siddhantabindu /130
This page has not been fully proofread.
सिद्धान्तबिन्दु
प्रतीतिकस्यैव
पगमात् । स्वप्ने तु गज इत्याकारवदयमित्याकारोऽपि कल्पित एव । उभया-
कारबाधेऽप्यधिष्ठानभूतचैतन्याबाधात्र शून्यावादप्रसङ्गः । जाग्रहशायामपि
शुक्तीदवार विलक्षणस्य
रजतेदवारस्य भानाभ्युपगमाञ्च ।
'अध्यस्तमेवहि परिस्फुरति भ्रमेषु' इति न्यायात् शुक्तीद मंशभानपक्षेत्रपि नेदमंश
सत्यत्वमध्यासे प्रयोजकं किन्त्वधिष्ठान सत्यत्वम् । अधिष्ठानं च तत्राज्ञातम् ।
शुक्तिचैतन्यामिवात्रापि साक्षिचैतन्यं विद्यत एवेत्युपपादितम् । तस्मात्र
पक्षद्वयेऽपि काऽप्यनुपपत्तिः ।
167. Answer : No. Since the determinant of the
locus is absent as in the case of the shell (where
the illusory knowing does not take the form, "The
shell is silver") there is no possibility of its taking the
form "I am an elephant". The knowing of the locus
as 'I' would be opposed to the illusion even as the
knowing of the locus as 'shell' would be. So the
appearance of the aspect 'this' only which is not
opposed to the illusion is accepted as being perceived
therein. In the dream, however, the form 'this' is a
construction even like the form 'elephant'. Even when
both these forms are sublated, the ultimate substratum
Consciousness, is not sublated and so there is no void.
Even in the waking state, it is agreed that the silver
seen is only notional or conceptual and different in
nature form the shell seen as 'This'. The reason is
that 'in illusory knowing only the superimposed is
seen'. Even in the view that only the — This' element
of shell is seen, the reality of the ' this' element does
not participate in the illusion; but what does is the
reality of the locus. The locus, like the unknown
shell-consciousness, in that case, is here also as the
witness-consciousness. This has been explained.
Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in either
view.
92
i
प्रतीतिकस्यैव
पगमात् । स्वप्ने तु गज इत्याकारवदयमित्याकारोऽपि कल्पित एव । उभया-
कारबाधेऽप्यधिष्ठानभूतचैतन्याबाधात्र शून्यावादप्रसङ्गः । जाग्रहशायामपि
शुक्तीदवार विलक्षणस्य
रजतेदवारस्य भानाभ्युपगमाञ्च ।
'अध्यस्तमेवहि परिस्फुरति भ्रमेषु' इति न्यायात् शुक्तीद मंशभानपक्षेत्रपि नेदमंश
सत्यत्वमध्यासे प्रयोजकं किन्त्वधिष्ठान सत्यत्वम् । अधिष्ठानं च तत्राज्ञातम् ।
शुक्तिचैतन्यामिवात्रापि साक्षिचैतन्यं विद्यत एवेत्युपपादितम् । तस्मात्र
पक्षद्वयेऽपि काऽप्यनुपपत्तिः ।
167. Answer : No. Since the determinant of the
locus is absent as in the case of the shell (where
the illusory knowing does not take the form, "The
shell is silver") there is no possibility of its taking the
form "I am an elephant". The knowing of the locus
as 'I' would be opposed to the illusion even as the
knowing of the locus as 'shell' would be. So the
appearance of the aspect 'this' only which is not
opposed to the illusion is accepted as being perceived
therein. In the dream, however, the form 'this' is a
construction even like the form 'elephant'. Even when
both these forms are sublated, the ultimate substratum
Consciousness, is not sublated and so there is no void.
Even in the waking state, it is agreed that the silver
seen is only notional or conceptual and different in
nature form the shell seen as 'This'. The reason is
that 'in illusory knowing only the superimposed is
seen'. Even in the view that only the — This' element
of shell is seen, the reality of the ' this' element does
not participate in the illusion; but what does is the
reality of the locus. The locus, like the unknown
shell-consciousness, in that case, is here also as the
witness-consciousness. This has been explained.
Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in either
view.
92
i