{चितिशक्तिरपरिणामिनी}
{॥॥॥॥॥॥ तद्दृशेः कैवल्यम् ।}(यो। सू। २-२५){द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ }(यो। सू। २-२०)
इत्यादौ अपि हि धर्मशब्देन सामानाधिकरण्यम् आत्मनो दर्शितं गुरुणा अनन्तेन । द्रव्यं हि तत् उच्यते यद्विश्रान्तः पदार्थवर्गः सर्वो भाति च अर्थ्यते च अर्थक्रियायै , तद् यदि न तत् सकलो ऽयं तत्त्वभूतभावभुवनसंभारः संविदि विश्रान्तः तथा भवति इति स एव गुणकर्मादिधर्माश्रयभूतपदार्थान्तरस्वभावः तामेव मुख्यद्रव्यस्वरूपम् आश्रयते इति सैव द्रव्यम् । तत् अनन्तधर्मराशिविश्रमभित्तिभूतायाः तस्याः स एव धर्मः चैतन्यम् इति कर्तृकृदन्तात् उत्पन्नेन भावप्रत्ययेन संबन्धाभिधायिनापि प्राधान्येन दर्शितः । तथा हि संबन्धविश्रान्तस्य प्रतीतेः , द्रव्य्तरूपस्य च संबन्धिनः प्रकृत्या उक्तत्वात् चितिक्रियारूपं ध्रमं संबद्धम् अवगमयता ष्यञा निष्कृष्टांशः प्रत्यायितो भवति । चितिक्रिया च चित्तौ कर्तृता , स्वातंत्र्यं संयोजनवियोजनानुसंधानादिरूपम् आत्ममात्रतायामेव जडवत् अविश्रान्तत्वम् अपरिच्छिन्नप्रकाशसारत्वम् अनन्यमुखप्रेक्षित्वम् इति । तदेव अनात्मरूपात् जडात् संयोजनवियोजनादिस्वातंत्र्यविकलात् वैलक्षण्यादायि इति । तदेवं परत्वेन प्रधानतया अभिसंधाय आत्मा चेतन इति वक्तव्ये धर्मान्तराधरीकरणाय विमर्शधर्मोद्धुरीकरणाय च आत्मा चैतन्यम् इत्युक्तम् । चित्क्रियाचितिकर्तृतातात्पर्येण इति समासः । अर्धयुक् पादविश्रान्तिः इति हि काव्ये समयः , न शास्त्रे । यदि वा चित्क्रिया आत्मा उचितः चितिकर्तृता च इति पृथगेव । एवं तु न क्वचित् पठितम् ॥१२॥
ननु यथा प्रकाशो ऽप्रकाशश्च इति य्भयमपि स्वात्मनि , ततश्च प्रकाश इति उक्ते जडात् न वैलक्षण्यम् उदितं स्यात् , तद्वत् विमर्शो ऽपि अविमर्शो ऽपि च स्वात्मनि, इति तेनापि कथं वैलक्षण्यं जडाजडयोः इत्याशङ्क्याह
चितिः प्रत्यवमर्शात्मा परा वाक्स्वरसोदिता ।
स्वातन्त्र्यमेतन्मुख्यं तदैश्वर्यं परमात्मनः ॥ §०§
In plain words
“The of is unchanging”; “that is the of seeing.” “The seer is seeing alone”: in these and the like, too, the Ananta has shown the set in apposition with a word for a property. For that is called a substance in which the whole class of things rests, and so shines and is sought for effective action. And if that is not , then this whole store of , elements, things and worlds becomes such by resting in ; so even that very thing whose nature is another category, the ground of properties such as quality and action, rests on itself, whose form is substance in the primary sense, and so alone is substance. So, of , which is the wall on which the endless mass of properties rests, that very property, “”, is shown as primary by the abstract suffix that arises from a word formed with a primary suffix in the sense of the doer, even though that suffix expresses relation. Consider: the understanding rests on the relation, and the related thing, which has the form of a substance, has already been expressed by the base; so , making known the property, which has the form of the action of , as related, conveys a part that has been drawn out. And the action of is being the doer in : , in the form of joining, parting, linking and the like; not coming to rest, as the insentient does, in being merely itself; having unbounded for its essence; looking to no other’s face. That alone gives it its unlikeness to the insentient, which has the form of what is not and lacks the of joining, parting and the like. So, intending it as highest, as primary, where one ought to say “the is ”, it was said “the is ”, to set the other properties beneath it and to raise up the property of . “Citkriyācitikartṛtātātparyeṇa” is one compound. For the convention that a word ends at the quarter-verse, as at the half, holds in poetry, not in a treatise. Or else they are quite separate: the has been declared the action of , and being the doer of . But nowhere has it been set down in that way.
But surely, just as and the absence of are each in itself, so that saying “” would declare no unlikeness to the insentient, in the same way and the absence of are each in itself. So how, by that either, is there unlikeness between the insentient and what is not insentient? With this doubt in view, he says:
has for its self; it is the supreme , arisen of its own accord. This is in the primary sense; that is the sovereignty of the supreme .