2023-06-22 12:07:55 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
54
सिद्धान्तबिन्दु
the like, because of difference in the adjuncts, there is
no possibility of ending up with the Buddhist theory
(of the void). Other ( practical) distinctions will be
explained more clearly further on.
१०० तस्मात् ज्ञानरूपस्यात्मनः सुषुप्तावव्यभिचारित्वाद्देहेन्द्रियादीनां च
व्यभिचारित्वात्
तत्रतत्रात्मबुद्धिस्तेपां तेषां वादिनां
दृश्यत्वाच
भ्रान्तिरित्यौपनिषदं
मतं प्रामाणिकमिति सिद्धम् ।
॥१॥
100. Because the Self as awareness does not very
even in deep sleep and the gross body, the faculties
and the like, do very, the ideas that these are the Self
are only the delusions of the different disputants. This
view of the upanishads has been established thus.
१०१. स्यादेतत्, आत्मनो निर्धर्मकत्वे प्रमात्रादिव्यवहारस्याध्यासमूलत्वेन
'ब्रह्मणो यजेत' इत्येवमादीनां शास्त्राणामप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गः, अकर्तुरभोक्तुश्चात्मनः।
वेदाप्रामाण्ये कुतो ब्रह्मसिद्धिरपि, तस्य तन्मात्रगम्यत्वात्, 'शाखयोनित्वात् '
इति न्यायात् । तथा च वेदप्रामाण्यार्थ प्रमातृत्वादिव्यवहारस्य सत्यत्वमभ्यु -
पेयमित्याशङ्कय ।
101. If this is so the doubt then arises: Since the Self
is without attributes because the usage of being
the knower is all based on superimposition, scriptural
injunctions like, " The Brāhmaņa shall sacrifice",
would become invalid. The Self being the non-enjoyer
and non-doer, no activity could be reasonably
ascribed to him. If the scriptures should be invalid,
how can the Infinite be proved? Because it can be
understood only through them. The rule of reason
also says, "Because the scriptures are His source
(B.S. i, i, 3) Therefore for securing validity to the scrip-
tures, the usage of knower and the like should be
accepted as real.
१०२. किं तत्त्वज्ञानात्पूर्वमप्रामाण्यमापाद्यते ? ऊध्वं वा ? । तत्राद्ये सर्वेषां
"
सिद्धान्तबिन्दु
the like, because of difference in the adjuncts, there is
no possibility of ending up with the Buddhist theory
(of the void). Other ( practical) distinctions will be
explained more clearly further on.
१०० तस्मात् ज्ञानरूपस्यात्मनः सुषुप्तावव्यभिचारित्वाद्देहेन्द्रियादीनां च
व्यभिचारित्वात्
तत्रतत्रात्मबुद्धिस्तेपां तेषां वादिनां
दृश्यत्वाच
भ्रान्तिरित्यौपनिषदं
मतं प्रामाणिकमिति सिद्धम् ।
॥१॥
100. Because the Self as awareness does not very
even in deep sleep and the gross body, the faculties
and the like, do very, the ideas that these are the Self
are only the delusions of the different disputants. This
view of the upanishads has been established thus.
१०१. स्यादेतत्, आत्मनो निर्धर्मकत्वे प्रमात्रादिव्यवहारस्याध्यासमूलत्वेन
'ब्रह्मणो यजेत' इत्येवमादीनां शास्त्राणामप्रामाण्यप्रसङ्गः, अकर्तुरभोक्तुश्चात्मनः।
वेदाप्रामाण्ये कुतो ब्रह्मसिद्धिरपि, तस्य तन्मात्रगम्यत्वात्, 'शाखयोनित्वात् '
इति न्यायात् । तथा च वेदप्रामाण्यार्थ प्रमातृत्वादिव्यवहारस्य सत्यत्वमभ्यु -
पेयमित्याशङ्कय ।
101. If this is so the doubt then arises: Since the Self
is without attributes because the usage of being
the knower is all based on superimposition, scriptural
injunctions like, " The Brāhmaņa shall sacrifice",
would become invalid. The Self being the non-enjoyer
and non-doer, no activity could be reasonably
ascribed to him. If the scriptures should be invalid,
how can the Infinite be proved? Because it can be
understood only through them. The rule of reason
also says, "Because the scriptures are His source
(B.S. i, i, 3) Therefore for securing validity to the scrip-
tures, the usage of knower and the like should be
accepted as real.
१०२. किं तत्त्वज्ञानात्पूर्वमप्रामाण्यमापाद्यते ? ऊध्वं वा ? । तत्राद्ये सर्वेषां
"