इत्यत्र , एवं स्थिते द्विचन्द्रे ऽपि यावत् परकुतूहलसंपादनमर्थक्रियासंमतम् अपूर्ववस्तुदर्शनाय चिकीर्षति तावत् अवज्ञोपहासशोकादिविवशः परजनवचनाकर्णनेन समुन्मूल्यमानं प्राच्यं द्विचन्द्रो ऽ; यम् इति परामर्शं स्वसंवेदनादेव अभिमन्यते । नन्वेवं यत्र अर्थक्रियां न अन्विच्छति तत्र कथं बाधाबाधव्यवहारः ? मा भूत् ---- किं नः त्रुटितम् प्रवृत्तिर्हि न सर्वत्र प्रमाणत एव , किं तर्हि कवन संशयत एव , अर्थपक्षाधिक्यात् अर्थित्वतारतम्यादपि वा कृष्यादौ सविषान्न भोजने निश्चितसंभावितदृष्टप्रत्यवाये च चौर्यादौ प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् , तत् अर्थित्वातिशयः लोकस्य प्रवृत्तौ निबन्धनम् , स च प्रवृत्तः क्वचन अनुम्मूलितप्रमितिकः प्रमाणतां प्रतिपद्यते , क्वचित् अन्यथाभवन् विपर्ययमिति । एवम् आजन्म यतो ऽनेन अभ्यस्त आजन्मशतेभ्यो वा प्रमाणाप्रमाणविभागः ततो मणिरूप्यादिवत् तत्स्वरूपम् आपातमात्र एव विलक्षणमीक्षते , अस्ति हि तस्य परमार्थतो वैलक्षण्यं कारणभेदादिकृतम् , ततश्च यदार्तिं परिमितां सह्याम् अभिमन्यते तत एव अर्थितामहाग्रहेण यत्र तत्र न प्रेर्यते तदा विसंवादभीरुः निश्चितप्रामाण्यात् बोधात् अदृष्टे दृष्टेऽपि वा प्रवर्तमानो न विसंवाद्यते , इति स ---- प्रेक्षापूर्वकारी भण्यते , तेन लौकिलं प्रमाणस्वरूपम् अनूदितं सामान्यसंबन्धादिज्ञानेऽपि मोहात् अप्रामाण्यशंकां शमयितुम् , अत एव विभागविशेषलक्षणपरीक्षादिभिरिह न आयासितो लोकः । यत् यत् अबाधितस्थैर्यम् अत एव अप्रतिहतानुवृत्तिकं विमर्शफलं विधत्ते तत्तद् बोधरूपं बोध्यनिष्ठं प्रमातृस्वरूपविश्रान्तं प्रमाणम् इति । तच्च ऐन्द्रियके बोधे सुखादिसंवेदने योगिज्ञाने च अविवादमेव , मुख्यतयैव प्रमेयरूपे आभासे साक्षात् विश्रान्तेः । अनुमानजा तु प्रतीतिः आभासान्तरात् कार्यरूपात् स्वभावभूतात् वा आभासान्तरे प्रतिपत्तिः , वस्त्वन्तरस्य च तेन साकं कार्यकारणभावनियमः सामानाधिकरण्यनियमश्च ईश्वरनियतिशक्त्युपजीवन एव अवधार्यो भवति न अन्यथा । तेन यावति नियतिर्ज्ञाता तावति देशे काले वा अनुमानं प्रमाणम् । आगमस्तु नामान्तरशब्दनरूपो दृढीय स्तमविमर्शात्मा चित्स्वभावस्य ईश्वरस्य अन्तरङ्ग एव व्यापारः प्रत्यक्षादेरपि जीवितकल्पः तेन यत् यथामृष्टं तत् तथैव यथा नैतत् विषं मां मारयति गरुड एव अहम् इति । तत्र तु तथाविधे शब्दनात्मनि विमर्शे आनुकूल्यं यो भजते शब्दराशिः सो ऽपि प्रमाणम् , यथा ---- वेदसिद्धान्तादिः , अन्योऽपि वा बौद्धार्हतागमादिः , तेन हि यत् शब्दनम् उत्पातितं ज्योतिष्टोमकारी अहं स्वर्गं गन्ता इति दीक्षितो ऽहम् अपुनरावृत्तिभागी इति , कारुणिको ऽहं बुद्धपदं गन्ता इति , गाढक्लेशसहिष्णुरहम् अर्हत्पदं प्रपत्ता इति , तत्र न विपर्यय उदेति , तदा श्वस्तस्यैव तत्र अनुष्ठानयोग्यत्वात् , अन्यस्य तु दृढप्रतिपत्तिरूपत्वाभावात् अप्रमाणमेव तथाविमर्शनात्मकं शब्दनम् । नन्वेवं तदेव शास्त्रं कंचित्प्रति प्रमाणं कंचित्प्रति न इति स्यात् , न चैतद्युक्तम् ---- अपक्षपातित्वात्प्रमाणस्य इति , अतत्त्वज्ञो ऽसि प्रतीतिवृत्तस्य , तथापि नोपेक्ष्यसे , अपक्षपाति प्रमाणम् इति कः अस्य वचनस्य अर्थः , किं यत् एकस्य नीलज्ञानं प्रत्यक्षरूपं तत् किं सर्वस्य नीलं भासयति धूमज्ञानं वा अग्निम् , त्वं प्रातर्निधिमनेन विधिना लन्धासे इति च यः सिद्धादेश आगमः स किं सर्वान्प्रति प्रमाणम् , अथ कस्यापि कदाचित् किंचित् , तथा इहापि दृढविमर्शनरूपं शब्दनम् आ ---- समन्तात् अर्थं गमयति इति आगमसंज्ञकं प्रमाणं सर्वस्य तावत् भवति , तत्र यथा मिथ्याज्ञानसहायतां भजमानम् आलोकेन्द्रियादिकम् अप्रमागतासविवम् अप्रमाणम् , न च एतावता सम्यग्ज्ञानरूपस्य प्रत्यक्षस्य काचित् पक्षपातिता , तथा स एव व्योतिष्ठोमादिशब्दः शूद्रादेरदृढविमर्शात्मनि अत एवाप्रमाणे आगमाभासे साचिव्यं विदधदपि दृढविमर्शात्मकसत्यागमरूपशब्दलक्षणप्रमाणोपयोगितायां प्रामाण्यं भजन् न पल्लपातापल्षपातदोषप्रतिक्षेपयोग्यः , सर्व एव हि आगमो नियताधिलारिदेशकालसहकार्यादिनियन्त्रितमेव विमर्श विधत्ते , विधिरूपो निषेधात्मा वा । तेन प्रसिद्धिः इति श्लोके यत्र यदा इत्युक्तम् , तेन ---- प्रत्यक्षागमौ बाधकौ अनुमानस्य , इति तत्रभवद्भर्तृहरि -- न्यायभाष्यक्र्ट्प्रभृतयः , तस्मात् प्रमाणलक्षणे ज्ञाते सर्वं प्रमाणस्वरूपं ज्ञातं भवति किं विशेषलक्षणैः , यस्तु अविसंवादकत्वं तस्य लक्षणम् आह तेनापि प्रापकत्वं प्रवर्तकत्वं प्रवृत्तियोग्यशक्यप्राप्तिकवस्तूपदशकत्वं प्रमाणलक्षणं ब्रुवता न किंचित् प्रमाणाभिमतबोधविश्रान्तं स्वरूम् उक्तम् , तच्च अनेनैव लक्षणेन निर्वाह्यते तत् निर्व्यूढं भवति , अन्यथा मुखभङ्गमूर्धकम्पाङ्गुलीमोटनादिमात्रतत्त्वं तत् , इति अलं विस्तरेण ॥२॥
In plain words
in that passage. This being so, in the double moon too: the moment someone wants to stir up other people’s curiosity, which he takes for the effective action, by showing them a thing never seen before, he is overcome by scorn, mockery, sorrow and the like on hearing what other people say, and from his own self-awareness alone he takes his earlier , “this is a double moon”, to be uprooted. But then, where one is not seeking effective action, how do the dealings of cancelled and uncancelled hold there? Let them not hold: what have we lost? For acting does not come everywhere from alone; rather, it sometimes comes from doubt alone. For one sees people act in farming and the like because the side of gain is the heavier, or else, by the degree of their wanting, in eating food with poison in it, and in theft and the like, where the harm is certain, or likely, or plain to see. So an excess of wanting is the ground of people’s acting. And once a man acts, in some cases, his valid knowing never uprooted, he arrives at ; in others, as things turn out otherwise, at error. So, since he has practised the division between and what is not from birth, or through a hundred births, he sees its form as distinct at the very first glance, as with gems, silver and the like. For in truth it does have a distinctness, made by a difference of causes and the like. And so, when he judges a hardship to be limited and bearable, and for that very reason is not driven this way and that by a great craving of want, then, fearing to be misled, and acting towards the unseen or even the seen from an awareness whose validity is settled, he is not misled. So he is called “one who acts after looking first”. By this, the form of as the world knows it has been restated, to calm the fear, born of confusion, that even the knowing of universals, relations and the like is not valid. For this very reason people are not wearied here with divisions, particular definitions, examinations and the like. Whatever brings about a fruit of whose stability is uncancelled, and which for this very reason goes on unhindered, that in each case is : its form is awareness, it is fixed on what is to be known, and it rests in the of the . And there is no dispute about this in awareness through the senses, in the awareness of pleasure and the like, and in the knowing of , because there it rests directly, and in the first sense, on the that is the . But the understanding born of inference is a grasping of one from another , which is either its effect or its own nature. And the rule of cause and effect, and the rule of sharing a common ground, that another real thing has with it can be settled only by drawing on the Lord’s of , and not otherwise. So inference is over just as much space or time as the is known to cover. Scripture, though, is at its firmest, and its form is wording, which is another name for that. It is the innermost working of the Lord, whose own nature is , and it is like the very life even of perception and the rest. So whatever is held in awareness in a certain way is just so, as in “this poison does not kill me; I am himself”. And the body of words that lends its help to of that kind, made of wording, is as well: the , the and the rest, or others too, the scriptures of the Buddhists, the and so on. For the wording that it brings forth, “I who perform the shall go to heaven”, “I am initiated and shall have a share in no return”, “I am compassionate and shall go to the state of a ”, “I who can bear hard affliction shall reach the state of an ”: in that, no error arises, because then only one who trusts it is fit to carry it out there. But for another, since it does not take the form of firm understanding, that wording, made of such , is no at all. But surely, in this way, the very same would be for one and not for another; and that is not right, because takes no sides. You do not know the truth of how understanding goes; still, you will not be ignored. What does the saying “ takes no sides” mean? Does one person’s knowing of blue, which is perception, make blue shine for everyone? Or his knowing of smoke, fire? And the scripture that is a ’s word, “by this rite you will find a treasure at dawn”: is that for everyone, or for someone, at some time, about something? So here too, the wording whose form is firm is the called “”, because it makes the object known ā, that is, on every side; and as such it holds for everyone. There, light, the senses and the like, when they lend their help to false knowing, serving what is not valid knowing, are no , and yet that does not make perception, whose form is right knowing, take sides at all. Just so, the very same word about the and the like may help the mere semblance of scripture in a and the like, which is made of that is not firm and for this very reason is no ; and yet it holds its validity where it serves the marked by the word, true scripture made of firm , and it cannot be dismissed for the fault of taking sides or of not taking sides. For every scripture, whether its form is injunction or prohibition, brings about a held in by a fixed qualified person, place, time, helping causes and the like. That is why the verse “Common acceptance” says “where” and “when”. That is why the venerable , the author of the and others say, “Perception and scripture are what cancel inference.” Therefore, once the definition of is known, the whole form of is known: what use are particular definitions? As for the one who says its definition is never misleading, he too, in giving as the definition of that it brings one to the thing, that it sets one acting, that it shows a real thing fit to be acted on and able to be reached, has stated nothing of its form that rests in the awareness taken to be . And only if that is carried through by this very definition does it hold; otherwise it amounts to nothing more than a twist of the mouth, a shake of the head, a snap of the fingers and the like. Enough of going on at length.