पूर्वो घटादिः अर्थः पृथक् इति इदन्तया भाति स्म नैवं स्मरणकाले स्मृतिज्ञानात् पृथक्त्वेन इदं पूर्वमनुभवनम् इति भाति । यथा च स्मृतिकाले तस्मात् स्मृतिज्ञानात् सोऽर्थः प्राक् इति पूर्वस्वभावो न भेदेन आभाति , स्मृतिकाले बहिरवभासाभावात् एवं तत एव हेतोः पूर्वो ऽपि अनुभवो न भेदेन आभाति , कथं तर्हि उभयं भाति ? अन्वभूवम् इत्येवम् । एतत् किमुच्यते इति चेत् , अहम् ---- इत्येवंस्वभावो य आत्मा पूर्वापरसंविदन्तर्मुखस्वभावः तत्र यत् आरोहणम् विश्रमः तेन हेतुना पूर्वसंविद्रूपतायाः स्वप्रकाशाया भासनात् तल्लोनस्यापि घटस्य स्वप्रकाशदेशीयत्वेन भासनम् । आत्मनि च आरोहणम् विश्रमणा अनुभवस्य अर्थस्य च । प्रकृतिप्रत्ययौ प्रत्ययार्थं सह ब्रूतः ---- इति न्यायात् संख्याक्षिप्ते तद्वति वा कर्तृभूते ऽस्मदर्थे ऽनुभवो ब्रुडितः तद्द्वारेण अर्थोऽपि च , न तु स्वातन्त्र्येणैव असौ , तदर्थमेव कर्म न निर्दिष्टम् । घटादिः पुनः अनुभवकाले न अस्मदर्थमारोहति , हि यस्मात् नैव भाति पूर्वो ऽनुभवः पृथक् अपरार्धोक्तात् हेतोः , तस्मात् संविदामैक्यम् इति पूर्वेण संबन्धः । लुङा भूतकालस्य द्योतितत्वात् प्राक् इति भिन्नक्रमः , उत्तमपुरुषेण अस्मदर्थस्य अहम् इत्यपि । आरोहणम् इति , रुहिरिति अणिजन्तः णिजन्तोपि ॥४॥
ननु क एवमाह ---- अनुभवः पृथक् न भाति इति , घटवत् न भाति इति चेत् किं ततः ? घटोऽपि हि न अनुभवसख्यः भाति इति किं न भाति ? स्वभावेन भाति इति तु उभयत्रापि समानम् । तथा हि ---- अतीतानागतसूक्ष्मादि यथा योगिज्ञाने विषयीभवति इति अभ्युपगतम् , तथा परचित्तमपि
{प्रत्ययस्य परचित्तज्ञानम् ।} (योगद्। ३ पा। १९ सू।)
इत्यादौ । तत्र ज्ञानवृत्तिपरिणतमेव सत्त्वं चित्तशब्देनोक्तम् , अन्यथा प्रत्ययस्य संयमविषयीकार्यत्वं कथमुच्येत , आलम्बनयोगश्च कथं शङ्कयेत न च सालम्बनम् इति । तस्मात् परकीयमनुभवनमिव निजमपि विषयीक्रियताम् इत्याशङ्क्य दृष्टान्त एवासिद्धः इति भान्ति इत्यन्तेन , अभ्युपगमेन वा सिद्धत्वे ऽपि प्रकृते ऽर्थे विषमः इति शेषेण दर्शयति
योगिनामपि भासन्ते न दृशो दर्शनान्तरे ।
स्वसंविदेकमानास्ता भान्ति मेयपदेऽपि वा ॥ §०§
In plain words
The earlier object, the pot and the rest, shone “separate”, as “this”. Not so does the experience shine at the time of remembering, as “this is the earlier experiencing”, separate from the knowing that is memory. And just as at the time of memory that object, whose nature is to be earlier, “before”, does not appear as different from that knowing which is memory, since at the time of memory nothing appears outside, so for that same reason the earlier experience too does not appear as different. How then do both shine? As “I experienced”. If it is asked what is meant by this: the whose nature is “I” has for its nature the inward face of earlier and later . There is a rising onto it, a coming to rest; and by that cause the being of the earlier , which is self-luminous, shines, and so the pot too, absorbed in it, shines as all but self-luminous. And the rising onto the , the coming to rest, belongs to the experience and to the object. By the maxim “base and suffix together state the meaning of the suffix”, the experience is sunk in the sense of “I”, which the number brings with it, or in what has that number, and which stands as the doer; and through it the object is sunk there too, though not in its own right. That is exactly why no object of the verb is named. The pot and the rest, though, do not rise onto the sense of “I” at the time of the experience. “Hi” means since: since the earlier experience does not shine as separate, for the reason stated in the second half, therefore the are one; so it connects with the previous verse. Since the aorist makes the past time clear, “prāk” is to be taken out of its order; and so is “aham”, since the first person makes clear the sense of “I”. “Ārohaṇa”: the root ruh, without the causative or with it.
But who says that the experience does not shine as separate? If it is said that it does not shine as the pot does, what follows from that? For the pot too does not shine the way the experience does; so does it not shine at all? That each shines by its own nature is the same in both cases. Consider: just as it is accepted that what is past, what is yet to come, what is subtle and the like become the content of a ’s knowing, so too is another’s , in
“From the , knowledge of another’s ”
and in passages like it. There, the word “” means itself, transformed into a of knowing. Otherwise how could it be said that the is to be made the content of , and how could a link with a support be raised as a doubt in “and not with its support”? So, raising the doubt, “Then let one’s own experiencing too be made a content, like another’s”, he shows, in the part ending with “they shine”, that the example itself is not established; or, in the rest, that even if it is granted as established, it does not match the matter in hand:
Even for , acts of seeing do not shine in another act of seeing; having their own as their one , they shine, or else even in the position of a .