2023-06-22 12:07:55 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
सिद्धान्तबिन्दु
निवृत्तिप्रम्रसन्नः । यौक्तिकज्ञानेन च ब्रह्मणि अविद्यानिवृत्तेः साक्षात्कारार्थं
श्रवणमननापेक्षा न स्यात् । द्वितीये च वह्नयादिव्यवहारो न स्यात्,
51
प्रतिबन्धकस्य विद्यमानत्वात् ।
95. Objection :- Is the covering removed by inference
or is it not ?
In the first case, even the mistake rising from
direct perception is liable to be removed by inference
as the mistaken perception of yellowness in the cornch
or of rotation of the directions is removed by the
inference of whiteness and the like. Because, a
mistake has ignorance of the object for its cause and
when that (ignorance ) is removed it is also removed.
Thus the ignorance regarding Brahman can be
removed by knowledge arising from reasoning and
there is no need for the process of listening and other
means, for realization.
In the second case, even
activity with regard to fire etc., would be impossible
because there would be an obstruction.27
९६.. उच्यते, द्विविधमावरणम्, एकमसत्त्वापादकमन्तःकरणावच्छिा
क्षिनिष्ठम्, अन्यदभानापादकं विषयावच्छनब्रह्मचैतन्यनिष्ठम्, घटमहं न जाना
मीत्युभयावच्छेदानुभवात् । तत्राद्यं परोक्षापरोक्षसाधारणप्रमामात्रेण निवर्तते,
अनुमितेऽपि वह्नयादी नास्तीतिप्रतीत्यनुदयात् । द्वितीयं तु साक्षात्कारेणेव
निवर्तते, यदाश्रयं यदाकारं ज्ञानं तदाश्रयं तदाकारमज्ञानं नाशयतीति
नियमात् । परोक्षज्ञानस्य च इन्द्रियविषयसन्त्रिकर्षाभावेन ज्ञातस्यान्तःकरण-
मात्राश्रयत्वात् अपरोक्षज्ञानस्यैव विषयव्यापारजन्यत्वेन विषयान्तःकरणो-
भयजन्यत्वेन तद्रुभयनिष्ठत्वात् । तदुक्तम्-
27 If the covering of ignorance is not removed by inference
and other means of valid knowing, one could not act on the
certainty of the unseen fire inferred from seen smoke. But this
is against experience as inference is seen to produce certainty of
knowing leading to appropriate action.
निवृत्तिप्रम्रसन्नः । यौक्तिकज्ञानेन च ब्रह्मणि अविद्यानिवृत्तेः साक्षात्कारार्थं
श्रवणमननापेक्षा न स्यात् । द्वितीये च वह्नयादिव्यवहारो न स्यात्,
51
प्रतिबन्धकस्य विद्यमानत्वात् ।
95. Objection :- Is the covering removed by inference
or is it not ?
In the first case, even the mistake rising from
direct perception is liable to be removed by inference
as the mistaken perception of yellowness in the cornch
or of rotation of the directions is removed by the
inference of whiteness and the like. Because, a
mistake has ignorance of the object for its cause and
when that (ignorance ) is removed it is also removed.
Thus the ignorance regarding Brahman can be
removed by knowledge arising from reasoning and
there is no need for the process of listening and other
means, for realization.
In the second case, even
activity with regard to fire etc., would be impossible
because there would be an obstruction.27
९६.. उच्यते, द्विविधमावरणम्, एकमसत्त्वापादकमन्तःकरणावच्छिा
क्षिनिष्ठम्, अन्यदभानापादकं विषयावच्छनब्रह्मचैतन्यनिष्ठम्, घटमहं न जाना
मीत्युभयावच्छेदानुभवात् । तत्राद्यं परोक्षापरोक्षसाधारणप्रमामात्रेण निवर्तते,
अनुमितेऽपि वह्नयादी नास्तीतिप्रतीत्यनुदयात् । द्वितीयं तु साक्षात्कारेणेव
निवर्तते, यदाश्रयं यदाकारं ज्ञानं तदाश्रयं तदाकारमज्ञानं नाशयतीति
नियमात् । परोक्षज्ञानस्य च इन्द्रियविषयसन्त्रिकर्षाभावेन ज्ञातस्यान्तःकरण-
मात्राश्रयत्वात् अपरोक्षज्ञानस्यैव विषयव्यापारजन्यत्वेन विषयान्तःकरणो-
भयजन्यत्वेन तद्रुभयनिष्ठत्वात् । तदुक्तम्-
27 If the covering of ignorance is not removed by inference
and other means of valid knowing, one could not act on the
certainty of the unseen fire inferred from seen smoke. But this
is against experience as inference is seen to produce certainty of
knowing leading to appropriate action.