इति , तत्स्थितम् ---- अशुद्धः अहम् इत्यवमर्शो विकल्प एव ॥५॥
द्विविधो ऽपि चायम् अहं--प्रत्ययो द्विधा ---- अनुभवमात्ररूपश्चानुसंधानात्मा च , शिवात्मनि अहम् इति सदाशिवात्मनि अहमिदम् इति शुद्धो द्विधा । अशुद्धो ऽपि अहं स्थूल इति , यो ऽहं स्थूलो ऽभवं सो ऽहं कृश , बालो , युवा , स्थविरः , स एव अहम् इति च अशुद्धो द्विविधः । तत्र शुद्धे विकल्परूपत्वमप्रतिष्ठमेव इत्युक्तम् , अशुद्धे तु अनुभवरूपे विकल्पत्वमुपपादितम् , अशुद्धे ऽपि तु अनुसंधानात्मकतया अभेदस्य प्रस्फुरणात् कश्चिदविकल्पकत्वं शङ्केत तस्य व्यामोहं व्यपोहितुमाह
कादाचित्कावभासे या पूर्वाभासादियोजना ।
संस्कारात्कल्पना प्रोक्ता सापि भिन्नावभासिनि ॥ §०§
देहे इत्यादि वर्तते , कादाचित्कः कदाचिद्भवो नियतदेशकालाकारो ऽवभासो यस्य देहादेः स्वलक्षणरूपस्य , तत्र या पूर्वाभासेन बालादिशरीरावभासेन योजना यो ऽहं बालः स एवाद्य युवा इत्यनुसंधानम् , आदिग्रहणादुत्तरेण भाविना आभासेन सह योजना स्थविरो भवितास्मि इति , सा योजना सर्वा कल्पना विकल्प एव , न तु शुद्धः प्रत्यवमर्शः । अत्र देहादेर्विशेषणं हेतुत्वाशयेन ---- यतो भिन्नतावभासित्वमेव देहादेस्तदानीमपि अविछिन्नम् , यदि हि तस्य देहादेः सर्वतः पूर्णत्वम् अवच्छेदहीनत्वं पश्यन् अनुसंधानम् अहमिदम् इति विदध्यात् तदियं सदाशिवभूः केन विकल्पात्पदत्वेन भण्येत यावता ऽविच्छिन्ने एव सो ऽनुसंधिः । भिन्नेपि(क्स्स्: हि) कथमनुसंधानम् इति चेदाह संस्कारात् प्राक्तनानुभवकृतवासनाप्रबोधजस्मृतिवशात् इति यावत् , प्राणे बलाबलवशादनुसंधिः , बुद्धौ ज्ञानसुखादितारतम्यात् , शून्ये वैतत्यावैतत्ययोगात् , अयमपि विकल्प एव , एवं स एवायं घटः इति घटाद्यनुसंधाने ऽपि विकल्पत्वं मन्तव्यम् , किन्तु एतासु अनुसंधानभूमिषु विद्याशक्तिराधिक्येन अचिरद्युतिवद्दीप्यते इति तासां परपदपरिशीलनप्रथमकल्पाभ्युपायत्वमभ्युपागमन् गुरवः ॥६॥
न च देहादीनां पूर्वपूर्वप्रमातृवेद्यता येन प्रमातुरप्रकाशे प्रमेयं न भाति तत्प्रकाशश्च न पूर्वप्रकाशं विना , सो ऽपि न प्रमात्रन्तरप्रकाशं विना इत्यनवस्था स्यात् , अपि तु शुद्धप्रकाश एव विश्वस्य प्रकाश इति निरूपयन् उक्तयुक्त्या सदैव सृष्ट्यादिशक्त्यवियोगो भगवत उक्तो भवति , इति दर्शयति
तदेवं व्यवहारेऽपि प्रभुर्देहादिमाविशन् ।
भान्तमेवान्तरर्थौघमिच्छया भासयेद् बहिः ॥ §१§
In plain words
So it stands: the impure awareness “I” is alone.
And this notion “I”, twofold as it is, is again twofold: in the form of experience alone, and in the form of linking. The pure is twofold: “I” in the that is , and “I am this” in the that is . The impure too is twofold: “I am stout”, and “I who was stout am thin; child, youth, old man, I am that same one.” Of these, it has been said that in the pure the form of has no footing at all; and in the impure, in the form of experience, being has been shown. But in the impure too, because it is linking, non-difference flashes out, so someone could suspect that it is free of . To clear away his confusion, he says:
In what appears only at times, the joining with an earlier appearance and the rest, made through a , is declared to be construction: this too, in what appears as distinct.
“In the body” and the rest carry over. “Only at times”: the body and the rest, which are in form, have an appearing that comes at some time or other, fixed in place, time and shape. There, the joining with an earlier appearance, the appearance of the body as a child and so on, is the linking “I who was a child am now a youth”. And by the words “and the rest”, there is the joining with a later appearance yet to come: “I shall be old.” All that joining is construction, alone, not pure . Here the qualifier of the body and the rest is meant as a reason: for the body and the rest go on appearing as distinct, unbroken, even at that time. For if one saw that body and the rest as full on every side, without any limit, and made the linking “I am this”, then this would be the level of . On what ground could it be called a seat of , when that linking is in what is unbroken? If it is said, “How is there linking even in what is distinct?”, he says “made through a ”, that is to say, by force of a memory born of the waking of a left by an earlier experience. In , linking comes through its strength and weakness; in , through the more and less of knowing, pleasure and the rest; in the void, through its being spread out or not; and this too is alone. In the same way, being is to be understood also in the linking of a pot and the like: “this is that same pot”. But in these levels of linking the of blazes out more strongly, like lightning; and so the have accepted them as a foremost means for growing at home in the supreme state.
Nor are the body and the rest known by an ever earlier , in such a way that there would be an infinite regress: a does not shine while its has no , his is not without an earlier , and that again is not without the of another . Rather, pure alone is the of the universe. Setting this out, he shows that by the reasoning given, the Blessed One has been said never to be parted from His of creation and the rest:
So in this way, even in dealings, the Sovereign, entering the body and the rest, would by His will make the mass of objects, shining within as it is, shine outside.