2023-06-22 12:07:50 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
सिद्धान्तबिन्दु
adjunct it is called the soul, the doer, the enjoyer, the
cogniser, also through non-discrimination from the
appearance of consciousness which has become identi-
fied with the mind. This is the view of the revered
author of the Vārtika.
36
६६. प्रतिदेहं च बुद्धीनां भिनत्वात् तच्चिदाभासभेदेन तत् अविविक्तं चैतन्य
मपि भिन्नं इति प्रतीयते । अज्ञानस्य सर्वत्राभिनत्वात् तद्गतचिदाभास-
भेदाभावात् तदविविक्तसाक्षिचैतन्यस्य न कदाचिदपि भेदभानं इति ।
अस्मिंश्च पक्षे तत्त्वमादिपदे जहल्लक्षणैव साभामस्योपाधेः वाच्यार्थस्य
हानात् आभासस्यापि जडाजडविलक्षणत्वेन अनिर्वचनीयत्वात् । तदुक्तं
संक्षेपशरीर
के-
:
साभासाज्ञानवाची यदि भवति पुनर्ब्रह्मशब्दस्तथाहं
शब्दोहरवाची भवति तु जहती लक्षणा तत्र पक्षे ॥
इति ।
66. Because the mind is different in each body, the
reflection of consciousness in each mind also
different and pure consciousness not understood as
distinct from the reflection is seen as if it is different
in each mind also. Because ignorance is the same
everywhere and there is thus no difference in cons-
ciousness within it, the witness-consciousness, seen as
not distinct from it, never appears to be many or
various. In this view, the implied meaning of the
words 'That' and 'thou' is obtained by the process of
abandoning only; because the temporary adjunct and
the reflection therein are given up (in the case of .
both the words). The appearance also, being neither
insentient nor sentient is indefinable. Thus it has
been said in the 'Sankshepa Sārīraka' : " If the word
for the Infinite should ( explicitly) mean the ignora-
nce and the reflection therein, then the word 'I'
adjunct it is called the soul, the doer, the enjoyer, the
cogniser, also through non-discrimination from the
appearance of consciousness which has become identi-
fied with the mind. This is the view of the revered
author of the Vārtika.
36
६६. प्रतिदेहं च बुद्धीनां भिनत्वात् तच्चिदाभासभेदेन तत् अविविक्तं चैतन्य
मपि भिन्नं इति प्रतीयते । अज्ञानस्य सर्वत्राभिनत्वात् तद्गतचिदाभास-
भेदाभावात् तदविविक्तसाक्षिचैतन्यस्य न कदाचिदपि भेदभानं इति ।
अस्मिंश्च पक्षे तत्त्वमादिपदे जहल्लक्षणैव साभामस्योपाधेः वाच्यार्थस्य
हानात् आभासस्यापि जडाजडविलक्षणत्वेन अनिर्वचनीयत्वात् । तदुक्तं
संक्षेपशरीर
के-
:
साभासाज्ञानवाची यदि भवति पुनर्ब्रह्मशब्दस्तथाहं
शब्दोहरवाची भवति तु जहती लक्षणा तत्र पक्षे ॥
इति ।
66. Because the mind is different in each body, the
reflection of consciousness in each mind also
different and pure consciousness not understood as
distinct from the reflection is seen as if it is different
in each mind also. Because ignorance is the same
everywhere and there is thus no difference in cons-
ciousness within it, the witness-consciousness, seen as
not distinct from it, never appears to be many or
various. In this view, the implied meaning of the
words 'That' and 'thou' is obtained by the process of
abandoning only; because the temporary adjunct and
the reflection therein are given up (in the case of .
both the words). The appearance also, being neither
insentient nor sentient is indefinable. Thus it has
been said in the 'Sankshepa Sārīraka' : " If the word
for the Infinite should ( explicitly) mean the ignora-
nce and the reflection therein, then the word 'I'