2023-06-22 12:07:50 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
}
taarafare
making the statement. The (more-precise) definition
is therefore as, "the appearance of something else
elsewhere" and this would cover both cases (causal
and resultant). Or because of the statement in the
Bhashya, "Mixing up truth and untruth" the finally
established definition would be "The apparent mix-
ing up of truth and untruth is superimposition": The
causal superimposition would not fall outside this
definition; nor would there be any flaw in-describ-
ing resultant superimposition as without beginning
like the seed-sprout series.
६५. एवमध्यासे सिद्धे एकस्यात्मनो जीवेश्वरादिव्यवस्था मानमेयादिप्रति-
कर्मव्यवस्था च उपपद्यते । तथा हि — आज्ञानोपहित आत्मा अज्ञानतादा-
त्म्यापन: स्वचिदाभासाविवेकादन्तर्यामी साक्षी जगत्कारणमिति च कथ्यते ।
बुद्धयुपहितश्च तत्तादात्म्यापत्रः स्वचिदाभासाविवेकः जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता प्रमाता
इति च कथ्यते इति वार्तिककारपादाः ।
65. Superimposition having been established in this
manner, the organised distinctions in the one Self as
God and man, and in consciousness as the means of
knowing and the object known can be reasonably
understood. Thus: The Self with ignorance for an
adjunct 22 is called the witness, the cause of the world
and the Lord through non-discrimination from the
appearance of its consciousness which has become
identified with ignorance. But with the mind for an
23 According to the Nyāyaratnāvalī' having an adjunct is
being reflected in it and the non-discrimination is between the
reflection and the infusion of the consciousness which is also
present in the adjunct. Of course, the non-discrimination is by
the Jiva, the individual soul. The whole explanation is
from the point of view of that soul, trying to account for its
(apparent) sense of separation from the absolute pure con-
sciounsess.
35
6
taarafare
making the statement. The (more-precise) definition
is therefore as, "the appearance of something else
elsewhere" and this would cover both cases (causal
and resultant). Or because of the statement in the
Bhashya, "Mixing up truth and untruth" the finally
established definition would be "The apparent mix-
ing up of truth and untruth is superimposition": The
causal superimposition would not fall outside this
definition; nor would there be any flaw in-describ-
ing resultant superimposition as without beginning
like the seed-sprout series.
६५. एवमध्यासे सिद्धे एकस्यात्मनो जीवेश्वरादिव्यवस्था मानमेयादिप्रति-
कर्मव्यवस्था च उपपद्यते । तथा हि — आज्ञानोपहित आत्मा अज्ञानतादा-
त्म्यापन: स्वचिदाभासाविवेकादन्तर्यामी साक्षी जगत्कारणमिति च कथ्यते ।
बुद्धयुपहितश्च तत्तादात्म्यापत्रः स्वचिदाभासाविवेकः जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता प्रमाता
इति च कथ्यते इति वार्तिककारपादाः ।
65. Superimposition having been established in this
manner, the organised distinctions in the one Self as
God and man, and in consciousness as the means of
knowing and the object known can be reasonably
understood. Thus: The Self with ignorance for an
adjunct 22 is called the witness, the cause of the world
and the Lord through non-discrimination from the
appearance of its consciousness which has become
identified with ignorance. But with the mind for an
23 According to the Nyāyaratnāvalī' having an adjunct is
being reflected in it and the non-discrimination is between the
reflection and the infusion of the consciousness which is also
present in the adjunct. Of course, the non-discrimination is by
the Jiva, the individual soul. The whole explanation is
from the point of view of that soul, trying to account for its
(apparent) sense of separation from the absolute pure con-
sciounsess.
35
6