knowing, from the awareness “I am happy”? And the suffix of possession touches only the continuum, nothing beyond it. That is what has been said: the sense of “I” too settles on the body, and, since “and the like” takes it in, on knowing; it necessarily constructs them in as continua, because a has entered it that has the power to grasp the difference of similar states that come after one another. “This”: we do not deny it, since it is taken in by “has verbal expression with it, is called ”. This is what is meant: the sense of “I” itself, to begin with, is not the , since it too has the form of and since it is not stable. Nor is there any ground for this sense other than the body and the like; or, even if there were, it would fall on the side of what is known. That even so no apart from and what is known in it is established: this is what the word “api” brings out. So there is no apart from and what is known in it, since, though it would be perceptible, it is not perceived.
Here he raises the inference of the one who holds there is an :
Now, when experience is destroyed, how could memory, which conforms to it, come about, if the , the one who experiences, were not permanent?