2023-06-22 12:07:50 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
+
I
I
37
सिद्धांन्तबिन्दु
would mean the ego. In that case the implied
meaning is got by abandoning." (S.S..i, 269).
६७. न चाभासस्यैव बद्धत्वात् केवलचैतन्यस्य च मुक्तत्वात् बन्धमोक्षयोः
वैय्यधिकरण्यात् स्वनाशार्थं प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तिश्चेति वाच्यम् । केवलचैतन्यस्यैव
आभासद्वारा बद्धत्वाभ्युपगमात् । तदुक्तं वार्तिककारपादेः-
अयमेव हि नोऽनर्थो यत्संसार्यात्मादर्शनम् ।
इति । तेन शुद्धचैतन्यस्याभास एव बन्धः तत्रिवृत्तिश्च मोक्ष इति न किंचि
दसमञ्जसम् ।
67. Objection:-Since only the reflection is in bondage
and pure consciousness is free, bondage and freedom
have different loci (and so do not refer to the same
entity); and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to
engage in self-destruction.
Answer:—This cannot be said. The admitted posi
tion is that it is pure consciousness itself that is
bound as reflected. This has been stated by the
revered author of the Vārtika : "This alone we con-
sider as disastrous that the Self is seen as subject to
samsāra." Thus of pure consciousness the reflection
itself is bondage and getting rid of it is liberation;
and there is nothing inconsistent or inexplicable.
६८. अथवा – आभासाविविक्तं चैतन्यमपि तत्त्वमस्यादिवाच्यं, तेन वाच्यैक-
देशस्यात्यागात् अस्मित्रपि पक्षे जहदजहल्लक्षणेति न कोपि दोषः । अयमेव
पक्ष आभासावाद इति गीयते ।
68. Or consciousness non-distinct from its appeara-
nce (in ignorance and the mind respectively) is the
expressed meaning of the words, 'That' and 'thou'.
In this case (the identity is understood) by abandon-
ing a part of the ( expressed) meaning of each. This
is the method of partial abandonment. Thus there is
no flaw. This view is called the 'Abhāsavāda', the
appearance view.
I
I
37
सिद्धांन्तबिन्दु
would mean the ego. In that case the implied
meaning is got by abandoning." (S.S..i, 269).
६७. न चाभासस्यैव बद्धत्वात् केवलचैतन्यस्य च मुक्तत्वात् बन्धमोक्षयोः
वैय्यधिकरण्यात् स्वनाशार्थं प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तिश्चेति वाच्यम् । केवलचैतन्यस्यैव
आभासद्वारा बद्धत्वाभ्युपगमात् । तदुक्तं वार्तिककारपादेः-
अयमेव हि नोऽनर्थो यत्संसार्यात्मादर्शनम् ।
इति । तेन शुद्धचैतन्यस्याभास एव बन्धः तत्रिवृत्तिश्च मोक्ष इति न किंचि
दसमञ्जसम् ।
67. Objection:-Since only the reflection is in bondage
and pure consciousness is free, bondage and freedom
have different loci (and so do not refer to the same
entity); and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to
engage in self-destruction.
Answer:—This cannot be said. The admitted posi
tion is that it is pure consciousness itself that is
bound as reflected. This has been stated by the
revered author of the Vārtika : "This alone we con-
sider as disastrous that the Self is seen as subject to
samsāra." Thus of pure consciousness the reflection
itself is bondage and getting rid of it is liberation;
and there is nothing inconsistent or inexplicable.
६८. अथवा – आभासाविविक्तं चैतन्यमपि तत्त्वमस्यादिवाच्यं, तेन वाच्यैक-
देशस्यात्यागात् अस्मित्रपि पक्षे जहदजहल्लक्षणेति न कोपि दोषः । अयमेव
पक्ष आभासावाद इति गीयते ।
68. Or consciousness non-distinct from its appeara-
nce (in ignorance and the mind respectively) is the
expressed meaning of the words, 'That' and 'thou'.
In this case (the identity is understood) by abandon-
ing a part of the ( expressed) meaning of each. This
is the method of partial abandonment. Thus there is
no flaw. This view is called the 'Abhāsavāda', the
appearance view.