भवतु एवं सूक्ष्मो विमर्शः प्रकाशशरीरावेशी , यत्र तु स्थूलत्वेन विकल्परूपता स्फुटा , तत्र शब्दो नीलादिवत् एव पृथक् प्रतिभासते ---- नीलम् इदम् इति , स कथं प्रकाशस्वरूपात् अपृथग्भूतः स्यात् , शब्दात्मा च विमर्शः , स च अत्र मायात्मकं भेदपदे ऽपि प्रकाशापृथग्भूतो भवद्भिः इष्टः , तत् एतत् कथं प्रतिपत्तव्यम् इत्याशङ्क्याह
घटोऽयमित्यध्यवसा नामरूपातिरेकिणी ।
परेशशक्तिरात्मेव भासते न त्विदन्तया ॥ §०§
केन एतत् उक्तम् घट इति यः स्थूलः शब्दः स प्रकाशजीवितस्वभावो विमर्श इति । सोऽपि हि स्थूलः शब्दो ऽर्थवत् पृथग्भूत एव भाति । तौ नामकरूपलक्षणौ शब्दार्थौ एकरूपतया सो ऽयम् इत्येवंरूपत्वेन परामृशन्ती अध्यवसा या सा परमेश्वरशक्तिः विमर्शरूपा आत्मवदेव अहमित्यनवच्छिन्नत्वेन भाति , न तु कदाचित् इदन्तया विच्छिन्नत्वेन भाति विच्छिन्नत्वेन अवभासे परप्रतिष्ठत्वात् पुनर्विमर्शान्तरेण भाव्यम् , तत्रापि एवम् इति अनवस्थातो नीलस्य प्रकाशनमेव न स्यात् प्रतिष्ठालाभाभावात् । तस्मात् सर्व एव विमर्शः प्रकाशात् अविच्छिन्न एव इति । अध्यवसा इति , {आतश्चोपसर्गे}(पा। व्या। ३-३-१६) इत्यङन्तः स्त्रियाम् ॥२०॥
ननु एवं सर्वस्यैव ज्ञानकलापस्य अहमित्येव प्रतिष्ठाने वेद्यभूमिस्पर्शो नास्ति वेद्यभुवि च देशकालयोगः न तु वेदकांशे , देशकालयोगाभावे च यत् इदं ज्ञानां देशापेक्षया प्रमात्राद्यंशापेक्षया च सक्रमत्वं लक्ष्यते तत् कथं स्यात् , क्रमाभावे च एकत्वमेव वस्तुतो भवेत् , ततश्च ज्ञानस्मृत्यादिभिस्तद्वान् परमेश्वरः इति यत् उक्तं तत् कथं निर्वहेत् इत्याशङ्कां शमयन् पूर्वोक्तमुपसंहरति
केवलं भिन्नसम्वेद्यदेशकालानुरोधतः ।
ज्ञानस्मृत्यवसायादि सक्रमं प्रतिभासते ॥ §१§
सत्यम् एवम् अक्रममेव संवित्तत्त्वम् , किन्तु स्वशक्तिवशात् भिन्नत्वेन भासितानि यानि वेद्यानि तेषां मूर्तिभेदकृतो यो दूरादूरवैतत्यावैतत्यादिः देशः , क्रियाभेदकृतश्च यः चिरशीघ्रक्रमादिरूपः कालः , तौ अनुरुध्य छायामात्रेण अबलम्ब्य, ज्ञानस्मरणाध्यवसायानां स्वांशा इव भान्ति निरंशानामपि , तद्भासमानांशकृतश्च सक्रमत्वावभासः परस्परापेक्षया स्वांशापेक्षया च , यद्यपि कालक्रम एव स्फुटो विज्ञानेषु भाति न देशक्रमः , तथापि विमूढस्य पर्वतसंवेदनं विततमिव वदरसंवेदनं च सूक्ष्ममिव भाति इति देशक्रमो ऽपि दर्शितः , तेन वेद्यगतक्रमस्वीकाराभासात् सक्रमत्वम् आभासमानमपि न अपारमार्थिकम् आभासमानस्य परार्थत्वात् , ततश्च युक्तमुक्तम् ज्ञानादयो ऽस्य भगवतः शक्तयः इति ।
{मायाशक्त्या विभोः}
इति श्लोकेन स्वरूपवैचित्र्यं ज्ञानां दर्शितम् । अनेन तु देशकालवैचित्र्यम् इति विशेषः । इति शिवम् ॥२१॥
इति श्रीमदाचार्याभिनवगुप्तविरचितायांईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञासूत्रविमर्शिन्यां प्रथमे ज्ञानाधिकारे ज्ञानशक्तिनिरूपणं नाम पञ्चमाह्निकम् ॥ ५ ॥
In plain words
Let it be so: a subtle enters into the body of . But where, being gross, its form as is plain, there the word appears apart, just like blue and the rest: “this is blue”. How could that be not apart from the own form of ? And is made of words, and you hold that, here too, even in the domain of difference, which is of , it is not apart from . So how is this to be understood? With this doubt in view, he says:
The determination “this is a pot”, which goes beyond name and form, is a of the Supreme Lord; it shines like the , and not with this-ness.
Who has said that the gross word “pot” is the whose own nature has for its life? For that gross word too shines as apart, just like the object. The determination that holds in awareness the word and the object, marked as name and form, as one, in the form “this is that”: that is the of the Supreme Lord, whose form is . Just like the , it shines unbounded, as “I”, and never at any time shines as divided, with this-ness. If it shone as divided, then, since it would rest on something else, there would have to be another ; and the same there too. So by infinite regress blue would never be made to shine at all, since it would find no ground to rest on. Therefore every is undivided from . “Adhyavasā” ends in , in the feminine, by the rule “and after a root in ā, when there is a preverb”.
But surely, if the whole cluster of acts of knowing rests in this way on “I” alone, there is no touching the level of the known; and the joining with space and time is on the level of the known, not on the knower’s side. And without a joining with space and time, how could there be this sequence that is seen in acts of knowing, with regard to space and with regard to parts such as the ? And without sequence they would in truth be simply one; and then how could what was said hold good, that the Supreme Lord is possessed of them, knowledge, memory and the rest? Quieting this doubt, he gathers up what was said before:
Only in keeping with the space and time of divided objects of awareness do knowledge, memory, determination and the rest appear as having sequence.
True: the of is, just so, without sequence. But there are the things known that are made to shine as divided by force of its own . Their space, made by the difference of shapes, is far and near, spread out and not spread out, and so on; their time, made by the difference of actions, has the form of slow, quick, in sequence and the like. In keeping with these two, leaning on them only as a shadow, knowing, remembering and determining, though they have no parts, shine as if they had parts of their own. And from those parts as they shine comes the appearance of sequence, with regard to one another and with regard to their own parts. Although among acts of knowing only sequence in time shines clearly, not sequence in space, still, to one who is deluded, the awareness of a mountain shines as if spread out and the awareness of a jujube as if tiny; so sequence in space too has been shown. So sequence, though it appears through the of taking on the sequence that lies in what is known, is not unreal, since what appears is for the sake of another. And so it was rightly said that knowledge and the rest are of this Blessed One.
“By the all-pervading one’s of ”
With that verse the variety of acts of knowing in their own form was shown; with this one, their variety in space and time. That is the difference. So, all is well.
Here ends the fifth , named The Account of the of Knowledge, in the first , the , of the , composed by the venerable master .