एवं तर्हि अन्तर्गडुः यथा आयासाय परम् , तद्वत् आत्मा स्थिरः कल्पनायासमात्रफलः इति किं तेन , सर्वं हि संस्कारेण जगद्व्यवहारकुटुम्बकं कृतकरावलम्बम् ---- इति ॥५॥
ननु तस्मैव संस्कारस्य आश्रयो वक्तव्यः , स हि गुणत्वाद् आश्रयमपेक्षते , य आश्रयः स आत्मा स्यात् ---- इत्याशङ्क्याह
ततो भिन्नेषु धर्मेषु तत्स्वरूपाविशेषतह् ।
संस्कारात्स्मृइतिसिद्धौ स्यात्स्मर्ता द्रष्टेव कल्पितः ॥ §०§
इह संस्कारे जायमाने , यदि आत्मनो विशेषः , स तर्हि अव्यतिरिक्तः इति न नित्यः स्यात् ; अथ न कश्चित् अस्य विशेषः , तेन तर्हि किम् । अथ संस्कार एव अस्य विशेषः , तर्हि न व्यतिरिक्तो ऽसौ इति पुनरपि अनित्ये ज्ञाने संस्कारः ---- इत्यायातम् । अनुभवाद्विशिष्टं विशिष्टस्म्र्ट्याख्यकार्यकारि ज्ञानं परम्परया जायते ---- इति इयानेव संस्कारार्थः । अथ संस्कारात्मा व्यतिरिक्तो विशेषः , तस्य तर्हि किमसौ । संबन्धश्च व्यतिरिक्तो निराकरिष्यते । एवं ज्ञानसुखदुःखेच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्नधर्माधर्मा अपि विकल्पनीयाः । एतदाह ---- ततः इति आत्मनो भिन्नेषु धर्मेषु अङ्गीक्रियमाणेषु तेषु सत्स्वपि , आत्मनः स्वरूपे विशेषाभावात् स तावत् आत्मा स्म्र्टौ न व्याप्रियेत , अस्मतृरूपासंस्कृतरूपादिप्राच्यरूप्।अनपायात् , इति संस्कारादेव स्मृतेः सिद्धिः ---- इति । अहं स्मरामि ---- इति यः स्मर्ता सोऽपि शरीरसंतानो ज्ञानसंतानश्च अध्यावसीयते , यथा द्रष्टा । पूर्वं हि उक्तम्
{अहंप्रतीतिरप्येषा शरीराद्यवसायिनी ।}(इप्व्_१,२।२)
इति । एवम् आत्मनि साधकं प्रमाणं प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं च पराकृतम् , बाधकं च सूचितं ---- धर्मयोगे नित्यताहानि , अन्यथा किं तेन । तदुक्तम्
{चर्मोपमश्चेत्सोऽनित्यः स्वतुक्यश्चेदसत्समः । वर्षातपाभ्यां किं व्योम्नश्चर्मण्यस्ति हि तत्फलम् ॥}
इति ॥६॥
इत्थम् आत्मानं निराकृत्य , तस्य ऐश्वर्यमपि निराकर्तुं ज्ञानशक्तिमेव परीक्षितुमाह
ज्ञानं च चित्स्वरूपं चेत् तद् अनित्यं किमात्मवत् ।
अथापि जडमेतस्य कथमर्थप्रकाशता ॥ §१§
In plain words
That being so, then, just as a goitre within serves for nothing but trouble, so a stable bears no fruit but the trouble of constructing it. So what use is it? For has given the whole household of the world’s dealings a hand to lean on.
With the doubt in view, “But surely a ground must be named for that very , for, being a quality, it needs a ground; and whatever is its ground would be the ”, he says:
When properties are separate from it, since its undergoes no particular change, memory is established from ; and the rememberer would be constructed, like the seer.
Here, when the arises, if the takes on a particular change, then that change is not separate from it, and so it would not be permanent. But if it takes on no change at all, then what use is it? But if the itself is its change, then that is not separate from it; and so, once again, it comes to this: the lies in knowing, which is impermanent. That from an experience there arises, through a chain, a particular knowing that brings about the effect called a particular memory: this much alone is what means. But if the change that is the is separate, then what is it to the ? And a separate relation will be set aside. In the same way knowledge, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, and must also be put to these alternatives. This is what he says: “From it”: when properties separate from the are granted, even while they are present, since the ’s undergoes no particular change, that , for its part, would play no part in memory, because its earlier form, the form untouched by and the rest, does not go away; and so memory is established from alone. The rememberer in “I remember” too is settled on as the continuum of the body and the continuum of knowing, just like the seer. For it has been said before:
“This sense of ‘I’ too settles on the body and the like.”
In this way the that would prove the , perception and inference, have been thrown back, and what cancels it has been pointed out: if it is joined with properties, its permanence is lost; otherwise, what use is it? So it has been said:
“If it is like leather, it is impermanent; if it is like the sky, it is as good as nothing. What can rain and sun do to the sky? It is on leather that they have their effect.”
So the verse runs.
Having set aside the in this way, and meaning to set aside its sovereignty too, he says, to examine the of knowledge itself:
And if knowledge has the form of , why is it impermanent, and not like the ? But if instead it is insentient, how can it be the of the object?