इह तावत् अर्थं जानामि ----इत्यस्ति व्यवहारः । तत्र अर्थस्य प्रकाशः ---- इत्येतावानेव परमार्थः । तत् न अर्थस्य स्वं रूपम् , सर्वं प्रति तथात्वप्रसङ्गात् , न कंचित्प्रति वा इति सर्वज्ञम् अज्ञं वा जगत् स्यात् । नापि अर्थे अन्यत एतद्रूपम् उपनिपतितम् , एष एव हि दोषः स्यात् । तत् नूनम् अन्यत्रैव अयं धर्मः तत्त्वान्तरे , तत्रापि कथम् अर्थस्य प्रकाशः स्यात् इति नूनं तत्र तत्त्वान्तरे सोऽर्थः प्रतिबिम्बत्वेन उपसंक्रामति । तत् तत्त्वान्तरं सत्त्वप्राधान्यात् प्रतिबिम्बग्रहयोग्यं तमसाऽऽच्छादितत्वात् सकलप्रतिबिम्बनतो व्यावर्तितम् , भागे रजसा तमसोऽपसारणात् किंचिदेव प्रतिबिम्बकं गृह्याति , तदेव बुद्धितत्त्वम् उच्यते । अर्थप्रतिबिम्बग्रहश्च ज्ञानम् अस्य वृत्तिरूपं पूर्वव्यपदेशतिरोधायकदध्यादिपरिणामविलक्षणपरिणतिविशेषात्मकम् । एवम् अर्थस्य तावत् रूपं बुद्धिः धारयति । इयश्च सत्त्वादीनां सुखदुःखमोहरूपतयां भोग्यत्वात् जडम् इति दर्पक्षवत् अप्रकाशम् । न च भोग्यस्य अप्रकाशस्य तद्विरुद्धभोक्तृतारूपप्रकाशात्मकस्वभावसंभवो युक्त्यनुपाती इति तद्विलक्षणेन भोक्त्रा भवितव्यम् । स च प्रकाशः ---- इत्येतावत्स्वभावः , स्वभावान्तरं हि अप्रकाशरूपं भोग्यं कथं भोक्तुः स्वभावतया संभाव्येत । स च प्रकाशमात्रस्वभावत्वेनैव यदि विश्वस्य प्रकाशः , तर्हि युगपदेव प्रकाशेत , घटप्रकाशोऽपि पटप्रकाशः स्यात् इति विश्वं संकीर्येत । स च अर्थात् अर्थप्रतिबिम्बात् तदाधाराच्च बुद्धितत्त्वात् अन्यः कथम् अर्थस्य प्रकाशः स्यात् , असंबन्धात् । तस्मात् बुद्धिरेव स्वच्छत्वात् प्रकाशप्रतिबिम्बमपि गृह्णाति । ततः प्रकाशप्रतिबिम्बपरिग्रहमहिमोपनतप्रकाशावेशबुद्धितत्त्वावेशितप्रतिबिम्बकनीलाद्यर्थपर्यन्तसंक्रान्तेः प्रकाशावेशस्य अर्थः प्रकाशते इति सिद्धो व्यवहारः । तदेवं ज्ञानं जडबुद्धितत्त्वाव्यतिरेकात् जडमपि चित्प्रतिबिम्बयोगात् विषयस्य प्रकाशः ---- इति ।
एतदेव तावत् अनुचितम् ---- यत् प्रकाशात्मा पुमान् बुद्धौ प्रतिबिम्बम् अर्पयति , समानगुणे बिम्बकापेक्षया च विमले प्रतिबिम्बसंक्रान्तिदर्शनात् , रूपवति आदर्शे घटरूपप्रतिबिम्बवत् ; आत्मबुद्ध्योश्च अतिवैलक्षण्यम् , आत्मापेक्षया च न बुद्धिर्विमला तत् बह्वतु तावत् एतत् ---- इति अथ शब्देन सूचयति ।
किंतु प्रतिबिम्बवादेनापि न किंचित् प्रतिसमाहितं भवेत् ---- इति दर्शयति
॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ अजडा सैवं जाड्ये नार्थप्रकासता ॥ इप्क्_१,२।८ ॥
In plain words
Here, to begin with, there are the dealings “I know the object”. In them, all that is truly there is the of the object. That is not the object’s own form, for then it would follow that it is so for everyone, or else for no one, and the world would be all-knowing or unknowing. Nor has this form fallen upon the object from elsewhere, for the very same fault would follow. So this property must surely lie somewhere else, in another . Even there, how could it be the of the object? So surely the object passes over into that other as a reflection. That other , because prevails in it, is fit to take a reflection; because covers it, it is held back from reflecting everything; and because in one part pushes aside, it takes some one reflection only. That is what is called the . And knowing is its taking the reflection of the object: a working of , a particular change unlike the change into curd and the like, which hides the earlier name. In this way, to begin with, bears the form of the object. And since and the rest have the form of pleasure, pain and delusion, is something to be enjoyed, and so it is insentient; like a mirror, it has no . Nor does it follow from reason that what is to be enjoyed and has no should have as its own nature the opposite, , the form of being an enjoyer; so there must be an enjoyer unlike it. And the enjoyer’s own nature is just this much, . For how could another nature, what is to be enjoyed and has the form of lacking , be thought to be the enjoyer’s own nature? And if, simply by having alone as its own nature, the enjoyer were the of the universe, then everything would shine at once; the of the pot would also be the of the cloth, and the universe would be jumbled together. And how could it, being other than the object, than the object’s reflection, and than the that holds that reflection, be the of the object, when it has no relation to it? Therefore it is itself that, because it is clear, takes in the reflection of as well. Hence, by the power of taking in the reflection of , an entry of comes into the ; that entry passes over as far as the object reflected in it, blue and the like; and because it passes over so, the object shines. So our dealings are established. In this way knowing, though insentient, since it is not separate from the insentient , is the of its content, because it is joined with a reflection of .
This much, to begin with, is not fitting: that the , whose nature is , casts a reflection into . For a reflection is seen to pass into what has the same quality and is clearer than the original, like the reflection of a pot’s form in a mirror, which has form; but the and are utterly unlike, and is not clear compared with the . “Let this be, for now”: this is what he hints at with the word “atha”.
But he shows that even by the doctrine of reflection nothing would be set right:
then it is not insentient; if it is insentient, it is not the of the object.