SIDDHANTABINDU OF SRIMAT MADHUSŪDANA SARASVATI Translation By Achalananda *PRASARANGA* *UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE* 1981 Srīmān Madhusudana Sarasvati (c. 15201627), the author of the text is one of the classical writers on Advaita Vedanta. His best known work Advaitasiddhi along with the commentary on it by Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, called Laghucandrika and popularly known as Brahmānandī is considered the high-watermark of Advaita dialectics. NGA SORE BURAD TSO MYSORE MYSOR RE ANGA MYSORE TRAS4 TRASARANOR ANGA HIT MYSO MYSO TASARANCE ASARANG NG4 RASARAN SARA C 41POWE NG4 NGA NGA NG 4 ANGA Other Publications - 70 सिद्धान्त बिन्दुः श्रीमन्मधुसूदनसरस्वतीस्वामिनां कृतिः तस्याः आङ्गलभाषानुवाद: लघुटिप्पणी च अचलानन्देन SIDDHANTABINDU OF Srimat Madhusūdana Sarasvati with English translation and brief notes by Acalānanda 1981 Rs. 12-00 Siddhanta Bindu : by Srimat Madhusudana Sarasvati, Translation by Acalananda, Published by the Director, Prasaranga, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysore-570012. First Published 1981, Demy Octavo xxxviii + 140, Price Rs. 12-00. First Published : 1981 Copy Rights Acalananda Price: Rs. 12-00 Published by The Director, Prasaranga, University of Mysore, Mysore-12 Printed at The University Printing Press, Mysore-12 ॐ नमो ब्रह्मादिभ्यो ब्रह्मविद्यासंप्रदायकर्तृभ्यो वंशऋषिभ्यो नमो महभ्द्यो नमो गुरुभ्यः I bow in humble adoration to the line of seers beginning with Brahma, the Creator, the makers of the tradition of Wisdom that is the Infinite. I bow to the great Ones I bow to the Preceptors सिद्धान्त बिन्दुः श्रीमन्मधुसूदनसरस्वतीस्वामिनां कृतिः तस्याः आङ्गलभाषानुवादः लघुटिप्पणी च अचलानन्देन . SIDDHANTABINDU OF Srimat Madhusudana Sarasvati with English translation and brief notes by Acalānanda FOREWORD The Siddhanta-bindu of Madhusudana Sarasvatī is a valuable introduction to the study of Advaita. It is valuable for two reasons. Being a commentary on Şankara's Daşaṣlokī, it takes the reader to Sankara, the perennial source of inspiration to all those who are interested in Advaita. It also helps the reader to have a taste of the style and argumentative skill of Madhusudana, one of the masterminds of the school of Advaita. The Daşaşlokī, also known as Cidananda-daşasloki, which consists of ten verses, brings out the nature of the Self which is no other than Brahman, distinguishing it from the not-self, which is unreal, insentient, and finite. Şańkara says that the Self is one (eka), auspicious (siva), free from attributes (kevala or nirdharmaka) and eternal, i.e. what remains for ever without getting sublated (avaşişhta). The Siddhanta-bindu written by Madhusudana is a commentary on the Daşaşlokī. Madhusūdana not only explains the meaning of each verse of the original text, but also elucidates the various aspects of the Advaita school. Though the commentary is called "Siddhanta-bindu", which means, "a drop of the doctrine ", it is indeed a summary or digest of several aspects of the Advaita doctrine. Hence its importance and value. Swami Acalānanda's translation of the Siddhantabindu is lucid and faithful to the original. The notes he has provided will be helpful in understanding the . iv technical terms and problems. I am sure that this edition of the text with translation will be useful to both scholars and laymen interested in Advaita. R. BALASUBRAMANIAN Director The Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced Study in Philosophy University of Madras CONTENTS Foreword .... .... iii Guide to the pronunciation of transliterated Sanskrit words .... .... vi Abbreviations .... .... viii Introduction .... .... ix Analysis of the text and translation .... .... xxiv Daşaşloki .... .... xxxi Text and translation .... .... 1 Glossary .... .... 113 Errata .... .... 133 GUIDE TO THE PRONUNCIATION OF TRANSLITERATED SANSKRIT WORDS VOWELS a i i u ប Į 1 e ai 0 au ḥ k kh g gh n с ch CONSONANTS When two words are given to illustrate a consonant sound, the two words are said together and not apart. j jh n short like u in but long like a in far short like i in pin long like ee in seen short like u in put long like oo in root a vowel sound a vowel sound ţ th d long like ay in bay long like ai in pain long like oa in boat long like ou in endow the preceding vowel is a spirated, involving an expulsion of the breath like c in come like k h in think hard like g in gum like gh in ghost preceding k, kh, g, gh like n in pink like ch in church like ch h in match head like j in judge like dge h in sledge hammer preceding c, ch, j, jh, like n in pinch like t in top like t h in hot house like d in dance dh ņ t th d dh n Р ph b bh m y r 1 V Ş sh S h like d h in round house like n in punt like th in pith like th in think like th in that like dh in Buddha preceding t th, d, dh like n in no like p in put like p h in up hill like b in but like b h in climb high like m in mind like y in young like r in run like 1 in law like v in love like s in Siva vii like sh in ship like s in sea like h in hard Ai.U. B.P. B.S. B.S.B. B.U. B.U.V. Bb.U. Bh. Bh.G. Bh.P. Ch.U. I.U. Kai.U. K.U. Ke.Up. Man.K. Nr.U. Pan. S.S. Sv.U. T.S. T.U. Y.S. : ABBREVIATIONS Aitareya Upanishad Brahma Puranam Brahma Sutram Brahma Sutra Bhashyam of Şri Şankara Brhadarnyaka Upanishad Brhadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya Vārtikam Brahmabindu Upanishad Bhagavatam Bhagavadgita Bhashaparichhedah Chandogya-Upanishad Isavasya Upanishad Kaivalya Upanishad Kathopanishad Kena Upanishad Mandūkya Kārika NŢsimha-Uttara-TāpiniUpanishad Panchadaşi Sankshepa Şârirakam Şvetaşvatara Upanishad Taittiriya Samhita Taittiriya Upanishad Yagnavalkya Smrti INTRODUCTION Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati is one of the classical writers on the Advaita Vedanta. His best known work is the Advaita-Siddhi. Together with the commentary on it by Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati, called Laghucandrika but better known by its popular name Brahmanandī, it is considered the highwater mark of Advaita dialectics. Not much is known about the details of the life of this great saint scholar. But the little that is known is full of interest. Sri P. C. Diwanji of the Bombay Civil Service (judi. cial) places the date of his birth as 1540 A.D. He tells us also that the name of Madhusudana Sarasvati is mentioned in the Ain-E-Akbari as the second among the wise men of the Hindus, the first being that of his guru, Madhava Sarasvati. And Sri Rajendranath Ghosh, in the very elaborate introduction to the Bengali translation of the Advaita-Siddhi places the date of his birth between 1525 and 1530. In view of the fact that when he left for Navadveepa as a very young man determined to enter the monastic order under the guidance of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1485-1532) the latter was presumably still alive, it may be necessary to advance the date of birth to 1520. It is agreed by all that he lived for a hundred and seven years. He was born in a village near Kotalipära in the Faridpur District of East Bengal, now Bangladesh, in a family of erudite scholars, probably followers of the vaishnava faith. The father's name was Pramodana Purandarâcārya. The young man, the third of four sons, was named Kamalanayana. Receiving his early education from his father and making very rapid progress with it, Kamalanayana resolved, even as a very young man, to dedicate his life to the pursuit of truth and to renounce the worldly life, to enable him to concentrate on his aim, without the distraction of having to maintain a family. His father approved his resolve, blessed him and advised him X not to enter the monastic order till he had acquired all the learning required and available. Resolving and promising his father accordingly, Kamalanayana came to Navadveepa, hoping to become a disciple of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Arriving there he found that the Mahaprabhu had gone away to Puri. Before he could leave for Puri, he probably heard of the passing away of Sri Chaitanya. He then started the advanced study of Nyaya under the great scholar Hari Rāma Tarkavāgişa. A great devotee of Sri Krishna by. temperament and upbringing, he came to believe that the Advaita Siddhanta was the greatest obstacle to bhakti. So he determined to study it thoroughly so that he could refute it completely and advance the cause of bhakti. For this purpose he went to Väraņāsi the great seat of Advaita Vedanta where his mastery of Nyaya was readily recognized and brought him great reputation and honour. He studied the Advaita-vedänta under Madhava Sarasvati, the foremost of the teachers of Advaita at Vāraṇāsi. As the study proceeded, Kamalanayana, who began as a confirmed adversary, studying the system so as to refute it thoroughly, became a convinced convert to the Advaita view of Reality, because of his keen intellect and a mind open to conviction. He was then overcome with remorse for the deceit he had practised on the Guru to whom he had not revealed his purpose at the beginning. In this repentant mood he confessed his sin to the guru and requested him to prescribe a proper atonement for it. The guru told him that sanyasa was the atone • ment for everything and directed him to a brother monk, Visvesvara Sarasvati for ordination as a monk. Sri Visvesvara Sarasvati expressed his joy at getting such a learned candidate for the monastic order but required him, as a matter of form, to write something on the Advaita-vedānta, so that his eligibility for ordination could be judged thereby. He began his commentary on the Gita, the Gūdhartha-dipikā. What was ready of it was shown to Sri Visveswara Sarasvati a few months later when he returned from a pilgrimage; it was approxi ved and Kamalanayana Pandita was ordained as an Advaitin monk with the name of Madhusudana Sarasvati. Then he commenced the other work set by his master, viz. to repel the latest dialectic attack on Advaita by the eminent Madhva saint-scholar Vyasa Tirtha in his 'Nyāyāmṛta'. This he did in his most famous work the Advaita-siddhi wherein, it is said his mastery of the Advaita Vedanta and of the Nyaya discipline are both seen at their best and subtlest. It is said that after this work was completed it was seen by Vyâsa Tirtha also, who feeling that it had to be refuted and that he was too old to do it himself directed his disciple Vyasa Rāmācārya to do it. The latter came to Käsi and studied Advaita-siddhi under Madhusudana Sarasvati himself, without revealing his intention. While studying he was also writing his refutation of its thesis and at the end of his study he presented a copy of his writing, the Nyāyāmṛtatarangini to his teacher. The latter saw it and told Rāmācārya that he had known his intentions, even though they were not revealed by the student and so had taught him the doctrine without reservation. He also told him that it was not proper for him to refute the writing of his own student and that it would be done by a younger man. He asked Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati who was a student of his student Narayana Tirtha to undertake this refutation which he did in the form of the Laghucandrikā, a commentary on the Advaita-siddhi. It is said that Madusūdana Sarasvati had to meet the Emperor Akbar, to ask for his assistance to prevent the killing by Muslim fanatics of Hindu monks, who had taken the vow of non-violence to all forms of life, and so could not defend themselves. As a result of that meeting he organized an order of militant Hindu monks the nägās, for the defence of the other sanyasins. It is also said that he liberalized the admission to monastic order, till then open to the Brahmanas only, to the dvijās or traivarnikās. Madhusudana lived in an age of giants in every walk of life, particularly spiritual life. Saint Tulsidas the poet-saint, author xii of the Ramacaritamanasa was a contemporary and a friend. While his reputed meeting with Vallabhacarya, the founder of the vaishnava faith prevailing in parts of Western India cannot be easily accepted, there appears to be no difficulty about his meeting with Appayya Dikshita from the South, who spent his last years in Vāraṇāsi and with Visvanātha Trakapancḥānona who was a star just rising in the sky of scholarship during the last years of Madhusudana Sarasvati. A large number of works-nearly twenty-are ascribed to the author of the Siddhanta-bindu. But some of them are doubtful. These which can be definitely ascribed to him according to Sri P. C. Diwanji are : 1. Advaita-siddhi, a work on advaita diatectics, establishing the doctrine after refuting the objections of the eminent Madhva saint and scholar Vyasa Tirtha. 2. Advaita-ratnarakshā upholding advaita against the followers of the Nyaya school. 3. Vedānta-kalpalatikā, a short general exposition of the advaita, particularly the advaitin's idea of mukti. 4. Siddhanta-bindu, a commentary on Sri Sankara Bhagawatapada's Daşa-şloki. This is the work now translated.` 5. Sankshepa-säriraka-sāra-sangraha, a commentary on the Sankshepa-säriraka of Saravajnåtman. 6 Gūdhartha-dipikā, a commentary on the Bhagavadgita based mostly on Sri Sankara's bhashya and upholding bhakti as a valid means to liberation. 7. Bhagavad-bhakti-rasāyana, an elaborate exposition of Bhakti based mostly on the Bhagavata-maha-purana, demonstrating that it is also a valid means to mukti. 8. Bhagavata-prathama-śloka-vyakhya, a commentary on the first verse of the Bhagavata. 9. Mahimnasiatra-ţikā, expounding the famous hymn of Pushpadanta, as being in praise of Hari as well as of Hara. 20-4 10. Isvarapratipatti-prakasa an exposition of the various ideas regarding God, held by the different systems of religious thought, prevailing in the country. xiii Another commentary on the Gitā, the Gita-nibandha, which is counted by Sri Rajendranath Ghosh as mentioned in the Gudhartha-dipikā appears to have not been noticed by Sri Diwanji. The Siddanta-bindu has been translated into English by Sri P. C. Diwanji of the Bombay Civil Service (Judicial), published in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series and by Sri Modi, Professor of Sanskrit in the Bhavanagar College. Both these books are not readily available now, this translator got them only after he had completed his work. There are four commentaries in Sanskrit on the work. (1) The Bindu-sandipani of Sri Purushottamananda, (2) The Bindu-vyakya of Sri Nārāyaṇa Tirtha, (3) The Nyāyaratnāvali of Sri Brahmananda Sarasvati and (4) A modern commentary by Mahamahopadhyāya Vasudeva Şastri Abhyankar of Poona. Only the last two were available to the translator when this translation was being made.. As mentioned earlier, this text is a commentary on Sri Sankara's Daşa-sloki, wherein the central theme of the Advaita Vedānta is expounded in very simple language. The essential doctrine the identity of consciousness which is the reality of the individual with the Infinite, the consciousness which is the reality of the universe. From this it follows that it is not right to identify the Self with any of the other categories of experienee on which the perceived activity of life is based or which are perceived or conceived or as is done by other thinkers. This is done in the daşa-slokī taking up the categories from different points of view. In each of the first eight verses the first two quarters state the denial, the third gives briefly the reason on which the denial is based and the last quarter asserts the accepted identity. In the ninth verse, the first two lines give the reason for the assertion made in the last and the third states the consequent status of the phenomenal world. In the last verse, 3 xiv however, there is the admission of the futility of trying to express the ineffable. ▼ In the Siddanta-bindu, the ideas in the original work are elaborated, the refuted views are stated at some length and the schools holding them named. In this process, the basic ideas of Advaita-vedanta are clearly enunciated. The explanation of the first verse is by far the longest forming nearly half the text. Most of the basic ideas of the advaita are explained here. The three vädas of post-Şankara thought in this school, viz., the Pratibimba-vāda, the Abhāsa-vāda and the Avaccheda-vāda are explained and reconciled. These will be referred to again a little later. The commentary on the eighth verse is also very long and there is a detailed discussion here of the states of consciousness. Here also some points of interest are clarified. To go back to the vadas The Vādas are mostly analogies to illustrate a point. They are not reasons which explain why something is happening but analogies to explain how it can be understood. A phenomenon with which we are familiar and which the mind has accepted is chosen and the matter under discussion is shown to be understood like that. To the question why, however, in the ultimate sense, there is no answer. To say that it is because of Māyā is an admission that it is unanswerable, because Māyā is itself indefinable. Advaita admits the position and demonstrates that this is so not because of the system's inability to solve the problem but because the nature of the problem is such. Therefore thinking through analogies is a means of enabling the mind to accept the finding in terms of previously accepted findings. . The problem here is to explain how the One, Being, Brahman appears as many; as the perceived world. The analogy of the rope seen as a snake illustrates how something can appear as something other, as something which it is not, in fact. The discussion of the Khyati vadās, the theories of erroneous perception, leads to the conclusion that while such perception is a fact XV (phenomenal), it is not possible to explain why or how it happens. The discussion culminating in this view of the advaitins the anir vacanīya-vāda is dealt with elaborately in both the Bhamati and the Pancapädika. But the multiplicity perceived in the 'other' is not sufficiently covered by this illustration, beyond the otherness including multiplicity also. These three or rather two vādās,-because, as we shall see presently, the pratibimba-vāda and the ābhāsavāda are not substantially different-are analogies to illustrate the multiplicity and the mutability of the perceived and also that these do not affect in any way the oneness and the immutability of the Real. Again the ultimate Reality is held to be pure absolute existence, Being, Sat, which is identical with pure absolute consciousness, awareness or intelligence, Cit. In normal life the category with which we are familiar, which comes nearest to pure existence is space. The common, thinking mind accepts this though it is not a datum of sense perception. This is therefore used as an analogy by which the mind can be led to an acceptance of the Infinite. The attributes of space are used to illustrate the integral characteristics (the svarupa-lakshana) of the Infinite. The containers like pots, buildings and such others appear to divide space up into separate units with distinct qualities. Space, limited by each container appears to have the shape, size and other qualities of container, and because of these qualities each such delimited space appears to be different from every other, delimited by the apparent division made by the containers. In fact space itself one, indivisible and totally unaffected by the apparent divisions made by the containers and the apparent distinction among such apparently divided units of space. Modern scientific thinking makes it possible to take the analogy even further. Science has reduced matter to energy and energy to stress or deformation in space. So even the partitions which apparently divide space, being made of matter are also space only. This makes the apparent nature of the partition clearer. xvi This is probably the genesis of the avaccheda-vada, the delimitation view. But here the analogy stops and the last step has to be taken by the mind itself because the Infinite is beyond all categorizing, beyond all cognition, while all familiar categories are within the range of cognition. So, for that last step there no analogy and there can never be any. Similarly light is the category within phenomenal experience that comes nearest to pure awareness, consciousness or intelligence. While light illumines and makes visible objects which could not be perceived visually without it, it does not need another light to make it visible. Likewise consciousness illumines or enables all things to be perceived, including itself. It does not require a second awareness to know awareness. Another property of light also illustrates some of the ideas regarding pure consciousness. Light reflected from a reflecting medium does illumine dark places and the objects therein which would otherwise remain unseen. This reflected light can be. various and distorted or otherwise deformed by the flaws in the reflecting media. Each such unit of reflected light could be different from the other depending on the variety and differences of the reflecting media. Again, because the reflecting medium has no luminosity of its own, the light which appears to come from it has no reality other than the reality of the original or pure light. This could be the origin of the pratibimba-vada or the ābhāsavāda the reflection view or the appearance view which leads the mind towards reality or the infinite as pure consciousness. But this analogy also cannot be taken too far and it cannot lead the mind to pure consciousness itself, which can never be an object of knowing. Like the other analogy of space this also can only, prepare the mind for the final leap beyond itself. Though Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati makes the pratibimbavādā and ābhāsavāda two distinct views, his senior contemporary in the South, Appayya. Dikshita, makes the ābhāsavāda a variation of the pratibimba-vada. What happened between the writing of the latter's Siddhanta-leşasangraha and the former's xvii Siddhanta-bindu to account for this difference is a problem to be solved by the historjan of Adavaita Vedanta. The difference between the pratibimba-vāda which says the reflected image is real and the ābhasa-vāda which says it is unreal appears to be more in the form rather than in the content of the statement. For the pratibimba-vāda also holds that the attributes of the reflection such as its location, its lateral inversion facing a direction opposite to the one faced by the object are all false. The only reality that could be predicated of it is what it receives from the object. This does not contradict its being false, because what is perceived as other than the original is nothing but the aggregate of perceived attributes all of which are false. Şri Şankara uses the word ābhāsa, appearance, to include the pratibimba, reflection, also in his Upade şasahasri (XVIII, 31-50). Also in the Brahma-Sutras (Ch. II, 3, 50) and Şri Şankara's commentary thereon, ābhāsa includes the pratibimba. In fact reflection is also an appearance, a particular form thereof. While the 'reflection' confines the meaning to the specific form reflected, the more comprehensive word 'appearance' includes the diffusion of light through the reflecting medium. But for this the medium itself could be perceived. There are more than sixty references to cidabhāsa in the Brhadaranyaka-Upanishad-Bhashya-Vartika of Sri Sureshvara, who is considered the author of the abhāsavāda. But there is nowhere a suggestion that this is meant to contradict or is offered as an alternative to the pratibimba-vāda. It would appear only that Şri Sureshwara preferred the more comprehensive expression abhasa and that the authors of the Pancpädikā preferred the more specific expression pratibimba. Sri Madhusudana Sarasvathi has reconciled these vädas in the words of Sri Sureshvarachrya: Yatha yatha bhavet pumso vyutpattih pratyagātmani sā saiva prakriyā jneyā sadhvī sā cānavasthitā ॥ By whichever method a person attains knowledge of the xviii innerself, that method should be considered the good method and it is not confined to any one method only. This great principle could be extended beyond the different approaches within a particular school of thinking, to the. different schools themselves accepting them all as valuable and valid for their followers. The time that is now wasted by many learned men of all schools in proving other modes of thought to be mistaken could be used beneficially in pursuing the realization of what they hold to be right. The validity of all the views has been reiterated for the modern man by Sri Ramakrishna by arriving at the same goal by all the paths by the effective method of practising them earnestly and with complete faith. It has been pointed out that the vādās discussed here were only analogies to guide the mind from different points of view towards the Infinite. In fact nothing can produce a knowledge of Reality; because Reality, the Infinite, is itself knowledge identical with being. Again the Infinite is one and undifferentiated. The process of knowing which is transitive requires a subject and an object. It is a function of the mind. Since the very characteristic of the mind is to differentiate, no function of the mind can lead to the undifferentiated Being which is also absolute knowledge of awareness. That is way absolute Being which is also pure Consciousness and Bliss is said to be selfevident and not cognizable by any means of knowing, svatahsiddha or svatah-pramāṇa and aprameya. This self-evident Being-consciousness is eternal, immutable. Therefore it can never become another. But, in our present state, each of us is aware of his identity as an individual, as the fundamental fact to which all other knowing is related. The cause of this, it is held, is ignorance. Avidya, which causes something to appear as something which it is really not; the one to appear as many; pure consciousness as a mixture of knowing and unknowing; the eternal as having a beginning and end and so on ad infinitum. This ignorance, avidyā or māyā, is only a hypothesis which holds only so long as the sense of individuality lasts. The two cease simultaneously. 1 xix Now, how is this experienced (within the phenomenal) ignorance to be overcome or destroyed? We know that ignorance can be destroyed only by knowledge and by nothing else. Activity may be necessary to acquire knowledge but it cannot destroy ignorance. Only knowledge can do that. In this case since absolute knowledge is eternal it is not to be brought into being by activity, nor is there any question of acquiring or achieving it, as it is held to be one's own svarupa, Being. So all that is to be achieved is the destruction of the hypothetical ignorance. Again, what is the knowledge that can destroy it? It cannot be pure awareness because that, as pure Being, is the substratum, locus, or basis of everything including even the hypothetical ignorance. Pure awareness is one only, without a second and so there can be no ignorance for it to destroy. Also being without a second it cannot perform the function of destruction because a function, work, invariably presupposes a subject and an object. Therefore the destruction of the hypothetical ignorance can be only within the phenomenon by functioning consciousness. This functioning consciousness is thought, a function. of the mind, a limited form of absolute consciousness delimited or determined by ignorance. And it is with this only that the hypothetical ignorance has to be destroyed. Here it is necessary to refer briefly to the advaitin's idea of the process of perceptional knowing which is the most direct within the phenomenon. We have to remember, again, that according to advaita, the cognizing mind, the faculty which is the instrument of congnition and the congnized object are all pure. Being-consciousness only, conditioned by ignorance as apparently distinct entities, which, by their inter-relation, constitute the process of knowing. So in this process, e.g., of visual perception, the mind (antahkaraṇa) limited as the instrument of perception goes out through the seat of the visual faculty to make contact with the object to be perceived. Till the moment of such contact the object is not known, so it is said to be XX covered by the veil of ignorance. The instrument of perception, therefore, breaks this cover or veil: that is the avarana-bhanga, the breaking of the cover. Then this function of the mind which went out as the instrument of perceptive cognition, takes the form of the object and is reflected in that form; and that reflection as the cognized function is the result of the congnition, the resulting or reflection, the phalavṛtti. The process of knowing Brahman is the same as this. The function of the mind generated by the maha-vākya goes out towards Brahman and breaks the veil which now covers it making it unknown. The veil is itself the unknownness of Brahman which is the same as our ignorance of it. When this is destroyed the function of the mind takes the form of the object viz., Brahman. Brahman being infinite has no particular form which would finetize it. So the mind taking the form of Brahman means that the mind loses its finiteness. In that moment when finiteness is lost, the mind, or what up to that moment was itself finite and the cause of finiteness and distinction and was called the mind, has lost its characteristic and is not mind. It has become the Infinite or Brahman. Then, as there is nothing other there is no reflection in a particular form to a particular cognizer. There is only undifferentiated Being, Consciousness, Bliss, akhandam saccidanandam. This is the akhaṇḍākāra-vritti, the mind function as the Infinite. It starts within ignorance, within Maya, and ends as the undifferentiated the akhanda. It is like the mental function of working up out of a dream, which starts in the dream state and ends as the waking state. This is also Jnanam which, as the vritti, is the means to emancipation, Mukti and as the akhanda, Mukti itself. . The functioning mind, however persists as long as the aggregate of the body, faculties and mind continues as such, that is, as long as the individual life lasts. [Since functioning necessarily comes to an end, if that is mukti or emancipation, mukti would be transient and not eternal. And this would be against the doctrine that mukti, is eternal. This doubt does arise. • xxi The answer is this : The akhaṇḍākāra-Vṛtti, being a vṛtti, a function, is certainly transient and does come to an end. But the fact that, even for an instant the mind had lost its finiteness and become identified with the infinite remains as a samskära, an indelible impression in the mind and this sublates all subsequent thoughts even as they rise. This sublation destroys the sense of reality in the content of these subsequent thoughts; they are only bädhita anuvṛtti, thoughts the content of which is known to have no reality. Therefore these thoughts are not capable of producing any further impressions on the mind. The old samskāras have been destroyed by the akhandakara-vṛtti; new samskāras are not produced because of the memory of that vṛtti in the mind, therefore there is no bondage or cause of bondage. That is mukti. What the akhaṇḍākāra-vṛtti does is to destroy the illusion that we are bound and not free. Really the Self is nitya-șuddhabuddha-muktasvabhavah, ever pure, enlightened and free in its essence. One more question remains. Why is it that even after long study and an intellectual conviction about Advaita one does not get the experience of the infinite or the akhaṇdā-kāra-vṛtti? What should one do to get it ? The intellectual conviction still remains in the mind onlyit is paroksha. That is because at the deeper levels there are samskäras that cause a hold on the individuality, because of these being anādi, having no knowable beginning in time. So to get rid of these one has keep on repeating his conviction mentally till the final function occurs. In practice it means this : As each thought (vrtii) comes, to the surface of the mind, one denies reality to its content athātaädeso neti neti (B.u. ii, 3, 6). This denial is an assertion of his intellectual conviction. This process is the nididhyasa for one following the vic.aramarga, the path of enquiry. This has to be persisted in till the mind attains jnana or the akhaṇḍākāra-vrtti. V xxii These two questions have been dealt with in the introduction to his vārtikasāra by Sri Vidyāraṇya. This work, the Siddhanta-bindu is meant to remove the doubts that linger in the minds of even those who have accepted advaita, rather than to convince and convert those holding other views. The translator's hope is that this translation may be of some use to sādhakās whose knowledge of Sanskrit is insufficient for them to follow the original. Lacking, as he does, the necessary training in the disciplines of Nyaya and Mīmāmsā and also a knowledge of Western philosophical thought he could never dream of producing a work for the approval of scholars, traditional or modern. If in spite of this, scholars find something of value in it, that must be due entirely to the intrinsic value of the original work. Vidwan Sri Sadhu Lakshminarasimha Sastrygaru of Bangalore has given invaluable help to the translator studying the text and the latter is thankful to him for this. The translator takes this opportunity to express his deep gratitude to revered Swami Vimalananda Puri Maharaj of Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama, Nettayam for the time and patience bestowed by him to listen to the translation following the original. His approval of the effort gave the translator a great satisfaction. Dr. K. B. Ramakrishna Rao, Head of the Department of Philosophy, Mysore University, Dr. K. Krishna Murti, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Karnataka University and his colleague, Dr. Modak and Dr. R. Balasubramanyan, Director, Radhakrishnan Institute for the Advanced Study of Philosophy, Madras University, have been kind enough to go through the script of the translation and the translator feels deeply indebted to them for their kindness. The last named friend has also given a foreword to the book further increasing the translator's indebtedness. Professor S. S. Raghavachar, (Retired) Head of the Department of Philosophy and Prof. H. G. Suryanarayana Rao, (Retired) Professor of the English Department, of the xxiii Mysore University have also helped in the final shaping of this work. The translator would like to thank all of them. The translator regrets deeply both the presence and the length of the errata. He would suggest to the reader that the corrections indicated may be carried out before starting the reading of the text. This will make the process of understanding smoother. ( The translator is also thankful to the Prasaranga of the Mysore University and the Director Dr. Prabhusankara who have accepted this book for publication and thus made it available to his fellow students. He is thankful to the University Press and its Director for printing the book so quickly. Translator ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION Author's introduction Objection: No need for Atmajñāna Reply: It is necessary and useful The mahāvākyas, the great statements, the means of knowing Atman-Brahman Meanings of words and statements Objection: Regarding the necessity for discussion Reply: Discussion to dispel doubts caused by the disputants Priority of the tvam-pada-artha, the meaning of the word 'Thou' : View of the Carvāka, the Vijnanavādin, the Madhyamika, 'Jaina, Vaişeshika, Nyaya, Prabhākara, Bhatta, Sankhya, Yoga and the Upanishads the vedanta Conclusion of the author's introduction as a prelude to verse 1. Verse 1 and its translation Refutation of other views : The grounds of refutation The reason elaborated 1 Objection: The self absent in 'sushupti', deep sleep Answer: Awareness present as the witness in deep sleep Proved by the memory of that condition Objection: No need for a witness Paragraph 1 2 3 4. 5-7 8 10 11 12 13 15-20 21 22-27 28 29 29 30 Answer: Need proved 31 32 Objection: No evidence for the unchanging witness Reply: Scriptural evidence for the unchanging witness 33 Objections to the rejection of the mind as the knower and answers thereto 34-37 I 1 1 XXV Objection to the reflection of a formless entity and answer to it Objection: Regarding absence of evidence for the reflection of the self Answer: Evidence of reflection in the sruti Reflection theory: Pratibimba-vāda and appearance theory: Abhasa-vāda Objection to the idea of Super-imposition, adhyasa Answer: General Sruties supporting superimposition, adhyāsa Reasoning supporting adhyasa Objection to accepting the temporary adjuncts, Upādhis to knowledge Answer by a counter-objection Further answer regarding the necessity for accepting adhyāsa Ignorance, avidyā is positive in nature Not a series of mistaken knowings Also the cause of mistake; and conclusion regarding superimposition and its continuation Progressive extenstion of superimposition Conclusion of the discussion on superimposition The posibility of sünya-vāda refuted-superimposition is without beginning, anādi Objection to Şankara's description of superimposition Answer and final definition Abhāsavāda: The appearance view Vivaraṇakārās view 38-41 Sankshepa-Sariraka's view Avaccheda-vada, the delimitation view 2 42 43 44 45-48 49 50 51 52 53 54-55 56 57 Explanation of all perceived and conventionally accepted distinctions-The Lord and the soul, Iswara and jiva, Vārtika view Iswara and Jiva; Sankshepa-sariraka view Objection regarding freedom and bondage pertaining to different entities, being vyadhikarana Answer: No inconsistency 58 59-60 61 62 63 64 65 66 66 67 68 69 70-71 72 xxvi The one-soul view ; ekajīvavāda Objection regarding contradictory views and answer to them Objection regarding distinction of prameya and pramāṇa Answer: The determination of object and means of knowing the two powers of avidyā Further elaboration of the distinction The function of the mind in producing congnition Objection that certain categories should be constantly congnized without a function of the mind Answer Objection: How can the Infinite be covered ? Answer: Conceived as covered because of the soul's limitation Objection: The breaking of the veil in ordinary knowing should cause avaraṇa-bhanga Answer: The analogy of fire and the cooling gem Objection: Ignorance irremovable Answer: Ignorance removed and by the knowledge arising from the mahävākyas (: Alternative explanation based in a primal ignorance and innumerable secondary ignorances Objection: Is ignorance removed by inference? Answer: Two kinds of covering, avarana : Conclusion of this section Objection based on anirvacanīya-khyāti, the 1: indeterminate theory of erroneous perception Answer to this Conclusion of verse 1. Perlude to verse 2-Objection If Scripture becomes invalid Brahmajňāna arising from it would also be invalid. Reply to the above and verse 2 Some of words explained Introduction to verse 3, and verse 3 Explanation of some of the words 73 74-80 81 82-83 84 : 85 86 87 88 . 89 90 91. 92 93 94 95 96 97. 98. 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 1 xxvii Condition of deep sleep Objection: It is a void Answer: That is also denied-Positive nature of existence Conclusion of the ascertainment of the meaning of 'Thou '-Introducing verse IV The different views regarding the origin of world: Sankhya do Pasupata Views regarding the origin of the world pancarātrika do Jains and Tridandins do The mimamsakas do Tārkikas do The Bauddhas do The Patanjalas do The aupanishadas or vedantins Refutation of the Saiva, the pāncarātra and the jaina views The Mimamsaka view regarding statements being injunction vidhi refuted Refutation of upanishadic statements being Arthavāda Discussion on Vidhi' concluded Refutation of the Tärkika's view Refutation of the difference-cum-identity view and the view of momentariness . 106 107 Conclusion of Verse-iv Objection regarding the magnitude of Brahman and reply as introduction to verse v; verse v Explanation of some of the expressions in verse v Objection: The Infinite as the cause of a sorrowful world would become full of sorrow, absence of the highest human purpose. Reply introducing verse vi; verse vi : 108-110 111 120 Conclusion of the introduction to verse iv; and verse iv 121 Meaning of it others Refutation of the views of the sankhyas 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 122. 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 f xxviii Explanation of verse vi Objection: To whom is the instruction given ? Reply and inroduction to verse vii; verse vii; Explanation of some of the distinctions between the three states of consciousness-Answer: Introduction to verse viii; verse viii The order of mention of the states Only wo categories; Subject and object consideration of the subject-(1) self Consideration of the subjects (i) God Consideration of the subject as (ii) the soul (Jiva) ` Consideration of the object Darkeess-positive The uncombined-subtle five elements the antahkarana or mind The faculties produced by the elements The Gods presiding over the faculties The five faculties of knowing The five faculties of activity The body as the locus of the faculties Pañcikaraṇa Discussion on Trivṛtkaraṇa and pancikaraṇa The body-produced by the five elements The process of absorption Total dissolution Distinctions between the three states of consciousness Jagrat, waking Svapna, dream Objection: Mind becomes the subject, the congnisor; self-luminosity of the Self lost Answer: Mind cannot be the congniser The locus of dream-superimposition Objection: The Soul, Jiva, being consciousness cannot be the locus Answer: A particular kind of ignorance admitted Objection: Waking knowing cannot dispel dream ignorance Answer: One kind of ignorance can dispel another 133 134 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149-150 151 152 153 154 155 " 156 157 158. -159 160 161 162-164 xxix Alternative: Brahman Consciousness delimited by the mind as locus of dream ignorance Objection: The dream experience of an elephant should be 'I am an elephant' Answer: No, because of the absence of the locus Conclusion of discussion of dream; taijasa Deep-sleep, sushupti, experiences through the functioning of ignorance, avidyā-vṛtti Distinction from total dissolution, pralaya Ego experienced only in the waking state; transfer of the witness-experience of sleep to the ego of waking Superimposition of Brahman on name etc. an act of the will, reasoning also is such, neither right congnition nor illusion Process of reasoning-four or five types of anvaya-vyatireka Experience of bliss in deep sleep Non-different from God, Iswara States of the mind in waking, cause of distinction among cognisers, the witness limited as congniser, witness common to all bodies Objection-Memory of painful sleep Answer-painfulness is only the memory of conditions preceding sleep Alternative explanation therefor; division of each of the three states Adhāytmika, adhidaivika and adhibhautika division of the three states of consciousness Meditation as Hiraṇyagarbha, gradual release; becoming pure Consciousness immediate release The three states as products of ignorance All distinctions reasonable within the phenomenal, no distinction at all in Reality. Introducing verse ix; Verse ix The witness only immortal; all else mortal Objection that the self being pure consciousness is not joyful; answered 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184-186 187-188 XXX Objection regarding awareness of joy in mukti Answer: based on the self-evident nature of the Self Objection: even if Bliss is self-evident it is not Self Answer: It is not dependent on anything else ; Conclusion Introducing verse x: verse x; meaning of the 1st quarter All attributes untenable; the opposite of what is first denied is also denied each time Objection being real and being known at least to be accepted as attributes Denial of these also 189 190 191 Demand for indicating the self in a specific manner Impossibility of doing so because it cannot be conveyed as the object of any word How then can vedanta convey knowledge about it? Only by dispelling ignorance Conclusion of the text 192 193 194-199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 Salutations to the ancient gurus, praise of he work, acceptance of the guru's instruction; composed to help a sadhaka student, judgement left to the generous, wise person; colophon. श्रीमच्छङ्करभगवत्पादस्य कृतिः. दशश्लोकी. न भूमिर्न तोयं न तेजो न वायु- र्न खं नेन्द्रियं वा न तेषां समूहः अनैकान्तिकत्वात् सुषुप्त्येकसिद्धः तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ १ ॥ न वर्णा न वर्णाश्रमाचारधर्माः न मे धारणा ध्यानयोगादयोऽपि अनात्माश्रयाहम्ममाध्यास हानात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ २ ॥ न माता पिता वा न देवा न लोकाः न वेदा न यज्ञा न तीर्थ ब्रुवन्ति सुषुप्तौ निरस्तातिशून्यात्मकत्वात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ३ ॥ न सांख्यं न शैवं न तत्पांचरात्रं न जैनं न मीमांसकादेर्मतं वा विशिष्टानुभूत्या विशुद्धात्मकत्वात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केव: लोऽहम् ॥ ४॥ न चोर्ध्वं न चाधो नचान्तर्न बाह्यं न मध्यं न तिर्यङ् न पूर्वापरादिक वियद्व्यापकत्वादखण्डेकरुपः तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥५॥ न शुलं न कृष्णं न रक्तं न पीतं न कुब्जं न पीनं न ह्रस्वं न दीर्घम् अरुपं तथा ज्योतिराकारकत्वात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ६ ॥ xxxii न शास्ता न शास्त्रं न शिष्यो न शिक्षा न च त्वं न चाहं न चायं प्रपञ्चः स्वरूपावबोधो विकल्पासहिष्णुः तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥७॥ न जाग्रनमे स्वप्नको वा सुषुप्तिः न विश्वो न वा तैजसः प्राज्ञको वा: अविद्यात्मकत्वात्रयाणां तुरीय:. तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ८ ॥ अपि व्यापकत्वाद्वितत्वप्रयोगात् स्वतस्सिद्धभावादनन्याश्रयत्वात् जगत्तुच्छमेतत्समस्तं तदन्यत् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ९ ॥ न चैकं तदन्यत् द्वितीयं कुतस्यात् न वा केवलत्वं न चाकेवलत्वम् न शून्यं न चाशून्यमद्वैतकत्वात् कथं सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धं ब्रवीमि ॥ १० ॥ सिद्धान्तबिन्दुः Siddhantabindu श्रीशङ्कराचार्यनवावतारं विश्वेश्वरं विश्वगुरुं प्रणम्य । वेदान्तशास्त्रश्रवणालसानां बोधाय कुर्वे कमपि प्रयत्नम् ॥ Having bowed down in reverence to Vişveșvara, the Lord of the Universe, who has descended again as Şri Şankaracārya, I shall make an effort to instruct those who are keenly interested in learning the discipline of Vedanta. १. इह खलु साक्षात्परम्परया वा सर्वान् जीवान् समुद्दिधीर्षुः भगवान् श्रीशङ्करोऽनात्मभ्यो विवेकेन आत्मानं नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावं. संक्षेपेण बोधयितुं दशलोकीं प्रणिनाय ॥ 1. Şri Şankara has composed a short poem called the Dasasloki, ten verses (of instruction ) for the purpose of uplifting all souls, directly or gradually, by teaching them briefly about the Self which is pure, enlightened and eternally free as distinct from all non-self. २. ननु इदड्डारास्पदेम्योऽनात्मभ्यो विवेकेनाहढा रास्पदमात्मानं सर्वो लोकोऽहमस्मीति प्रत्येति दुःखं चानुभवति । तेन ज्ञातज्ञापकत्वानिष्प्रयोजन त्वाच्च आत्मतत्त्वप्रतिपादनं व्यर्थमिति चेत् 2. Objection :- But the whole world knows the self, the content of the idea 'I', as distinct from the INVOCATION The first half of this verse can also mean: " After bowing down to Vişveşvara, the guru of the world, who is a fresh incarnation of Sri Şankarācārya,. Sri Vişveşvara Sarasvati was the guru or spiritual preceptor of Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati, the author. 2 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु non-self, the content of the idea 'This' ; and yet, it . continues to suffer. Therefore this instruction about the truth of the Self is futile because it conveys only what is already known and serves no useful purpose. ३. न, चिदभास्यत्वेन लक्षणेन इदड्ढारास्पदानामपि देहेन्द्रियमनसां प्रति- भासत: अहङ्कारास्पदंत्वेन तदविवेकात् तेन च शुद्धेऽप्यात्मानि दुःखित्वाद्यभि- मानात् शस्त्रीयेण च ब्रह्मात्मैक्यज्ञानेन समूलस्य तस्य निवृत्तेः । तस्मादज्ञात- ज्ञापकत्वात् सप्रयोजनत्वाच्च आत्मतत्त्वप्रतिपादनं न व्यर्थम् ॥ 3. Answer : - It is not so. The body, the faculties and the mind are properly the content of the idea 'This', i.e., they are objects because they are to be illumined by consciousness or awareness. But yet they appear as the content of the idea 'I' as the subject because of non-discrimination. For the same reason, the pure Self is (wrongly ) identified with the suffering ego. Knowledge of the identity of the Self (Atman) with the Infinite (Brahman), based on the scriptures, completely eliminates all this suffering and its cause. Thus the instruction regarding the truth of the Self is not futile because it teaches something that is not known otherwise and serves a useful purpose. ४. तस्य चात्मतत्त्वस्य 'तत्त्वमसि' 'अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' इत्यादिवेदान्त- महावाक्यमेव प्रमापकम् । वाक्यं च पदार्थज्ञानद्वारैव ज्ञापकमिति तत्त्वं- पदार्थयोः प्रकृतवाक्यार्थानुकूलयोः अन्यतोऽसिद्धत्वात् तावपि शास्त्रेणैव प्रमातव्यौ यूपाहवनीयादिपदार्थवत् ॥ 66 4. This truth can be known as it is, only through the great statements of the Upanishads, That thou art", "I am the infinite", etc. Statements can convey instruction only through an understanding of the meaning of the words. As the meaning of 2 67 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु the words, " That" and " Thou ", which can conform to the meaning of these statements, cannot be' known otherwise, they are also to be known only through the discipline (of Vedānta), like the meaning of the words 'Yūpa' and 'Ahavannya'1. ५. ततश्च 'यतो वा इमानि भूतानि जायन्ते । येन जातानि जीवन्ति ' इत्याद्याः सृष्टयादिश्रुतयः तत्पदवाच्यार्थस्य समर्पिकाः। 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तम् इत्यादयस्तु लक्ष्यार्थस्य । एवं जाग्रस्स्वमसुषुप्त्यादिश्रुतयः 'तद्यथा महामत्स्य उभे क्ले अनुसञ्चरति पूर्वं चैवापरं चैवमेवायं पुरुष एतानुभावन्तावनुसञ्चरति स्वमान्तं च बुद्धान्तं च ' इत्याद्याः त्वंपदवाच्यार्थस्य समर्पिकाः । योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषः ' ' न दृष्टेष्टारं पश्ये: ' इत्यादयस्तु लक्ष्यार्थस्य । " 5. Thus the statements like, " Wherein all these creatures have their origin by which, after origination, they continue to live" (T.U. iii, 1.1), give the meaning of the word 'That' as expressed or 6 1 Yūpa' is an octagonal post of hard wood to which the animal to be offered is tied in the sacrifice. The meaning of this is to be understood from such passages in the scriptures as, 66 " He ties the animal to the Yūpu"; "The carpenter cuts the · Yūpa"; " He makes the Yüpa octagonal " etc. 6 Ahavaniya' is the name of the one of the three fires to be kept up by one who has done the 'agnyadbana'. From passages like " One sacrifices in the 'gārhapatya' at night, he sacrifices in the 'āhavanīya' by day ", the āharvanīya is understood to be the fire in which the sacrifice is made in the day time. The meanings of the technical words are to be made out only from their. usage in the concerned disciplines. सिद्धान्त बिन्दु directly spoken.² Statements like "The infinite (is) Truth, Knowledge, endless (T.U. ii, 1.1), 4 ,, 2 The purpose of a word is to convey a meaning. It does it in three ways: 1) Expressly, literally, or as spoken; 2) metaphorically and 3) by implication. The expressed meaning of the word is called the vacyārtha'-the meaning as spoken. This is also the 'mukhyartha' the principal or literal meaning and şakyartha or meaning conveyed by the inherent power of the word. The metaphorical meaning is gouna', a secondary meaning got through the possession of some common quality. e. g. when one refers to the royal Bengal tiger hunted by someone, of course, the word 'tiger' conveys the literal meaning-the animal. When Tippu is referred to as the tiger of Mysore the word tiger does not mean the animal literally, but refers to some quality like courage, dignity, noblity etc., which Tippu had in common with the animal. This is the metaphorical, secondary or 'gouna' sense. " The implied meaning, lakshyartha', is to be looked for where the other two meanings of the word do not fit into the sense. This is a meaning which has some association with the expressed meaning which the word conveys by its own capacity or ability- şakti'. The association is şakya-sambandha'. " This implied meaning can be of three kinds: (i) where the literal meaning of the word is given up completely and the meaning suggested by association only is accepted; e. g. the village on the Ganga. Here the literal meaning of the word Gangā, namely the mass of flowing water known as the river of. is given up completely and the meaning of the bank of the Ganga which is associated with the river is accepted. This is the Jahat-lakshana. that name, (ii) Where the literal meaning is retained and something more is added to complete the sense; e. g. when one is told to guard the curds against crows, it does not mean that he should allow it to be destroyed by creatures other than crows. 'Crows' 5 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु convey its implied meaning. Similarly, the expressed meaning of 'Thou' as spoken, is conveyed by passages which talk about the waking, dream and deep sleep states of consciousness. e.g. "Even as a great fish moves about touching both the banks of a river, the nearer bank and the farther bank, even so does the person move between both the states of consciousness, the end of the dream and the end of waking " (B.U. iv. 3. 18) ; and statements like, "This person who is awareness among the faculties, the light within the hearts " ( B.U. iv. 3.7, ) "You can not see the seer of sight" ( B. U. iii, 4.1), convey the implied meaning of the word 'Thou'. ६. तेन प्रथममवान्तरवाक्येभ्योऽनुभूतयोः शुद्धयोः जीवब्राह्मणोः तत्त्व- मस्यादिवाक्ये मुख्यार्थान्वयानुपपत्या लक्षणया स्मरणोपपत्तिः । सुषुप्तौ निर्विकल्पसाक्षिचैतन्यानुभवानीकाराच्च अद्वितीयब्रह्मविजिज्ञापयिषया प्रवृत्ता- नां सत्यज्ञानादिपदानां उपाधिविशिष्टचैतन्ये शक्तत्वेऽपि चैतन्यमात्रे तात्पर्येण तत्रैव तदंश एव संस्कारोद्बोधाच्च । इच्छन्ति हि आकाशादिपदादपि निर्वि- कल्पं स्मरणं, तात्पर्याधीनत्वाच्छन्दवृत्तेः । तेन प्रमितिप्रमात्रोः महावाक्यार्थ- बोधे भानमपास्तम् । असंप्रज्ञातसमाधेः श्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धत्वाच्चेति । पारोक्ष्य- सद्वितीयत्वाभ्मां च न तत्त्वंपदार्थमात्रानुभवादेव कृतकृत्यता ॥ 6. By this, the effort to understand the meaning of the statement, it will be found that the expressed meanings (as spoken) of 'Thou', the individual soul is understood to mean crows and all other creatures that are likely to destroy the curds. This is the ajahat-lakshana. (iii) Where a part only of the literal meaning is given up ; . e.g, this is that Devadatta whom I had met at Koşi six years ago. 'This' and 'That' refer to the person qualified by the circumstances under which the person was seen on the two occasions. But 'is' conveys the identity of the person. In understanding the identity conflicting elements like the age, the 6 farafaand 'That', the infinite, will not make sense³ in the statement 'That thou art'. Then the implied meaning of the words having been understood earlier from the intermediate statements, the pure meaning of these words is known reasonably as a non-attributive memory. Though the words are capable only of conveying consciousness qualified by the (respective) temporary adjuncts, yet, because they have been used for the purpose of conveying awareness of the nondual Infinite, and their purport is (therefore) pure consciousness, the latent impression of that part only is aroused. Also, the experience of the attributedress, the time, and the place of meeting, are given up and only the person as such is retained as the entity referred to by 'both the words that' and 'this'. Thus, by giving up the conflicting part of the meanings of the two words the identity conveyed by the whole statement is understood. This is the 'Jahadajahat-lakshaṇa' or the 'bhāga-tyaga-lakhsaṇa'. In this case the last mode of understanding the implied; meaning is employed. 3 The meaning of the statement as a whole conveyed by the verb 'art', is the identity of the meanings of the words that' and thou'. Taking their expressed meanings we have the creator, sustainer etc. of the world and the individual experiencing different states of consciousness as the meanings of 'that' and thou '. The two cannot be identified. The identity which is the purport of the statement has therefore to be understood through the implied meaning. 4 The statements cited earlier from which we get the idea of the expressed and implied meanings of the words that' and 'thou' are called Intermediate statements, 'avāntara-vākya', because they convey the meanings of the two words severally. It is only the 'maha-vakya', the great statement, which conveys the identity. faarafats 7 less witness-consciousness in the state of deep sleep has been accepted. The awareness caused by words like 'space' is also taken as attributeless. The functioning of words is controlled by the purport (which they are intended to convey). Thus the appearance in awareness of (distinct elements like) 'knowledge' and the known' caused by the understanding of the great statement is negated. The revealed and the traditional scriptures have established non-objective meditation. Because of the persistence of 'Remoteness' and 'Having another', knowledge of only the meanings of the words, 'That' and 'Thou' will not serve the purpose. ७. वाच्यार्थाभेदावभासान पौनरुक्तयम् । लक्ष्यस्य च अर्थस्यैकत्वादखण्डा र्थता। पदजन्यस्मरणस्य निर्विकल्पकवाक्यार्थानुकूलस्य निर्विकल्पकत्वं अनुभवादेवाविरुद्धम् । सविकल्पकवाक्यार्थबोधे च सविकल्पकपदार्थोपस्थितिरङ्गम् । प्रकृते च निर्विकल्पको वाक्यार्थबोधः तस्यैव प्रमात्वेन अज्ञाननिवर्तनसामर्थ्यात् । अतो न लक्ष्यतावच्छेदकमन्तरेण लक्षणानुपपत्तिः; प्रकृतवाक्यार्थानुकूलपदार्थोपस्थितेरेव शक्तिलक्षणासाध्यत्वात् ! 7. Although the expressed meanings of both words 5 The witness-consciousness is that which is aware of the objects without being affected by them. The clearest awareness of its functioning in normal life is in the state of the deep sleep. Unlike the 'I'-consciousness or ego that functions in the other two states of waking and dreaming and is identified with the experience of these states, the witness is not so identified and therefore not affected by what it is aware of. During deep sleep there is no experience as such but, on waking up, one remembers the state in terms like, "I slept happily, I did not know anything". This memory necessarily presupposes an experience and an experiencer who is the witness. There is detailed discussion on this under verse VIII in paras 154 to 162. 8 fegrafa-s appear to be one, there is no repetition. The Even the expressed meaning or the vachyartha of the words conveys an idea of a unified meaning, an identity cumdifference called 'tādātmya' between the meanings because of the grammatical relation of apposition, Sāmānādhikaraṇya'. This is the attributive-substantive relation where a single perceived object like a black pot, is conceived as consisting of two distinct elements, the attribute 'blackness' and the substance 'pot'; the oneness being perceptual and the difference conceptual. " The qualifying element could be again a 'vişeshana' an attributive which is persent in the subsantative, participates in its function and distinguishes it; an upadhi' an adjunct, which is also present in the substantive and distinguishes it, but does not enter into the function of the substantive; or an upalakshana', an indicator which only distingushes the substantive. For example "The black pot is destructible". Blackness is present in the pot, participates in its function of being destructible and distinguishes it. It is an attribute, a viseshana, "Space delimited by the labyrinth of the ear is the organ of hearing ". Delimitation by the labyrinth of the ear is present in the designated space and distinguishes it, but does not participate in its function of being the organ of hearing. This is an upadhi, an adjunct. The object seen at the end of the branch is the moon". Being at the end of the branch distinguishes the moon but has no relation with the moon itself or with its function of giving light. It is an upalakshana, an indicator. The tādātmya' of the attributive and the substantive includes the identification of the adjunct and the substantive and the indicator and the substantive. But when the seeker who has understood from the proper study of the upanishads that their purport is to convey the absolute non-duality of Reality, comes across one of the mahāvakyas, great statements, he proceeds from the unifying meaning conveyed by the expressed meaning to the absolute non-distinction by seeking the implied meaning by the process of partial abandonment, bhagatyaga-lakshana or the jahat-lakshaṇa, as may be appropriate. 66 ( . fearafars 9 implied meaning (of both words) being one (and the same), the meaning of the statement is undifferentiated. The non-attributiveness of the memory generated by words, suitable for producing the undifferentiated meaning of the statement is not contradicted in experience. The arising of the attributive meaning of words is a necessary part of the understanding of an attributive or objective meaning of a statement. In the present case, the understanding of the statement is non-differentiated because that alone, being true, has the ability to remove ignorance. Thus the unreasonableness of (accepting) the implied meaning in the absence of the determinant of the implication does not arise. In the present case, the arising of the word-meanings suitable for conveying the statement-meaning makes it possible to understand both the ability and the implication of the words. Therefore in the statement like Satyamjnanam-anantam Brahma', the three words satyam, jnānam and anantam are meant to convey the total non-distinction of the absolute from whichever point it may be approached and so there is no repetition. ' Words can convey a meaning only by delimiting or determining the sense to the particular object. So understanding the meaning of a word is dependent on understanding the delimiting principle or determinant. In this case the words of the statement "That thou art" give rise, it is claimed, to an undifferentiated understanding of the Infinite. Since the Infinite cannot have a determinant how can words covey such a meaning? That is the objection. The answer is that because of the inherent power and the implication through their association words can convey such a meaning, as demonstrated above and the absence of a determinant need not necessarily vitiate the process. 10 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु ८. ननु तर्हि वेदान्तवाक्येभ्य एव पदार्थोपस्थितौ वाक्यार्थः बोधे च सति तस्य स्वत एव प्रामाण्यात् तेन अज्ञानतत्कार्यनिवृत्त्युपपत्तो किं विचारेणेति चेत् 8. Objection :- Since the statements of the Vedānta (Upanishads) are valid in their own right and since the (proper) meaning of the words arises from the statements themselves, what is the purpose of the discussion ? ९. सत्यम्, वेदान्ता, यद्यपि स्वतः प्रामाण्यात् निर्विकल्पकमात्मसाक्षात्कार जनयन्ति, तथाऽपि तस्य मन्दबुद्धीनां वादिबिप्रतिपत्तिजसंशय प्रतिबन्धेन अझाननाशकत्वासामर्थ्यात् । विचारेण तु संशय निवृत्तौ निरपवादमज्ञाननिवृत्तिरिति संशयबीजभूतवादिविप्रतिपत्तिनिरासार्थं विचार आरभ्यते । 9. Answer : - True. The upanishads being selfvalidating do generate non-differentiated self-realization. Still the doubts created by the contradictions of the disputants obstruct the removal of the ignorance of the less intelligent. When such doubts are removed by discussion, the removal of the ignorance is unobstructed. Therefore the discussion is begun to refute the contradictions of the disputants which are the seed of doubt. १०. तत्र त्वम्पदार्थे प्रथमं विप्रतिपत्तयः प्रदर्श्यन्ते - तत्पदार्थस्य शास्त्रतापपर्य विषयतया अभ्यर्हि तत्वेऽपि त्वम्पदार्थस्य शात्रफलमोक्षभगितया ततोऽप्यभ्यर्हितत्वात् । 10. Now we shall first show the contradictions of the disputants regarding the meaning of the word 'Thou'. Though the meaning of the word 'That' is important because of being the purport of the scriptures, the meaning of the word 'Thou' is even more important because that is to enjoy the fruits of emancipation. ११. तत्र देहाकारेण परिणतानि चत्वारि भूतान्येव त्वम्पदार्थ इति चार्वाकाः । चक्षुरादीनि प्रत्येकमित्यपरे । मिलितानीत्यन्ये । मन इत्येके । प्राण इत्यपरे । सिद्धान्त बिन्दु क्षणिकं विज्ञानमिति सुगताः । शून्यमिति माध्यमिकाः । देहेन्द्रियातिरिक्तो देहपरिमाण इति दिगम्बराः । कर्ता भोक्ता जडो विभुरिति वैशेषिकतार्किक प्राभाकरा: । जडो बोधात्मक इति भाट्टाः । भोक्तैव केवलबोधात्मक इति 11 साङ्ख्याः, पातञ्जलाश्च । अविद्यया कर्तृत्वादिभाकू परमार्थतो निर्धर्मकः परमानन्दबोध एवेत्यौपनिषदाः । 11. Among the disputants the Cārvākās, absolute materialists, hold that the meaning of 'Thou' is only the four elements transformed as the body. Others hold that it is the faculties of vision etc., taken separately; yet others, that it is the faculties collectively. Some think it is the mind, others that it is the vital breath. Some of the Buddhists, (the Vijnānavādins) consider it to be thought lasting for an instant only. The Mādhyamikās, (among them) hold that it is a void, a non-entity. The space-clad ones (Jainas) think that it is something other than the body and the faculties but having the same magnitude as the body. The followers of Vaiseshika, Nyāya and the Prabhākara school of Purva-mīmāmsa hold that it is the all-pervading, non-sentient doer and enjoyer. The followers of Kumarila Bhatta hold that it has two aspects, one sentient and the other, non-sentient. The Sankhyas and the followers of Patanjali, the yogins, hold that it is the enjoyer only and of the form of absolute knowledge. The followers of the Upanishads, the Vedantins, hold that it is participating in doership etc. because of ignorance, but in reality it is without predications and the pure awareness that is supreme Bliss. १२. एवं सामान्यतोऽहम्प्रत्ययसिद्धे चिदात्मनि वादिविप्रतिपत्तिभिः सन्दिग्धे अहम्प्रत्ययालम्बन विशेषनिर्णयायाह भगवानाचार्य :12. These views are generally prevailing about the सिद्धान्त बिन्दु essence of awareness which is the content of the idea 'I'. Because of these differences of views of the disputants, there are doubts about the definite basis of the concept 'I'. To clear these and give a certitude to it, the āchārya Sankara has said : न भूमिर्न तोयं न तेजो न वायुः न खं नेन्द्रियं वा न तेषां समूहः अनैकान्तिकत्वात् सुषुप्त्येक सिद्धः 12 तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ १ ॥ [Not earth, not water, not lights not wind Not space, not a faculty, not all of them together is I; Because all these are variable, I am the one which is proved in deep sleep alone The One, the ultimate residue, Siva, the absolute.] १३. अहं अहम्प्रत्ययावलम्बनम् । एक: अद्वितीयः । अवशिष्टः सर्वद्वैतबाधेऽप्यवाधितः । शिवः परमानन्दबोधरूपः, तस्यैव मङ्गलरूपत्वात् । केवलो निर्धर्मकः । तेनाद्वितीयः सर्वप्रमाणाबाध्यः परमानन्दबोध एवाहमित्यौपनिषदपक्ष एव श्रेयानित्यर्थः 13. 'I', the basis of the concept I. 'One', without a second. 'The residue', which is not sublated or contradicted when all duality is negated. 'Siva', the supreme bliss which is also awareness because that alone is auspicious. 'Absolute', devoid of all predications. Thus it ( this verse) means hat the view of the Upanishads is right and it is that the basis of the concept 'I' is the supreme bliss-awarenes, without a second, which cannot be negated by any means of knowing. १४. एतदुपपादनायेतरवादिमतानि निराकरिप्यन् प्रथमं देहात्मवादं निराकरोति – न भूभिर्न तोयं न तेजो न वायुर्न खमिति । अत्राहमिति सर्वत्र १ सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 13 नवा सम्बध्यते । या भूमिः साऽहं न भवामि, योऽहं स भूमिर्न भवतीति च परस्परतादात्म्याभावो द्रष्टव्यः ॥ 14. In order to establish this, by refuting the views of the other disputants,-first, the view of the Self as the body is denied by the statement, "not earth, not water, not light not wind, not space". Here the word 'I' is to be taken with the 'not' separately in each denial. "I am not that which is earth; the earth is not that which I am". In this manner, the absence of mutual identification has to be understood. १५. यद्यपि वादिना प्रत्येकं भूम्यादिरात्मत्वेन नाभ्युपेयते, सङ्घातस्यैव तदभ्युपगमात् । तथाऽपि तन्मते अवयव्यनङ्गीकारात्, पञ्चमतत्त्वाभ्युपगम- प्रसन्नेन च संयोगादिसम्बन्धानभ्युपगमातू, संहन्त्रभावाच्च सङ्घातो नोपपद्यते इत्यभिप्रेत्य प्रत्येकभूतनिराकरणेन भौतिकदेहात्मवादो निराकृतः ॥ 15. This disputant does not admit selfhood of earth etc., separately because he admits selfhood of the aggregate only. Yet, because his view does not accept a composite entity, the need would arise for the admission of a fifth principle. Again because he does not admit relations like combination etc., and there is also no principle to cause the aggregation, the aggregate could not be reasonably established. With this in mind, the view of the self-hood of each element of matter is denied separately. १६. यद्यपि भूतचतुष्टयतत्त्ववादिनो मते आवरणाभावत्वेनाभिमतस्य स्थिरस्यासत आकाशस्य देहानुपादानत्वम् । तथाऽपि सिद्धान्ते तस्य भावत्व- देहोपादानत्वाद्यङ्गीकारात् तत्राप्यात्मत्वप्रसक्त्या तन्निराकृतम् ॥ 16. Again, the materialist admits only four elements of matter. In his view, space is only a void, a nonentity, the absence of any of the four elements, A 14 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु enduring and non-existent and therefore, it cannot be a material cause of the body. Yet, in the final view (of the Vedantin) space is existent and a component in the material cause of the body, it can possibly be taken as the basis of selfhood. Therefore that is also refuted. १७. अथवा - न वायुरित्यन्तमेव देहात्मवादस्य निराकरणम् । शून्यवादस्य, खशब्दस्य शून्यवाचकत्वात् ॥ 17. Alternatively the statement ending with,'not wind' can be taken as refuting the view of the Self as the body and 'not space' as refuting the view of the Self as a void or non-entity, because the word 'Kham', has the meaning of void also. १८. नेन्द्रियमिति प्रत्येकमिन्द्रियाणामात्मत्वनिरासः । न तेषां समूह इति मिलितानां भूतानां देहावयवाकारेण परिणतानामिन्द्रियाणां च मिलितानां । पूर्वं सङ्घातमनभ्युपगम्य प्रत्येकं भूतानि निराकृतानि । अधुना सङ्घातमभ्युप- गम्यापि निराकृतानीति भेदः ॥ 18. 'Not a faculty', thus the self-hood of any of the faculties severally is denied. Not the aggregate of (any or all of) those'. This expression refutes the aggregate of the elements, transformed as the body and all the faculties collectively also. Earlier, without admitting aggregation, the elements were refuted individually; now even admitting the aggregation, they are refuted collectively; this is the distinction. १९. भूतनिराकरणेन भौतिकयोः प्राणमनमौर्निरासः । मनोनिराकरणेन न खमिति 8 In this view, momentarines, existing for just one instant which is sufficient to produce an effect or a product, is a characteristic of reality which is equated with such momentary existence. Therefore the non-existent is non-momentary, enduring. सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 15 मनोवृत्तेः क्षणिकविज्ञानस्य देहातिरिक्तस्य कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिविशिष्टस्य च निरासः । 19. The refutation (of selfhood) of the elements of matter leads (automatically) to the refutation (of selfhood) of mind and life which are material. By refuting (the selfhood of ) the mind, (the selfhood of) its function, the intelligence or thought lasting for an instant, and of the extra corporeal principle endowed with doership, enjoyership etc are refuted. २०. सिद्धान्ते ज्ञानेन्छासुखादीनां अन्तःकरणाश्रयत्वाभ्युपगमात्; काम- सङ्घल्पादीन्प्रकृत्य 'मन एव ' इति श्रुतेः । तेन देहमारभ्य केवलभोक्तपर्यन्तानां तत्तद्वाद्यभ्युपगतानामनात्मत्वं प्रतिज्ञातं भवति ॥ 20. Because in the final view ( of the Vedantins) it is accepted that knowledge ( knowing), will, joy etc., are functions of the 'inner instrument', the mind. Also because the revealed scripture also tells us, beginning with desire, will etc., " (all those are ) the mind only". Thus all the principles, beginning with the body and ending with only the enjoyer' accepted as Self by the different disputants are declared to be non-self. २१. तत्र हेतुमाह — अनेकान्तिकत्वादिति । व्यभिचारित्वात् विनाशित्वा- दिति यावत् ॥ 21. He tells us the general reason for this refutation : "Because they are variable". It means that all these are inconstant and subject to destruction. २२. आत्मनो देशकालापरिन्छिनत्वात् तत्परिच्छिन्नानां घटादिवदनात्मत्वात् ध्वंसप्रागभावयोश्च ग्रहीतुमशक्यत्वात् अनात्मनां जडत्वात् स्वभिन्नस्य च आत्मत्वाभावात् आत्मन एकत्वेऽपि सुखदुःखाद्याश्रयाणामन्तःकरणानां भेदा- भ्युपगमात् व्यवस्थोपपत्तेः ॥ 22. ( To clarify :) Because Atman, the Self is not determined in terms of space and time, objects so determined like a pot are non-self. All non-self is nonसिद्धान्तबिन्दु sentient because what is other than self is without selfhood. 16 Though the Self is one, the different joys and sorrows felt by different individuals can be understood reasonably by accepting the multiplicity of minds wherein these feelings are based. २३. 'स्वेनैव स्वाभावग्रहणे विरोधात ग्राह्यकाले ग्राहकासत्त्वात् ग्राहकसत्वे ग्राह्याभावात् कृतहान्यकृतागमप्रसङ्गाच । 23. The Self cannot also be seen to have previous non-existence or non-existence by destruction, because one's perception of one's own non-existence is contradicted; for, at the time of perception the perceiver would not be there and when the perceiver is there, what is to be perceived viz. his nonexistence or absence is not there. Also (if such non-existence is admitted) it would lead to the loss of what is done and the happening of what is not done.1⁰ Non-existence, 'abhāva' is one of the categories of the 'nyaya-vaişeshika' school. It is divided into four kinds: 1 'pragabhava, previous non-existence, the non-existence of an object before it came into being. In the lump of clay that is to be shaped into a pot 'prāgabhāva' of the pot is present before the pot actually comes into being. 2 Pradhvmsābhāva, non-existence due to destruction; the non-existence of an object which has been destroyed; 3 'anyonyābhāva", mutual non-existence, the non-existence implied by one thing not being another as when we say "A pot is not a cloth", 4) 'atyantābhāva', total non-existence which is absolute denial. The argument here is to show that the Self cannot be brought under any of the four kinds of nonexistence and is therefore, eternal and undeniable. 10 The principle involved is the natural and universally admitted fact that every cause must have an effect, every effort must produce a result and every effect necessarily presupposes a cause. A violation of this principle is not acceptable to reason. सिद्धान्तबिन्दु २४. न तस्य ध्वंसप्रागभावो, सङ्क्रपस्यात्मनः सर्वत्रानुगमाच्च नात्यन्ताभावसम्भवः । 24. Thus it (the Self) cannot have previous nonexistence or non-existance after destruction. The Self is of the form of Reality or Being and found everywhere. Therefore its total non-existence is not conceivable. 17 २५. द्वैतस्य मिथ्यात्वेन अधिष्ठानसत्तादात्म्यापत्रतयैव सिद्धत्वात् शुक्तिर. जतादिवत् अध्यस्तस्य तत्तादात्म्याभावानुपपत्तिः । 25. Duality is illusory because it can be apprehended only as identical with absolute Being which is its basis;¹¹ anything superimposed like silver seen in 11. What is difference or distinction? We see A and B and we think that A is different from B. What is it that constitutes the difference? A is not B. i.e., A is denied in the locus B. This denial can mean only the affirmation of the bare locus. Which means that the difference between A and B, which is also the denial of A in B, let us say dA, is B itself. Now since A is different from B, B is different from A; and this difference of B from A, dB, is A only. Therefore we have dA is B and dB is A. Again the difference of A from B is the same as the difference of B from A. So dA is dB. So we have three propositions : dA is B dB is A and dA is dB. Therefore A is B. Trying to discover the nature of distinction between A and B, we have arrived at the identity of A and B or if we persist in the mutual denial, at the void. Neither of these makes difference understandable in reason. It may be held that distinction is itself an entity, vişesha of the vaişeshikas, which makes A different from B. This gives us three entities, the perceived entities A and B and the presumed distinction V. Now V is neither A nor B. What makes it different? We have to presume two more entities V, which is neither A nor Vand V₂ which is neither V nor B. This gives us 2 1 18 fuerafare shell cannot be apprehended except through its identity with the substratum. So the denial of the identity is not reasonable. २६. तेन आत्मा नाभावप्रतियोगी, अभावप्रतियोगिनश्च देहेन्द्रियादयः, तेन ते नात्मानः । 26. Thus the Self is not the counter-correlate of any form of non-being. The body, the faculties and the like are the counter correlates. Therefore they are not Self. २७. किन्तु स्वप्रकाशबोधरूपे आत्मनि अद्वैतेऽपि अनाद्यनिर्वचनीयाविद्या. कल्पिता अनिर्वचनीया एवेति सिद्धान्तरहस्यम् ॥ 27. But they are creations of the beginningless, indefinable, ignorance within the Self which is selfluminous awareness, though it is without a second; and therefore they are also indefinable. This is the secret of the doctrine, the final view. २८. ननु बोधरूप आत्मोति तवाभ्युपगमात सुषुप्तौ च बोधाभावात् 'गाढं मूढोऽहमासं न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्' इति सुप्तोत्थितस्य परामर्शात् कथमव्यभिचारिता तस्येत्यांशङ्खयाह-सुषुप्त्येकसिद्ध इति । 28. Now a doubt arises: You admit that the Self is of the form of awareness. In the state of deep sleep there is no awareness because the memory of one who has woken up is of this form, "I was in dense or total ignorance, I did not know anything". So how can the inconstancy of the self be avoided? This . five entities, which require four distinctions to understand their difference. And so on ad infinitum. This infinite regress is no solution either. So we see that the idea of distinction does not bear the scrutiny of reason and is therefore untenable. As something which appears to be there but does not stand to reason it is called mithya, illusory or false. सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 19 doubt is answered by the expression, "Proved in deep sleep alone." २९. अयमर्थः – आत्मनः सुषुप्तिसाक्षित्वात्र तत्र तदाभावः । अन्यथा मूढोड हमासमिति परमार्शानुपपत्तेः मातृमानमितिमेयानां व्यभिचारित्वेऽपि तद्भावाभावसाक्षिणः कालत्रयेऽप्यव्यभिचारात् ॥ 29. "The meaning of this : Since the Self is the witness of deep sleep it is not absent in that condition. Otherwise the remembrance, 'I was ignorant' would not be understandable. Though the knower, the means of knowing, the mode of knowing and the object known may vary, the witness of their existence and non-existence is ever unvarying. ३०. ननु प्रमाश्रयः प्रमाता, स एव कर्ता भोक्ता प्रदीपवतं स्वपरसाधारणसर्वभासकश्चेति न घटादिवत् साक्षिसापेक्ष इति चेत् 30. Objection: The cogniser is the locus of knowing. He is also the doer and the enjoyer. And like a great light he illumines everything, himself as well as the others and is not in need of another witness to know him, like a pot. ३१. न, विकारित्वेन स्वविकारसाक्षित्वानुपपत्तेः, दृश्यस्य द्रष्टृत्वानुपपत्तेः प्रमातुश्च परिणामित्वेन दृश्यत्वात्, एकस्य कूटस्थस्यैव सर्वसाक्षित्वात् ॥ 31. Answer : No. Because he is changing and it is not reasonable to admit that one can be a witness of his : own change. The seen (the object) can not be accepted as the seer (the subject). The. cogniser, being subject to change is an object and only one unchanging principle can be the witness of all. ३२. ननु एकः कूटस्थो निर्धर्मक: साक्षी नाद्रियते, अप्रामाणिकत्वादिति चेत् । 32. Objection: It is not possible to accept one unchanging witness of which no predications are possible because there is no evidence for it. ३३. न, 'तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभति,' 'न 20 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु दृष्टेष्टारं पश्ये:,' अदृष्टो द्रष्टा नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा' इत्यादि वदता वेदान्त- प्रमाणराजेन तस्यैव सर्वसाक्षित्वेन अभिषिक्तत्वात् ॥ 33. Answer: "While he is shining, everything shines after Him, by His light all this is illumined " ( S.U. ii, 14); "You cannot see the seer of sight" (B.U. ii, 4,2) ; "(It is) the Seer who is not seen ; other than That there is no seer" (B.U. ii, 7,2). By such statements the king of all methods of knowing, the Upanishads have crowned Him as the witness of all. ३४. ननु महदेतदिन्द्रजालं प्रमाश्रयात् अकूटस्थान्विहाय कूटस्थमप्रमाश्रयमेव प्रमाणराजः सर्वेसाक्षिणं करोतीति । 33. Objection: This is magical indeed! That the greatest of the means of knowing, should make the one unchanging principle which is itself not the locus of valid knowing the witness of all, abandoning the other non-unchanging principles which are such loci. ३५. बाढम्, इन्द्रजालमेवैतत् स्वप्नवदविद्याविलसितत्वात् ॥ 35. Answer : Yes. It is certainly magical being like a dream, the product of nescience. ३६. तथापि दृश्यस्य घटादिवत् जडत्वेन कथं प्रमाश्रयत्वमिति चेत् । 36. Objection : Even so, how can they, which being objects, should be non-sentient like a pot, be the loci of valid knowing. ३७. न, दर्पणादिवत्स्वच्छत्वेन चित्प्रतिबिम्बग्राहकत्वात् चित्तादात्माध्यासात् । 37. Answer : No. Because of clarity they are able to catch or hold a reflection of consciousness or by virtue of the superimposed identity with pure consciousness. ३८. ननु नीरूपस्य निरवयवस्य कथं प्रतिबिम्ब इति चेत् 38. Objection : But how can there be a reffection of सिद्धान्तबिन्दु something without form or colour and without parts either? ३९. कात्रानुपपत्तिः ? विभ्रमहेतूनां विचित्रत्वात् । जपाकुसुमरूपस्य नीरू- पस्यापि स्फटिकादौ प्रतिबिम्बदर्शनात, शब्दस्यापि प्रतिशब्दाख्य प्रतिबिम्बो- पलम्भात्, तयोः सम्प्रतिपत्र प्रतिबिम्बवैलक्षणण्यानिरूपणात् ॥ 21 39. Answer : What is unreasonable about it ? Because the product of illusion can be variegated indeed. The form and colour of the hybiscus-themselves without form and colour 12 – are seen reflected in the crystal ; even sound has a reflection called an echo. And they are not different from the accepted reflection. ४०. तथाऽपीन्द्रियग्राह्यस्यैव प्रतिबिम्ब इति चेत् । 40. Objection:- Even so the reflection is only of some- thing that can be perceived through the senses. ४१. नं, व्यभिचारात् । अनिन्द्रियग्राह्यस्य साक्षिप्रत्यक्षस्य आकाशस्यापि जलादो प्रतिबिम्बोपलम्भात् । अन्यथा जानुमात्रेऽप्युद के अतिगम्भीरताप्रती- तिः स्यात् । आकाशप्रतिबिम्बस्य साक्षिभास्यत्वेऽपि अधिष्ठानग्रहणार्थं चक्षुषोऽषेक्षणात् । एतेन नीलं नभः इत्यादि विभ्रमेऽपि चक्षुरन्वयव्यतिरेको व्याख्याती, तत्र सालो कस्या काशस्याधिष्ठानत्वात् । तस्मात् चाक्षुषप्रतिबिम्ब- मेव रूपसापेक्षम्, नान्यादित्यवंधेयम् ॥ 41. Answer:- No, because it is not invariably so. It is seen that space which is apprehended by the witness and not perceived by the senses, is seen reflected in water. Otherwise, the great depth of space could not be perceived in water only knee deep. Though the reflection of space (the sky) is apprehended by 12 Colour and form rūpa', is a quality: It can not be said to possess another quality. A quality is said to be inherent in a substance, and cannot, therefore be predicated of another quality. So non-acceptance of one quality in another is a fundamental principle in nyāya'. ' Gune guna-anangikārah'. Thus the 'rapa', the form and the colour, of the hybiscus flower which is reflected in the crystal is itself without rupa. " " 22 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु the witness, the perception of the locus (of reflection, viz., water) needs the aid:of the eye. This explains also the illusory perception of the form "the sky is blue". Because in that illusory perception, space with light is the locus. Therefore it is to be understood that only a visual image necessarily requires form and colour, not others. ४२. तथापि आत्मनः प्रतिबिम्बे किं प्रमाणमिति चेत्, 43. Objection:- Eevn so, what is the evidence of the reflection of the Self? ४३. शृणु । ' रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव । तदस्य रूपं प्रतिचक्षणाय मायाभासेन जीवेशौ करोति' इत्यादि श्रुतिः । 'एकधा बहुधा चैव दृश्यते जलचन्द्रवत् ' इति स्मृतिः । 'स एष इह प्रविष्ट: ' 'स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्यैतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत 'तत्सृष्ट्वा । तदेवानुप्राविशत्' इत्यादिप्रवेशश्रुत्यर्थापत्ति : 9 " 'आभास एव च' 'अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्' इत्यादिसूत्राणि च तंत्र मानानि । 4 43. Answer : - Listen. "In every form He was reflected. That (reffected) form of His, made the Lord and the individual self for the purpose of activity based on 'I' (B.Uīñ, 5, 19). "He is seen as one and as many like the moon in the water" (B.U. 4, 12 ) "Illusion, maya, creates the appearance of the soul and the Lord." Such passages of the Sruti. And the only way of understanding sruti passages like, "He only has entered here" (B.U.i, 4,7). "He entered by this door by opening the delimitation." (B.U.ii,12). (Because in any other sense these passages could not be understood reasonably.) Again there are the Sūtrās. "And an appearance only" (B.S.iii, 2,18 ). "Therefore the comparison "like a reflected sun" (B.S.iii, 2, 18 ) All these are evidence of reflection of the self. ८८ 23 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु ४४. तस्य च प्रतिबिम्बस्य सत्यत्वमेवेति प्रतिबिम्बवादिनः । मिथ्यात्वमेवेत्याभासवादिनः । स्वरूपे तु न विवाद एवेत्यन्यदेतत् । अचेतनविलक्षणत्वं तु श्रुतिसिद्धं, अनुभवसिद्धं च । तस्मात्सिद्वमन्तःकरणस्य प्रतिबिम्बाध्यासद्वारा प्रमातृत्वम् ॥ 44. The supporters of the " reflection theory 213 hold that this, the reflection, is real; the supporters of the "appearance theory 214 hold that it is only illusory. About its nature, that it is reffection however, there is no dispute but that is different. And its being different from non-sentient matter is evident from the sruti and also from experience. Thus it is established that the mind is the locus of valid knowing through the superimposition of the reflection (of the self). ४५. ननु अव्यासोऽपि नोपपद्यते । तथा हि-आत्मनि वा अनात्माऽध्यस्यते ? अनात्मनि वा आत्मा ? 45. Objection:- Even the superimposition cannot be reasonably accepted. Thus : Is the non-self super imposed on the Self or the self on the non-self? ४६. नाद्यः, तस्य निस्सामान्यविशेषत्वेन सर्वदा भासमानत्वेन सादृश्यादिरहितत्वेन च अधिष्ठानत्वासम्भवात् । नापि द्वितीयः; तस्य मिथ्यात्वाभ्युप. गमात्, मिथ्यावस्तुनोधिष्ठानत्वे शून्यवादप्रसङ्गात् । तस्य च सत्यत्वे तदनिवृत्तेरनिर्मोक्षप्रसनाच्च । न हि सत्यं क्वचित्रिवर्तते, निवर्त्यमानं वा ज्ञानेन । श्रुतयश्च 1 भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिशछ्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः । क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्हष्टे परावरे ॥ तमेव ' विदित्वाऽतिमृत्युमेति । नृत्युमेति । नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय' 'तरति शोकमात्मवित्' इत्याद्या ज्ञानात्सर्वसंसारनिवृत्तिं दर्शयन्त्यः तस्य 13 Padmapādācārya and Sarvajnātman, the authors of the Panchapadika and the Sankshepaşarīraraka. 14 Suresvrachārya, the author of the Vārtika on the Brha daranyaka upanishad-bhāshya. 24 fear-afa-3 च मिथ्यात्वं सूचयन्ति । 'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' ' अतोऽन्यदात' 'नेह नानास्ति किंचन' 'अथात आदेशो नेति नेति' इत्याद्याः श्रुतयः साक्षदेव मिथ्यात्वं प्रतिपादयन्ति । दृश्यत्वेन शुक्तिरजतादिवत् मिथ्यात्वानुमानाच । 46. It cannot be the first. Because the Self cannot be accepted as having general and special aspects, is always shining and has no similarity etc., it cannot be the locus or substratum of superimposition. Nor is the second alternative tenable. Because the non-self is accepted as illusory, admitting it as the basis of superimposition would lead to the "void-theory". Holding it, the non-self, to be real would lead to its being irremovable and therefore emancipation would be impossible. What is real can never be removed and scriptural statements like the following teach that it can be got rid of: "The knot of the heart is broken, all doubts are cut away and all actions are reduced to nothing when That is seen as the great and the small" (M.U. ii, 1,8); "knowing That only one goes beyond death"; "There is no other way to liberation" (Su. U. vii, 8, 1,13); The knower of the Self crosses sorrow"? (Ch. U.vii 8, 1,13). These passages demonstrating that phenomenal existence can be got rid of by knowledge suggest that it (phenomenal existence) is illusory. Sruti statements like "One only without a second" (Ch. U.vi 1,2); "All other than this is mortal" (B.U. iv, 4,2) "Here there is no multiplicity or manifoldness at all (B.U. iv, 41,9)". "Now, therefore, the instruction is "Not this, not this (B.U. ii, 3, 6), directly expound the illusoriness of the non-self. It can also be inferred through the cause, being visible", like shell-silver. ,, (6 fear-afa-s अनात्माध्यासेन ४७. आत्माध्यस्ततयैवानात्मानि सिद्धे तत्रात्माध्यासः, चात्मनो दोषसादृश्यादिसम्भवात् तत्र च अनात्माध्यास इत्यात्माश्रयादिदोषप्रसङ्गाच्च । एतेन आत्मानात्माध्यासस्य अविद्यात्मकत्वात्र विकल्पावसर इत्यपास्तम् । . 47. Again only after the non-self is established as superimposed ¹5 on the self, can the Self be imposed on it; the imposition of the Self on the non-self would lead to the Self having similarity and the like defects of the non-self. If the self is imposed on the non-self, that would lead to the defect of self support etc. Thus the view has been refuted that there is no scope for the consideration of any alternative with reference to the superimposition of the self and non-self which is based on ignorance or nescience. 25 ४८. स्वप्रकाशात्मानि अविद्याया अप्युनुपपत्तेः । तथा हि—सांप्यध्यस्ता अनध्यस्ता वा ? तत्राद्ये कथं नात्माश्रयादिदोषप्रसङ्गः । अन्त्ये तस्यानुच्छेदात् 15 The idea of superimosition, adhyasa, is basic to the understanding of advaita. That the ultimate truth is nondifferentiated Being-Awareness-Bliss absolute, is proved by the proper understanding of Sruti, the only available guide to matters not susceptible of sensory verification. This could exclude all differentiation totally. But all of phenomenal experience is based on differentiation only. This persistently perceived difference has to be explained. The advaitin finds the only tenable explanation is that it is an apperance without reality superimposed on the absolute Reality of the infinite. Vide Note 19 on p. 29. Here this explanation is being assailed by the method of admiting (for argument) that one part of the theory is correct and trying to prove the other part absurd. Granting that the Reality is absolute and undifferentiated, superimposition is, for that very reason, untenable and therefore, not the explanation of the experienced difference. That is the crux of the objection in paras 45 to 48 pp 23 to 26. GEREK கோவிலூர் A. No.6183 R65(வழி) Caratag நகைம். Laj सिद्धान्तबिन्दु अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः । सर्वस्याध्या समूलत्वे भ्रमप्रमादिव्यवस्था च न स्यात् । एकस्यैवात्मनः प्रमाणप्रमेयप्रमितिप्रमातृरूपता च विरुद्वा अविरोधाभ्युपगमे वा सौगतमतापंत्तिरिति ॥ 48. It is not reasonable to admit the existence of ignorance in that Self which is self-luminous. Thus: Is that (ignorance) superimposed or not superimposed? In the first case how can falling into the error of self-locus or self-support be avoided ?¹6 In the latter case, since it can never be destroyed or got rid of, emancipation would become impossible. If everything is based on superimposition oniy, the distinction between truth and error would cease (leading to utter confusion). To say that the one Self is at the same time the means of valid knowing, the object of such knowing, the form or mode of such knowing and such valid knowing itself, is selfcontradictory. If it is accepted as non-contradictory, we would be admitting the view of the Bouddhas. ४९. अत्रोच्यते — अहं मनुष्यः कर्ता भोक्तेत्यादिप्रती तिस्तावत् सर्वजनसिद्धा सा च न स्मृतिः; अपरोक्षावभासत्वात् भेदाग्रहपूर्वकत्वाच्च । नापि प्रमा श्रुतियुक्तिबाधितत्वात् । 49. Answer: Now we shall answer this: "I am a man, the doer (of work) and the enjoyer (of the result of it)" etc., this idea is commonly felt by all persons. This is not a memory because it is experienced directly without perception of the difference (between the substantive element. 'I' and the predicative elements, man, doer, enjoyer etc). Nor is it valid knowing 16 Superimposition is caused by ignorance which itself is superimposition. This is the alleged defect of self-support, svāṣryadosha'. The advaitin overcomes the objection by making superimposition 'anādi', begining ess. See para 58 p. 31. " 26 4. 27 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु because it is sublated by the şruti and reasoning (which are the means of valid knowing). " " , ( ५०. तथा च श्रुतयः ' योयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु हृद्यन्तर्जोतिः पुरुषः अयमात्मा ब्रह्म ' सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म' 'विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म ' 'य आत्मा अपहतपाप्मा' 'यत्साक्षादपरीक्षात् ब्रह्म ' 'य आत्मा सर्वान्तर: ' " योऽशनायापिपासे शोकं मोहं जरां मृत्युमत्येति ' स यत्तत्र किंचित्पश्यत्यनन्वा गतस्तेन भवति असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः' इत्यद्या अर्तृभोक्तपरमानन्दब्रम्हरूपतामात्मनो दर्शयन्ति । " ८८ 50. Thus the srutis : "This person or spirit which has knowledge for its essence, the light within the heart." (B.U. iii, 4, 7 ) "This Self is the Infinite " (B.U. ii, 5,19). " The Infinite is truth, knowledge, endless " (T.U. ii, 1, 1 ) : "The Self which is free from sin " (Ch. U. viii, 7, 2 ). " That which is direct and immediate is the Infinite. That which is the Self that is inside all ( else ) " (B.U. iii, 4, 1). " Which goes beyond hunger and thrist, grief, fear and death " (B.U. iii, 5,1) ; " Whatever he may see there, He is not followed by it. This person is unattached" (B.U. iv, 1,15) ; and the like show that the Self is neither doer nor enjoyer and is essentially the Supreme Bliss, the Infinite. ५१. युक्तयश्च — विकारिण: परिच्छिन्नत्वेन अनात्मत्वापत्तेः । स्वेनैव स्वस् ग्रहणे कर्तृकर्मविरोधात् हग्दृश्यसम्बन्धानुपपत्तेः । भेदेनाभेदेन वा धर्मधर्मिभावानुपपत्तेश्च । ज्ञानानित्यत्वपक्षे तत्तद्वयक्तिभेदध्वंसप्रागभावसमवायज्ञानत्वजात्याद्यभ्युपगमे गौरवात् एकत्वाभ्युपगमे च अतिलाववात् । घटज्ञानं पटज्ञानमित्युपाधिभेदपुरस्कारेणैव ज्ञानभेदप्रतीतेः । वस्तुतस्तु ज्ञानं ज्ञान मिन्येकस्वरूपावगमात् । तदुत्पत्तिविनाशप्रतीत्योश्च अवश्यकल्प्यविषयसंबन्ध विषयतयाप्युपपत्तेः । 51. Reasoning is : Anything that is subject to change, being limited, has to be non-self. Because of the contradiction in one being both the subject and the 1 28 fearafare object of any act, knowing oneself is not reasonable. The relation between sight and the object seen cannot be reasonably explained. The attributive-substantive relation cannot be reasonably understood as one of difference or non-difference. If knowledge is held to be transient (non-eternal), the various individual units of knowledge, their non-existence -mutual, through destruction and before origination, inherence, a universal of knowledgeness, have all to be admitted making for a great complication. Holding knowledge to be one leads to great simplicity; ideas of different objects like "knowledge of a pot", "knowledge of a cloth " etc., being accounted for by the association of different temporary adjuncts. Because knowledge by itself is always understood uniformly as knowledge only. Ideas regarding its orgination and destruction can be reasonably explained by its relation with objects that have to be constructed necessarily. ५४. उपाधिपरामर्शमन्तरेण स्वत एव घटात् घटान्तरस्य भेदप्रतीतेः तत्प्रति वन्दीग्रहासम्भवात् । 52. Objection :-Because each pot'is perceived by itself as different from another without reference to any differentiating temporary adjuncts and there is no possibility of perceiving any obstruction to it (why should we not assume each knowledge as a distinct, transient unit ?) ५३. आकाशकालदिशामपि नानात्वापत्तेश्च । 53. Answer:-(In that case) space, time and direction will have to be accepted as manifold.¹7 17 In the view of the Naiyāyika, who has raised the objection, these catagories are single, not manifold. His objection would affect his own thesis adversly and is therefore invalid. A 29 faarafate ५४. कतृत्वादेर्वास्तवत्वे अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गात् । स्वप्रकाशानभ्युपगमे जगदान्ध्यप्रसङ्गात् । परमप्रेमास्पदत्वेन च तस्यानन्दरूपत्वात् । निर्धर्मकनित्यस्वप्रकाशसुखात्मक एवात्मेत्यद्याः । 54. If doership etc., should be real, liberation would become impossible. If self-luminosity is not admitted for the Self the real world would become dark, impossible to apprehend. The Self, being the ultimate goal of supreme Love, is Bliss. Thus the Self is, without predicates, self-luminous bliss; and reasons of the same kind. ५५. तस्मात् परिशेषात् भ्रान्तिरियमिति स्थिते तत्कारणमपि योग्यं किञ्चित्कलल्पनीयम् । कल्प्यामानं च तत् अद्वितीयात्मानि अध्यस्तत यैव धर्मिग्राहकमानेन सिध्यतीति । न जानामीतिसाक्षिप्रतीति सिद्धमनिर्वाच्यमज्ञानमेम तत् । 55. Therefore by elimination,18 this (the phenomenal world of objects) must be an illusion. This having been established, a proper reason for this has to be constructed.19 It can be constructed in the non-dual 18 Any idea, pratiti, that occurs must necessarily be (a) a memory (b) a valid knowing or (c) an illusion. It has been shown that the basis of all the business which we call life cannot be classed as memory or as valid knowing. Therefore it can be only illusion. When all but one of several possibilities are eliminated the remaining one must be accepted as the only possible solution. That is the reasoning "by elimination", päriseshya nyaya'. 19 It is important to remember this point. That the whole mass of thought regarding superimposition and its cause is 'kalpana', à construction i e. it is a hypothesis constructed to account for the perceived difference and multiplicity. And the construction is to be done in such a way as to satisfy all possible objections and to make it plausible from every point of view. This is also the reason for the difference of view among the postşankara advaitins on the details of the construction. But the * 4 30 faarafaSelf only as a superimposition which causes the perception of the substantiative (with the predication of otherness). It is experienced and perceived through the idea, "I do not know", which is of the witnessconciousness. It is therefore only ignorance and indefinable. ५६. न चेदमभावरूपम्; ज्ञानस्य नित्यत्वेन तदभावानुपपत्तेरित्युक्तत्वात् । धार्मिप्रतियोगिज्ञानाभ्यां च व्याघातापत्तेः । 56. Nor is it negative (as the non-existence of knowledge,) in nature. Because knowledge is eternal and its non-existence cannot be accepted. Also because denial of the knowledge and of oneself (as the locus thereof) would involve a contradiction with reference to both the locus and the counter-correlate of the negation.2⁰ ५७. नापि भ्रमसंशयतत्संस्कारपरंपरारूपं, अपरोक्षत्वात्। अतीतानागतभ्रम संशयतत्संस्काराणां च अपरोक्षत्वेन ज्ञातुमंशक्यत्वात् । Nor is it a continuous series of mistaken knowings or doubt and the continuation of either variation in detail does not vitiate the main thesis as explained in this text later in the paras 74-79. Much of the confusion that appears to occur can be avoided if this is clearly kept in mind and the tendency to think of and argue about it as if it is real is vigilantly avoided. Vide pages 40-42 where the attack on the validity of the main advaithic thesis on the ground of the conflicts and contradictions among the later thinkers is answered. 20 The idea, "I do not know " does itself involve the knowing of 'I' as the locus of the ignorance and some knowing about the entity x, because no denial is possible without knowing the denied entity. If the ignorance implied by 'do not know' is taken as absence of knowledge the idea would be selfcontradictory. It can make sense if it refers to some positive ignorance and not to just the non-existence of the knowledge. सिद्धान्तबिन्दु through memory; because of its immediacy. Mistaken knowing and doubt which are past or not yet apprehended can never be experienced as immediate. ५८. आवरणात्मकत्वात् भ्रमोपादानत्वाच्च । आत्मनो निर्विकारत्वात् । अन्तःकरणादेश्च तजन्यत्वात् । 'देवात्मशकिं स्वगुणौर्निगूढां ' इति गुणवत्त्वश्रुतेश्च । 'मायां तु प्रकृतिं विन्द्यान्मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्' 'इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते' ' अनृतेन हि प्रत्यूढाः' 'नीहारेण प्रावृता' 'भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यश्च मायाविद्यानिर्वाच्यमनृतं तत्त्वज्ञाननिवर्त्यं च अज्ञानमेव स्वपराध्यासे कारणम् । न चात्माश्रयादिदोषप्रसङ्गः । अनादित्वेन तभिंरासात्। अनादित्वेनोत्पत्त्यभावात् स्वप्रकाशात्मन एव तज्ज्ञप्तिरूपत्वात् । तेनाज्ञानाध्यासविशिष्टचैतन्ये अहवाराध्यासः । तद्विशिष्टे कामसङ्घल्पादीनां अहङ्वारधर्माणां च काणत्वबधिरत्वक्लीबत्वादीनामध्यासः । इन्द्रियाणां तु परोक्षत्वानापरोक्षधर्म्यध्यास इति सिद्धान्तः । 58. It is also the cause of mistake, being of the nature of a covering or veil. The Self is unchanging and therefore cannot be the cause of a mistake- The mind etc., are products of ignorance. The scripture tells us that it is composed of the three gunas. "The power of the Divine Self composed of the three qualities"; (s.U.i,3). "Know prakriti to be maya ( illusion) and the supreme Lord as the possessor of moya" (S.U. iv, 10). "The Lord is seen in many forms because of His illusory powers" (B.U. ii, 5, 19). " (They do not know the truth about themselves), being covered by falsehood" (Ch. U. viii, 3, 2);" (You do not know the Self which created all these creatures,) being surrounded by mist" T.S. iv, 6, 2, 2) ; "Again, at the end, there is total removal of all illusion" ( S.U. i, 10) Because of such scriptural statements also, this ignorance is illusory, indefinable, untrue and removable or destrucIt is also the cause tible by knowledge of the truth. of its own and all other superimposition. There is no 31 Septe DAS faarafats possibility of defects like being its own locus, as that has been refuted by accepting it as without a beginning. Because it is beginningless, it has no origination. The self-luminous Atman is also selfawareness. Thus there is superimposition of the ego on oneness qualified by superimposition of ignorance. : And on such awareness further qualified by the superimposed ego there is the suprimposition of the attributes of the ego like desire, will etc., and of the atributes of the faculties like lameness, deafness, impotence etc. Because the faculties are mediate, 21 they are not superimposed on the immediate substantive. Such is the final view. 32 ५९. तद्विशिष्टे स्थूलदेहाध्यासो धर्मिपुरस्कारेणैवाहं मनुष्य इत्याद्याकारः, न तु स्वरूपतः अहं देह इत्यध्यासंः, तथा प्रतीत्यभावात् । तद्विशिष्टे च स्थौल्यादीनां तद्विशिष्टे च बाह्यानां पुत्रभार्यादीनां साकल्य वैकल्यादिधर्माध्यासः । 59. On that (the awareness) so qualified (by the superimposition of ignorance, the mind, its functions, the functions of the faculties,) the gross body is superimposed, through its attributes, such as "I am a man"; and not in its true form, "I am the body". That idea ("I am the body") is not directly perceived or known. On that again, thus (further) qualified are imposed the attributes of the body such as stoutness and the like. And on the same thus further qualified are 21 The ideas of the faculties or senses are in the forms " have the eyes ", "I have the ears 99 etc., not as "I am the eye or "I am the ear". Therefore they are not directly superimposed on the qualified consciousness but indirectly as possessions. But the attributes of the faculties are directly superimposed on the qualified consciousness in the form, "I am blind", "I am deaf" etc. सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 33 superimposed the attributes, like being whole or deficient, of persons like the son, the wife and such others. ६०. एवं चैतन्यस्याप्पहारादिषु देहपर्यन्तेष्वध्यासः संसर्गतः । अध्यासव्यवधानतारतम्याच्च प्रेमतारतम्यम् । तदुक्तं वार्तिकामृते वित्ताप्सुत्रः प्रियः पुत्रात् पिण्डः पिण्डात्तथेन्द्रियम् । इन्द्रियेभ्यः प्रियः प्राणः प्राणादात्मा परः प्रियः ॥ इति । पिण्ड: स्थूलशरीरम् । प्राणः अन्तःकरणम् । देहापेक्षया च इन्द्रियाणां प्रियत्वं शस्त्रवृष्ट्यादिधारापाते चक्षुरादीनां मीलनदर्शनात् अनु भवसिद्धम् । 66 60. In the same manner, the awareness is superimposed on the (the objects like) ego and down to the body by association. The gradation of love varies with the proximity or remoteness of the superimposition. This has been stated in the nectar-like Vārtika: The son is dearer than wealth, the body is dearer than the son, the faculty is dearer than the body, life is dearer than the faculties and more than the faculties, the Self is supremely dear". The body means the gross body ; 'life' means the inner instrument, the mind. That the faculties are dearer than the body is proved by the experience of closing the eyes etc., when it is likely to be hit by a weapon or by rain and such others. ६१. तेनान्योन्याध्यासात् चिदाचिद्ग्रन्थिरूपोऽध्यासः । एकतरस्याध्यासाङ्गीकारे अन्यतरस्याभानप्रसङ्गात् अध्यस्तस्वैव भ्रमे भाननियमात् । इमे रङ्गरजते इति समूहालम्बनवत् अवश्यामितरेतराध्यासः । 61. Thus, by this mutual superimposition, we have the knotting together of truth and untruth. If the superimposition of one only is admitted there is the possibility of the other not being perceived; the rule being that in illusion only that is perceived which is 3 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु superimposed. The perception is like the perception of a group of objects like "these are colour and silver ". So (the acceptance of) mutual superimposition is unavoidable. 34 ६२. सर्वबाधावधिभूतचैतन्यपरिशेषेण च न शून्यवादापत्तिः, सत्यानृत- सम्भेदावभासत्वादध्यासस्य । तस्मात्पूर्वपूर्वाध्यासमूल एवायमुत्तरोत्तरोऽह- ढराध्यासः बीजाङ्कुरवदनादिः । अविद्याध्यासश्च एक एवानादिः ॥ 62. Because pure consciousness remains as the limit of all negation or sublation, there is no possibility of ending up in the 'void theory'. Superimposition is just the appearance of mixing up truth and untruth. Therefore each subsequent superimposition of the ego is based on an earlier superimposition and (the whole series) is without a beginning like the seed-sprout series. The superimposition of ignorance, however, is only one and also without beginning. ६३. ननु अध्यासस्य अनादित्वे 'स्मृतिरूपः परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभासोऽध्यासः ' इति वदता भाष्यकारेण स्मृतिरूपत्वेन संस्कारजन्यत्वमुक्तं विरुध्येतेति चेत् । 63. Objection:- But the author of the Bhasya, Sri Şankara, has stated that superimposition is the appearance elsewhere of something seen earlier and it is like memory. Does it ( the acceptance of suprimposition as beginningless) not contradict his view which requires its origination, as a memory, in the impression of an experience ? ६४. न । कार्याध्यासाभिप्रायत्वात्तस्य । परत्र पराभास इति एतावन्मात्रस्यैव उभयानुगतस्य लक्षणत्वात् । यद्वा – 'सत्यानृते मिथुनीकृत्य' इति भाष्यबचनात् सत्यमिथ्यावस्तुसम्भेदावभासोऽध्यास इत्येव सिद्धान्तलक्षणम् । तेन कारणाध्यासेऽपि न लक्षणाव्याप्तिः । कार्याध्यासस्य च प्रवाहरूपेण बीजाहुरवदनादित्वाभिधनान कोऽपि दोषः । 64. Answer : - It does not. Because he had in view only the resultant or produced superimposition while } 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 mixing up of truth and untruth is superimposition": The causal superimposition would not fall outside this definition; nor would there be any flaw in-describing resultant superimposition as without beginning like the seed-sprout series. ६५. एवमध्यासे सिद्धे एकस्यात्मनो जीवेश्वरादिव्यवस्था मानमेयादिप्रतिकर्मव्यवस्था च उपपद्यते । तथा हि — आज्ञानोपहित आत्मा अज्ञानतादात्म्यापन: 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 consciounsess. 35 6 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 identified 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 तद्गतचिदाभासभेदाभावात् 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 consciousness 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 ignorance and the reflection therein, then the word 'I' + 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 वार्तिककारपादेःअयमेव 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 consider 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 वाच्यैकदेशस्यात्यागात् अस्मित्रपि पक्षे जहदजहल्लक्षणेति न कोपि दोषः । अयमेव पक्ष आभासावाद इति गीयते । 68. Or consciousness non-distinct from its appearance (in ignorance and the mind respectively) is the expressed meaning of the words, 'That' and 'thou'. In this case (the identity is understood) by abandoning 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. 38 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु ६९. अज्ञानोपहितं बिम्बचैतन्यं ईश्वरः, अन्तःकरणतत्संस्कारावच्छिन्नाज्ञानप्रतिबिम्बित चैतन्यं जीव इति विवरणकाराः । 69. Consciousness with the adjunct of ignorance is the Lord, the Ruler. It is the object ( that is reflected). The reflection of this in ignorance determined by the mind and its impressions is the individual self. This is the view of the author of the Vivarana. ७०. अज्ञानोपहितं चैतन्यं ईश्वरः, बुद्धिप्रतिबिम्बितं चैतन्यं जीवः. अज्ञानोपहितं तु बिम्मचैतन्यं शुद्धमिति संक्षेपशारीरककाराः ! 70. Consciousness with ignorance for an adjunct is the Ruler. Consciousness reflected in the (individual ) mind is the individual soul. The protype consciousness, Consiousness as the object reflected is pure, though it has ignorance for the adjunct (and is reflected in it). This is the view of the author of the 'SankshepaSārīraka'. ७१. अनयोश्च पक्षयोः बुद्धिभेदात् जीवनानात्वम् । प्रतिबिम्बस्य च पारमर्थिकत्वात् जहदजहल्लक्षणैव तत्त्वमादिपदेषु इममेव प्रतिबिम्बवादमाचक्षते । 71. In these views there is multiplicity of individual selves because of the multiplicity of minds. Because of the reality 23 of the image, in (understanding) the words, 'That' and 'thou', the method of partial abandonment is to be adopted. This is called the 'Reflection view', 'Pratibimbavada'. ७२. अज्ञानविषयीकृतचैतन्यं ईश्वरः, अज्ञानाश्रयीभूतं च जीव इति वाचस्पतिमिश्राः । अस्मिंश्च पक्षे अज्ञाननानात्वात् जीवनानात्वं; प्रतिजीवं च प्रपञ्चभेदः, जीवस्यैव स्वाज्ञानोपहिततया जगदुपादानत्वात्, प्रत्यभिज्ञा 23 According to the Pratibimba Vada, the reflected image is, in essence, nof other than the prototype and is, therefore, as real as the prototype. 39 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु चातिसादृश्यात्, ईश्वरस्य च समपञ्चजीवाविद्याधिष्ठानत्वेन कारणतोपचारात् इति । अयमेव चावच्छेदवादः । 72. Vācaspati Mişra holds that consciousness as the object of ignorance is God; as the locus of ignorance it is the individual soul. In this view, the multiplicity of ignorance accounts for the multiplicity of the individual souls because the individual soul with its own ignorance as the adjunct is the substantial cause of the world. Recognition is through very great similarity. God, the Lord, is only the locus or basis of all worlds, the individual souls and ignorance and attribution to Him of being the cause of the word is by courtesy only. This is the 'determination or delimitation view the 'avaccheda-vāda'. ७३. अज्ञानोपहितं बिम्बचैतन्यं ईश्वरः, अज्ञानप्रतिबिम्बतं चैतन्यं जीव इति वा, अज्ञानानुपहितं शुद्धचैतन्यं ईश्वरः अज्ञानोपहितं जीव इति वा मुख्यो वेदान्तसिद्धान्त एकजीववादाख्यः । इयमेव दृष्टिसृष्टिवादमाचक्षते । अस्मिंश्च पक्षे जीवस्स्वाज्ञानवंशात् जगदुपादानं निमित्तं च, सर्व प्रातीतिकं. देहभेदाच्च जीवभेदभ्रान्तिः' एकस्यैव च स्वकल्पितगुरुशास्त्रापबृंहितश्रवणमननादिदार्ढ्या- दात्मसाक्षात्कारे सति मोक्षः । शुकादीनां च मोक्षश्रवणं तु अर्थवादः । महावाक्ये च तत्पदमनन्तसत्यादिपदवदज्ञानानुपहितचैतन्यस्य लक्षणयोप- स्थापकम् । इत्याद्य अवान्तरभेदाः स्वयमूहनीयाः ॥ 73. Objection:- Protype consciousness with ignorance for an adjunct is God ; Consciousness reflected in ignorance is the soul; or pure Consciousness without the adjunct of ignorance is God and with the adjunct of ignorance, is soul. This is the principal teaching of the Vedanta. It is calied the 'one soul view'. This is also called 'the view or theory of creation by seeing'. In this view, the soul itself controlled by its own ignorance is both the substantial and intelligent cause of the world. All that is seen is only ideal 40 fugirafa-3 (ideas). The illusion of different souls is due to the different bodies. When this one soul directly per. ceives itself by means of the conviction got through the preceptor and the scriptures which are its own constructions, it is free. What is heard about the emancipation of Suka and others is said in praise (of the values represent they ). In the great statement the word 'That' raises the meaning of the Infinite without any adjuncts even as also (do) the words like. 'Truth', 'endless' Such internal distinctions are to be understood by oneself. परस्परविरुद्धमतप्रामाण्यम् । 74. Objection :-But since there can be no difference of views about the existent, how can we accept the validity of these contradictory views? So, among these which is to be accepted and which is to be rejected ? ७४. ननु वस्तुनि विकल्पासम्भवात् कथं तस्मात् किं अत्र हेयं ? किं उपादेयं ? इति चेत् ७५. न क एवमाह वस्तुनि विकल्पो न सम्भवतीति, स्थाणुर्वा पुरुषो वां राक्षसो वेत्यादिविकल्पस्य वस्तुन्यपि दर्शनात् ।... 75. Answer: It is not so. Whoever said that there can be no difference of views about the existent; because the doubt, "Is it a post, man or a demon?", is seen to occur about an existing thing. [All such imaginations arising in the mind of a person are not real.] ७६. अतात्विकी सा कल्पना पुरुषबुद्धिमात्रप्रभवा, इयं तु शास्त्रीया जीवेश्वरविभागादिव्यवस्था इति चेत् । 76. Objection :-That is unreal imagination arising in a person's mind. But this (difference of views, I am talking about) is the settlement of ideas regarding the I. 1 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 41 individual soul, God and the like, according to the teaching of the scriptures: ७७. नूनं अतिमेधावी भवान् । अद्वितीयात्मातत्त्वं हि प्रधानं फलवत्त्वात् अज्ञातत्वाच्च प्रमेयं शात्रस्य । जीवेश्वरविभागादिकल्पनास्तु पुरुषबुद्धिप्रभवा अपिशात्रेणानूद्यन्ते । तत्त्वज्ञानोपयोगित्वात् 'फलवत्सात्रिधावफलं तदङ्गम् ' इति न्यायात् भ्रमसिद्धस्यापिश्रुत्यनुवादसम्भवात् । एतेन द्वेतज्ञानेन अद्वैतज्ञानस्य बाधो निरस्तः । 77. Answer :-You are very clear indeed ! The main point of the scriptural teaching is the Reality of the Self, without a second, because that is pruposeful and not known (otherwise). Constructions regarding .the distinctions between God, soul. etc., are repeated by the scripture, though they arise only in the mind of persons, because they are useful in understanding the essence or truth. In accordance with the C (established) principle, " In the presence of the purposeful, the unpurposeful is (to' be accepted as) helping it ", it is possible for the scriptures to repeat information regarding even what is proved only within illusion. By this, the sublation of non-dual knowledge by knowledge of duality is refuted. 24 A ७८. घटादिद्वैतज्ञानस्यापि अद्वैतसन्मात्रांशे अज्ञाते प्रामाण्याभ्युपगमाच्च । ज्ञनाज्ञानयोस्समानाश्रयविषयत्वनियमात् । जडे च प्रमाणप्रयोजनाभावेनाज्ञानानभ्युपगमात् तदवच्छिन्न चैतन्याज्ञानादेव तत्राप्यज्ञानव्यवहारोपपत्तेः । सर्वप्रमाणां अज्ञातज्ञापकत्वेनैव प्रमाण्यात् । अन्यथा स्मृतेरपि तदापत्तिरिति । एवं वेदान्तेषु सर्वत्रैवंविधविरोधे अयमेव परिहारः । तदाहुः वार्तिककारपादा:24 Statements in the scriputures which may appear to convey knowing of duality are to regarded as repetition of what is generally seen in the world, 'anuvāda', and not as communication of an unsublated truth ' pramāņa'. 42 faarafare ययायया भवेत्पुंसो व्युत्पत्तिः प्रत्यगात्मनि । सासेव प्रक्रिया ज्ञेया साध्वी सा चानवस्थिता ॥ इति । 78. Even the knowing of duality in a pot or such other is accepted as valid only in respect of the reality aspect which is (otherwise) unknown. Because of the rule that knowledge and ignorance have a common locus and object and as valid knowledge of the inert is purposeless, ignorance also cannot be accepted about it. Only ignorance of consciousness delimited by it (the inert object) can be resonably accepted as what is called ignorance of it (the object). All means of valid knowing are valid only because they convey information of the unknown. Otherwise even memory could be that (a valid means of knowing). In this way, wherever doubts arise in this scripture of vedanta, this is the method of solving them. That is why the revered author of the Vārtika has said, "By whichever method a person attains to knowledge of the inner Self, that method should be considered the good method-and it is not of any one form only". ७९. श्रुतितात्पर्यविषयीभूतार्थविरुद्धं च हेयमेवेति शतश उद्घोषितमस्माभिः । तस्मात्र किञ्चिदेतत् । 79. We have also declared hundreds of times that whatever is opposed to the content of the purport of the scripture should be discarded. Therefore this (difference in the method of understanding the statemeans of the Scriptures) is nothing. ८०. तदेव जीवस्योपाधिनाभिभूतत्वात्संसारोपलब्धिः । परमेश्वरस्य तूपाधि- वशित्वात् सर्वज्ञत्वादिकमिति सम्यगुपपद्यते व्यवस्था ॥ -1/2 43 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 80. Thus the individual soul, because he is overcome by the adjunct is seen to be involved in samsāra. But the Surpeme Lord has omniscience etc., because of his controlling the adjunct. This practical division stands well to reason. ८१. ननु भवत्वविद्यावशात् जीवेश्वरविभागव्यवस्था । मानमेयादिप्रतिकर्मव्यवस्था तु कथमिति चेत् । 81. Objection:- Let the distinction between God and soul be based on (the relation to ) ignorance. How to account for the distinctions between the object of knowledge and valid methods of knowing and the like in every act ( of thought ) ८२. उच्यते – दृश्यत्वात् जडत्वात् विनाशित्वात् च परिच्छिन्नाप्य विद्या अनिर्वचनीयत्वेन विचारासहा आवरणविक्षेपशक्तिद्वयवती सर्वगतं चिदात्मानमावृणोति अङ्गुलिरिव नयनसत्रिहिता सूर्यमण्डलम् । तत्र चक्षुष एवावरणे अद्भुलेरप्यभानप्रसङ्गात् । 82. Answer:-It will be explained. Ignorance is determined or limited because it is an object, it is inert and it is liable to destruction. Yet, being indefinable it will not bear scrutiny. Having the two powers of veiling or obscuring and scattering, 24(a) it obscures the all-pervading consciousness-self, even as a finger held close to the eye hides the sun from view. When the eye itself is closed by the finger, even the finger is not seen. ८३. अधिष्ठानावरणमन्तरेण विक्षेपानुपप तेश्च । ततः सापूर्वपूर्वसंस्कारजीवकर्मप्रयुक्ता सती निखिलजगदाकारेण परिणमते । सा च स्वगतचिटा24 (a) विक्षेप, vikshepa is generally translated as 'projection'. Though this conveys the idea of the otherness of the product it Therfore dues not sufficienly emphasize the multiplicity. 'scattering' which emphasizes that aspect and is closer to the literal meaning of the original word is preferred. fear-afa-s भासद्वारा चित्तादात्म्यापत्रेति तत्कार्यमपि सर्वमाभासद्वारा चिदनुस्यूतमेव । तथा च चैतन्यस्य दीपवत्स्वसम्बद्वसवंभास कत्वात् जगदुपादानचैतन्यं प्रमाणा- पेक्षामन्तरेणैव सर्वदा सर्व भासयत् सर्वज्ञ भवति। तेन न तत्र मानमेया- दिव्यवस्था । किं तु जीवे, तस्य बुद्धयवछिन्त्रत्वेन परिछिनत्वात् । तेनं चिदभि- व्यक्तियोग्येन येनान्तःकरणेन यदा यत्सम्बद्धं भवति तदेव तदा तदवच्छिन्नो जीवोऽनुभवतीति न साइप्रसङ्गः ॥ 44 83. Scattering cannot be reasonably understood without obscuring the locus. Therefore this (ignorance) in union with the impression of the earlier actions of the individual souls, transforms itself in the form of the whole world. Because it has become (apparently) identified with Consciouness through the appearance of Consciousness in it, its product (the world) also is continually associated with Consciousness through the appearance of awareness. Because Consciousness illumines everything in contact with it, like light, the substantial cause of the world 25 is always illumining everying even without the need for valid means of knowing and so it is omniscient. Therefore there is no distinction of knowing and object of knowing in it. But such distinction is found in the individual soul; because it is limited, being determined by the mind. Whenever a particular soul is associated with a particular mind fit to manifest consciousness, then, that soul limited by that mind, gets experiences. So there is no possibility of mixing up (of one another's experiences). 25 Pure Concisiousness which has become identified with ignorance through identification with the appearance of the Consciousness in ignorance. सिद्धान्तबिन्दु ८४. एवमत्र प्रक्रिया – शरीरमध्ये स्थितः सर्वशरीरव्यापकः सत्त्वप्राधान्येन सूक्ष्मपञ्चभूतारब्धः अन्तःकरणाख्यः अविद्याविवर्ती दर्पणादिवदतिस्वच्छः नेत्रादिद्वारा निर्गत्य योग्यान् घटादीन विषयान् व्याप्य तत्तदाकारो भवति द्रुतताम्रादिवत् । तस्य च सौरालोकादिवत् झडित्येव सोंचविकासावुपपद्येते। सच सावयवत्वात् परिणममानो देहाभ्यन्तरे घटादौ च सम्यग्व्याप्य देहघटयोर्मध्येऽपि चक्षुर्वदविच्छिन्नो व्यवतिष्ठते । तत्र देहेऽन्तःकरणभागोडहङ्काराख्यः कर्तेत्युच्यते । देहविषषयमध्यवृत्तिदण्डायमानस्तद्भागः वृत्तिज्ञानाख्यः क्रियेत्युच्यते । विषयव्यापकस्तद्भागो विषयस्य ज्ञान कर्मत्वसंपादकमभिव्यक्तियोग्यत्वमित्युच्यते । तस्य च त्रिभागस्यान्तःकरणस्यातिस्वच्छत्वात् चैतन्यं तत्राभिव्यज्यते । तस्य चाभिव्यक्तस्य चैतन्यस्य एकत्वेऽप्यभिव्यञ्जकान्तःकरणभागभेदात् त्रिधा - व्यपदेशो भवति । कर्तृभागावन्छिञचिदंश प्रमाता । क्रियाभागावन्छिनचिदंशः प्रमाणम् । विषयगताभिव्यक्तियोग्यत्वभागावचित्रचिदंशः प्रमितिरिति । प्रमेयं तु विषयगतं ब्रह्मचैतन्यमेव अज्ञातम् । तदेव च ज्ञातं सत् फलम् । . 84. The method is this: What is called the inner instrument or the mind is an apparent transformation of ignorance. It is composed of the five subtle elements and because of the predominance of the quality of Satva, it is clear like a mirror. In each person it is stationed in the middle of the body and pervades the whole body. Going out through the eye etc., it pervades appropriate objects and assumes the form of such objects, as molten copper would. It is also capable of immediate contraction and expansion (i.e. of taking on the form of any object presented to it) like sunlight. Being composed of parts it is capable of transformation and fully pervades inside the body and the pot (or other object perceived) and also between the eye and the pot like vision when it is uninterrupted. The part of the mind inside the body is called "The doer or agent or ego''. The part that stretches between the body and the 45 46 faarafare object is called the knowing function, the activity. The part that pervades the object and makes it an object of knowing is called "the ability to manifest". Because of the great clarity of the mind, in its triple aspect, Consciousness manifests in it. Though Consciousness so manifesting is one, it is considered as having three parts. The part delimited by the 'doer' portion (of the mind) is the cogniser; the part delimited by the 'Tunction' part is the means of knowing; the portion that is in the object and delimited by the ability to manifest' is called knowing. The object to be known is Brahman-consciousness itself which has become the object and is not yet known. The same (Brahman-consciousness as the object) when it is known is the result. ८५. अत्र च यस्मिन् पक्षे अन्तःकरणावच्छिन्नो जीवः, यस्मिंश्च पक्षे सर्वगतोऽ सङ्गोऽविद्याप्रतिबिम्बो जीवः तत्रोभयत्रापि प्रमातृचैतन्योपरगार्था विषय- गतचैतन्यावरणभङ्गार्या चान्तःकरणवृत्तिः । यस्मिंश्च पक्षेऽविद्यावच्छिनः सर्वगतो जीव: आवृतः तस्मिन् पक्षे जीवस्येव जगदुपादानत्वेन सर्वसंबद्धत्वात् आवरणभङ्गार्था वृत्तिरिति विवेकः ॥ 85. In the view of the soul as (Consciousness) determined by the mind and also in the view of the soul as omnipresent and unattached and the reflection (of Consciousness) in ignorance, in both these views, the function of the mind is for making contact with Consciousness and breaking the veil (of ignorance) covering consciousness-as-object. In the view of the soul as omnipresent and covered by the limiting adjunct of ignorance, the soul itself being the substantial cause of the world and therefore, in contact with everything, the function of the mind is for the purpose of breaking the veil only. This is the differene. सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 47 ८६. ननु चिदुपरागार्धा वृत्तिरिति पक्षे स्वतोऽन्तःकरणसम्बद्वानां धर्माधर्मादीनां ब्रह्मणश्च वृत्तिमन्तरेणैव सर्वदा भानं स्यात् । 86. Objection:- If the view is that a function of the mind is required for making contact with Consciousness, catagories like dharma, adharma and Brahman which are by themselves in constant contact with the mind should be constantly perceived even without such a function. ८७. न स्यात्, चैतन्यस्य तत्तदाकारत्वाभावत् । तदभावश्च स्वच्छेऽपि ब्रह्म चैतन्येआवरणात्, अनावृतेऽपिशुक्तिरजतादावस्वच्छत्वात् धर्माधर्मादौ तु अस्वच्छत्वादावृतत्वाद्वा । तेन स्वच्छेऽप्यावृते प्रमाणवृत्त्या तदाकारता, अनावृतेऽप्यस्वच्छे शुक्तिरजतादौ अविद्यावृत्त्या तदाकारता, अनावृते स्वच्छे तु सुखदुःखादौ स्वत इति नान्तेः करणसम्बन्धमात्रण भानप्रसङ्गः ॥ 87. Answer: - It cannot be. Because of the absence of the respective particular forms in Consciousness. The absence is due to the covering (by ignorance ) in the ' case of Brahman-consciousness; to non-clerity in the case of shell-silver and the like though there is no covering in these cases; in the case of dharma and adharma to both non-clarity and covering. Therefore the mind (determined by which and reflected in or appearing in which pure consciousness has become the soul) takes different forms through different functions; in the case of what is clear but covered (Brahman), by the function of valid knowiedge ; in the case of what is not clear though uncovered, like the shell silver, by the function of ignorance; in the case of what is uncovered and clear, like joy and sorrow by itself. Thus there is no possibility of any perception (arising) only by contact with the mind. 48 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु ८८. ननुब्रह्मणः कथमावरणम्, निरवद्यस्वप्रकाशत्वेन सर्वज्ञत्वात् ? । 88. Objection:- Brahman is faultless, Self-luminous and omniscient. Therefore how can it be covered? ८९. सत्यम्; स्वसम्बद्ध सर्वभासकतया सर्वज्ञमपि अन्तःकरणावच्छित्रजीवा- ज्ञानविषयतया आवृतमिति व्यपदेशात् । तस्मात् ब्रह्म जगदुपादानमिति पक्षे चिदुपरागार्था आवरणभङ्गार्था च वृत्तिः । जीवोपादानत्वपक्षे तु आवरणभङ्गर्थेवेति ॥ 89. Answer:- True. It is no doubt all-knowing because it illumnines everything that is associated with it. Yet, as the object of ignorance of the soul which is limited by the mind it is conceived as covered. Therefore, in the view that Brahman is the substantial cause of the world, the function of the mind is for the purpose of making contact with Consciousness and for breaking the covering or veil. In the view of the soul as the substantial cause of the world, the function is only for breaking the cover. ९० ननु एकेनैव घटादिज्ञनेनावरणस्य भने सद्यो मोक्षप्रसङ्गः अज्ञानस्यैकत्वात् नानाज्ञानपक्षेऽप्ये कस्य जीवस्यै काज्ञानोपाधित्वात् । 90. Objection :- When the veil ( of ignorance ) is des- toyed in the process of knowing a pot (and the like), since there is only one ignorance, one should become immediately free. Even in the view of ignorance as many, one ignorance being the determinant or limiting adjunct of each soul, (such a soul should become free ). ९१. न, उत्तेजकस्यमणेरिव वृत्त्या आवरणस्य अभिभवानीकारात् । तथा च प्रमाणजन्यान्तःकरणवृत्त्यभावासहकृतमज्ञानं सति भात्यपि वस्तुति 'नास्ति न भाति' इति प्रतीतिजननसमर्थमावरणमित्युच्यते । वृत्तौ जातायां तु अवच्छेदकाभावात् विद्यमानमप्यविद्यमानसममेवेति न स्वकार्यसमर्थमज्ञानं; तेनाभिभूतमित्युच्यते ॥ 91. Answer:-No. Because we accept that the overcoming of the covering by the mind-function is like सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 49 that of the (cooling) gem by the aggravator. Thus: Ignorance, accompanied by the absence of the mindfunction generated by the means of valid knowing, is able to create the ideas, ' It is not ', 'It is not perceived' even about something actually existing and perceived. Such ignorance is called the covering or veil. When the function arises, even though ignorance is still there, it is as good as not being there and it is unable to produce its effect, because then the determining absence is not there. Then it is said to be overcome or defeated. ९२. ननु एवं सति ब्रह्मज्ञानेनाप्यविद्याया अनिवृत्तेरनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्ग:92. Objection:- If it is so, ignorance would not be removed even by the knowledge of the Infinite, by Brahmajnāna. And there would be no liberation at all. ९३. न, तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यार्थज्ञानादविद्यानिवृत्त्यभ्युपगमात् स्वविषयप्रमात्वेनैव अविद्यानिवर्तकत्वाभ्युपगमात् महावाक्यार्थज्ञानस्यैव अबाधित विषयतया प्रमात्वात् । प्रत्यक्षादीनां तु बाधितविषयतया भ्रमत्वेऽपि व्यवहारसामर्थ्येन प्रामाण्याभिमानात् । ज्ञानादज्ञान निवृत्तेश्न्यत्रादर्शनं चाकिञ्चत्करम्, स्वानुभवसिद्वत्वात्, अन्यथाऽनुपपत्तेश्च सर्वतो बलवत्त्वात् । तदुक्तम्अन्यथानुपपत्तिश्चेदस्ति वस्तुप्रसाधिका । पिनष्टंचदृष्टि वेमत्यं सेव सर्वबलाधिका ॥ इति ॥ . 93. Answer : No. Weaccept that ignorance is removed by the knowledge arising from the statements. "That thou art" and the like. It is able to dispel ignorance because of being valid with reference to its own object. Only knowledge arising from the great statements is valid because its object is never sublated. The content of sensory perception and other means of knowing is liable to be sublated and such knowing 50 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु is invalid only. Yet, as it has a validity within phenomena, it is considered as valid only by courtesy. Therefore the fact that the total removal of ignorance by knowledge is not known in any other instance has no significance. This (removal of ignorance by knowledge arising from the proper understanding of the scriptural "great statements") is proved in one's own experience. Also because, that it cannot be understood otherwise26 is more powerful than any other (means of knowing). Therefore it has been said : " If Reality is made clear (by a certain means) and cannot be known by any other means, the objection that it is not seen to function in any other instance is ground down ; and that ( means ) is the most powerful ". ९४. अथ वा, मूलाज्ञानस्यैवावस्थाः अज्ञानानि घटादिविषयावरणानि । अज्ञानस्य ज्ञानप्रागभावस्थानीयत्वेन यावन्ति ज्ञानानि तावन्त्यज्ञानानीत्य- म्युपगमात् एकेन ज्ञानेन एकाज्ञानस्यैव नाशात् वटादिज्ञानेन आवरणना शेऽपि न काचिदनुपपत्तिः ॥ 94. Alternatively ( another explantion is possible); Ignorances covering objects like a pot are states of a primal ignorance. Since ignorance is like the previous non-existance of knowing there is nothing unreasonable in accepting that there are as many ignorances as there are knowings. ९५. ननु अनुमानादिभिरावरणं निवर्तते न वा । आद्ये साक्षात्कारिभ्रमस्यापि शङ्खपीतत्वादेः श्वेतत्वाद्यनुमानादिना निवृत्तिप्रसङ्गः, अधिष्टानाज्ञानोपादानकत्वेन भ्रमस्य तनिवृत्तौ निवृत्तेः । दिमोहादेश्च अनुमानादिना 26 Sacriptural statements like "It shatters the knot of ignorance" (M.U. ii, I, 10), cannot be understood otherwise than by admitting that knowledge arising from the great statements dispells ignorance. 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 ज्ञातस्यान्तःकरणमात्राश्रयत्वात् अपरोक्षज्ञानस्यैव विषयव्यापारजन्यत्वेन विषयान्तःकरणोभयजन्यत्वेन तद्रुभयनिष्ठत्वात् । तदुक्तम्27 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. 52 fearafats परोक्षज्ञानतो नश्येत् असत्त्वावृत्तिहेतुता अपरोक्षधिया नश्येत् अभानावृतिहेतुता ॥ इति ॥ तेनानुमानादावसत्त्वावरणनाशात् तत्र तद्वयवहारः । अभानावरणानिवृत्त्या च न साक्षात्कारिभ्रमनिवृत्तिरिति । 96. Answer:-It will be explained: Covering or veiling is of two kinds. One is stationed in the witness, delimited by the mind and produces the idea of nonexistence. The other which produces the idea of non-perception is stationed in Brahman-consciousness delimited as the object. Because both these determinants are experienced in the idea, "I do not know the pot". The first of these is removed by knowledge in general which may be mediate or immediate. Because the idea of non-existence does not arise in the case of fire and such others known even by inference which is mediate. The second one is removed by direct perception only. Because the rule is that knowing of a particular form (object) in a particular locus removes only ignorance of that particular form in that particular locus. In mediate knowledge, there is no contact of the faculty with the object and its station is, therefore, in the mind only; while direct knowing only, being generated by proximity of the object to the faculty is stationed in both the object and the mind. Therefore it is said, "By mediate knowing, the cause of the covering (in the form of the idea) of no-nexistence is destroyed, by immediate knowing the cause of covering (in the form of the idea of) non-perception is destroyed". Thus, in inference and such means the covering in the form of nonexistence is removed and so it is considered in that सिद्धान्तबिन्दु way. By the removal of the covering of non-percep- tion, the error of mistaken perception is not removed. ९७. तस्मात् निर्धर्मकस्याप्यात्मनोऽविद्ययान्तःकरणतादात्म्याध्यासात् तद्धर्म- कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वाद्यध्यास उपपद्यते ॥ 97. Therefore it is clear that though the Self is without any predication, yet, because of the superimposition on it of identity with ignorance and the mind, the mistaken predications of doership, enjoyership etc., are also superimposed on it. " 58 ९८. ननु त्वन्मते अनिर्वचनीयख्यात्यभ्युपगमात् ये कर्तृत्वादयोऽन्तः करणधर्मा आत्मन्यध्यस्यन्ते ते अनिर्वचनीयास्तत्रोत्पद्यन्त इति वाच्यम् । तथा च व्यावहारिकप्रातीतिकभेदेन द्वेधावभासस्स्यात् । which are 98. Objection:- In your view, since you accept the inde finable' theory ( of erroneous perception), you have to say that the predicates of doership etc., superimposed on the self do originate there in an indefinable manner.28 Thus there would be a differ ence between the practical and conceptual doer and enjoyer. So each should be perceived as twofold. ९९. न स्यात्, तादात्म्याभिमानेनाविवेकात्, सकलधर्मविशिष्टस्यैवान्तःकरणस्यात्मन्यव्यस्तत्वेन द्वयाभावाद्वा । तस्मात् एकस्याप्यात्मन उपाधिभेदेन प्रमात्रादिव्यवस्थोपपत्तेर्न सौगतमतापत्तिः, न वा विरोधः । अन्या अपि व्यवत्थाः स्पष्टतरमुपरिष्टदुपपादयिप्यन्ते । 99. Answer :-It cannot be so. Because of the feeling of identity they are not perceived as distinct. Or because the mind with all its attributes or predicates is superimposed as the Self, there is no duplication (of practical and conceptual doership and the like.) Thus as the one self is accepted differently as the knower and 28 Advaitins have accepted the origination of the indefinable object seen in illusion. This objection and the answer to it are based on that admission. 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 scriptures, the usage of knower and the like should be accepted as real. १०२. किं तत्त्वज्ञानात्पूर्वमप्रामाण्यमापाद्यते ? ऊध्वं वा ? । तत्राद्ये सर्वेषां " प्रमाणानामविद्यावद्विषयत्वेन द्वितीये त्विष्टापत्तिरेवेत्याहसिद्धान्त बिन्दु 55 तद्दशायां बाधाभावानिष्प्रत्यूहं प्रामाण्यम् । न वर्णा न वर्णाश्रमाचारधर्माः न मे धारणाध्यानयोगादयोsपि अनात्माश्रयाहम्ममाध्यासहानात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ २ ॥ 102. The doubter is asked, " Is invalidity ascribed to the scriptures before the awareness of truth or after ? In the first case, since all means of knowing are meant for the ignorant, they are not sublated in that state and their validity is unquestioned. In the latter case, what is desired is achieved. So the Acārya says :[Not the classes, not the practices nor the observance of the laws of conduct of the classes' and the orders; Not steadying the mind nor concentration nor Yoga and such others; none of these is relevant to me. Because of discarding the superimposition of 'Me, and — Mine' which are based on non-self. 6 Therefore, I am the one, the residue, Siva, the absolute.] १०३. वर्णाः ब्राह्मणादयः । आश्रमाः ब्रह्मचर्यादयः । आचाराः स्नानशौचादयः । धर्माः ब्रह्मचर्यगुरुसेवादयः । अत्र द्वन्द्वद्वयगर्भषष्ठीतत्पुरुषेण वर्णानामाचारधर्माश्च आश्रमाणामप्याचारधर्माश्च लभ्यन्ते । धारणा ब्रह्माणि बाह्याविषयत्यागेन मनसस्स्थैर्यम् । ध्यानं परमात्मचिन्तनम् । योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः । आदिशब्देन श्रवणमननादयो गृह्यन्ते । सर्वेषां ज्ञानोत्तरकाले असत्त्वे हेतुमाह - अनात्माश्रयाहंममाध्यासहानात् इति । अनात्मा आत्मविरोधिनी अविद्या तदाश्रयस्तदुपादानो योऽहवारममकाराद्यध्यासस्तस्स्य मूलस्यापि तत्त्वज्ञानेन हानात् तत्प्रयुक्तवर्णाश्रमादिव्यवहारो नास्तीत्यर्थः ॥२॥ 103. Classess, brahman-hood and the like. Orders of life,celibate studenship and the like. Practices,bathing, 58 fear-afa-3 clenliness and such. Observance of the laws of conduct, studying of scriputure, celibacy, serving the teacher and such others. Because of the nature of the compound word, it means the practice and observance of the laws pertaining to the classess and the practices and observance of the laws pertaining to the orders of life. Steadying the mind, in the Infinite, by discarding all external objects. Concentration, thinking of the Supreme Self. Yoga, the total cessation of the mind-function. By the expression and such other's, listening, mentation and the like are understood. He states the reason for all these being nonexistent after enlightenment. "Because of discarding 'I' and 'Mine' based on non-self. Non-self that which is opposed to Self, ignorance. The superimposition of the ideas of 'I' and 'Mine' is based on this ignorance i.e., has ignorance for its substance. Even the root of this has been discarded through the knowledge of truth. Therefore the usage based on classes, orders and the like is not there (for the man of knowledge). This is the meaning. १०४. वर्णाश्रमादिव्यवाहारस्य मिथ्याज्ञानमूलत्वेन मिथ्यात्वं द्रढयितुं azafakà ggat agafat6416— न माता पिता वा न देवा न लोका: न वेदा न यज्ञा न तीर्थं बुवन्ति । सृषुप्तो निरस्तातिशून्यात्मकत्वात् तदोकीsवशिष्ठः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥३॥ To confirm the falsity of all this business (of living with all its division) of classes, orders and so on, because all these are rooted in illusory knowing, the Acārya says: सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 57 [Not mother, not father, not the gods, not the worlds, Not the scriptures, not the sacrifices, not the sacred places, they say, in deep sleep. The total void is also denied ; Therefore, I am the one, the residue, Siva, the absolute.] १०. माता जनकस्त्री । पिता जनकः पुमान् । देवा इन्द्रादय आराध्याः । लोकाः तदाराधनफलानि स्वर्गादीनि । वेदाः अलौकिकहिताहितसाधनताप्रतिपादकानि ब्रह्मप्रतिपादकानि च प्रमाणवाक्यानि । यज्ञाः स्वर्गादिमाधनीभूता ज्योतिष्टोमादयः । तीथं यज्ञसाधनीभूतः कुरुक्षेत्रादिदेशः । एवं पापकर्मसाधनान्यप्युपलक्षणीयानि । सर्वेषां देहाभिमानमूलकत्वात्तदभावे स्वतस्सम्बन्धाभावादविद्यमानतेत्यर्थः । 105. Mother, the female progenitor. Father, the male progenitor. The gods, Indra and others to be worshipped. Worlds, heaven and such other states of being, the of such worship. Scriptures, statements that produce valid knowledge regarding the means of securing good and (avoiding) evil in other worlds and about the Infinite. Sacrifices, Jyotishtoma and such means of obtaining heaven. Sacred places Kurukshetra and such places prescribed for the performance of sacrifice. This includes also the All these means which cause demerit, evil or sin. are rooted in the identification with the body and so when that (identification) ceases they also cease to exist. That is the meaning. १०६. तथा च सुषुप्तिं प्रकृत्य श्रुतिः – 'अत्र पितापिता मातामाता देवा अदेवा वेदा अवेदा यज्ञा अयज्ञा स्तेनोऽस्तेनो भवति भ्रूणहा भ्रूणहा चाण्डा लोऽचाण्डालः पौल्कसोऽपौल्कसः श्रमणोऽश्रमणः तापसोऽतापसोऽनन्वागतं पुण्येन अनन्वागतं पापेन तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वान् शोकान् हृदयस्य भवति ' इत्याद्या अभिमानाभावे सर्वानर्थ निवृत्तिमनुवदन्ति ॥ 58 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 106. Thus, the scripture says about deep sleep: 66 In this state the father becomes no father; the mother, no mother ; the worlds, no worlds; the gods, no gods ; the sacriptures, no scriptures; the sacrifices, no sacrifices. The thief becomes no thief, the murderer, no murderer; the candala no candala; the pulkasa is no pulkasa, the monk, no monk; the ascetic, no ascetic; unaccompanied by good, unaccompanied by evil; then he has crossed beyond all the sorrows of the heart". (B.U. iv, 3, 22). They are speaking of the experiences of the removal of all grief and sorrow when identification is removed. १०७. ननु सर्वव्यवहाराभावे शून्यतेव स्यात् । 107. Objection :- In the absence of all activity it would be a total void. यस्मात्तत्तथा । न ह्रि १०८. नेत्याह, निरस्तातिशून्यात्मकत्वादिति । निरस्तं अतिशून्यात्मकत्वं भावप्रधानो निर्देशः । तस्य सुषुप्तिसाधकत्वात्पुनरुत्थानानुपपत्तश्च । 'अविनाशी वा अरे अयमात्मा अनुच्छित्तिधर्मा' 'मात्रासंसर्गस्त्वस्य भवति' 'यद्वैतत्र पश्यति पश्यन्वे तन पश्यति । द्रष्टुष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते अविनाशित्वात् न तु तद्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत्' इत्यादिश्रुतिम्यश्च आत्मचैतन्यस्य न सुषुप्तौ शून्यतेत्यर्थः । 108. Answer : - He says, 'No'. Because the essence being a total void is also denied. It is such that total voidness is denied of it. This indicates the positive nature of existence. Because, though it, the void, can account for the state of deep sleep, it cannot reasonably explain the waking up again. '" Lo, this Self is indesstructible, continuity is its nature. It has no contact with objects when it is not seeing, continuing to (be able to) see, it does not see. There is never any loss of the ability of the seer to perceive because that (ability ) is indestructible. There is no Even while सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 59 second which it can see as other, separate from itself" (B.U. iv, 3, 23). From such scriptural statements it is clear that there is no voidness of the Self in deep sleep. १०९. निराकृतमप्येतत्पुनरपि स्थूणानिखनन्यायेन निराक्रियते ।. Though it (the voidness of the Self) has been refuted, it is refuted again on the analogy of the process of fixing a post. 29 ११०. यद्वा, निरस्तमशनायाद्यतीत अद्वितीयमतिशून्यं यद्ब्रह्म तदात्मक- त्वात । तथा च श्रुतिः - 'यदा वै पुरुषः स्वपिति नाम सता सोम्य तदा सम्पन्नो भवति ' 'तद्यथा प्रियया स्त्रिया सम्परिष्वंक्तो न बाह्यं किञ्चन वेद नान्तरं ' इति । तेन जगत्कारणीभूतसर्वज्ञसर्वशक्तिपरिपूर्णानन्दबोधरूपेण ब्रह्मणा सह्रैकत्वादसंसार्येव जीव इति सिद्धम् ॥ ३ ॥ 110. Another way of understanding the third line of the verseis : Denied, the non-dual of which hunger and the like have been denied because of its being beyond the predicates. Total void, the Infinite; being in essence one with it. Thus the scripture says, " When the person is said to sleep, then, by boy, he becomes one with Reality." (Ch.U.vi, B, 1). "Even as a man who is embraced by a beloved woman does not know any other, outside or inside." (B.U. iv, 3, 21 ). Because he is one with the Infinite which is the cause of the world, 44 all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect or total Bliss and Consciousness, therefore, the soul is not subject to Samsāra, the endless movement. This is thus established, १११. एवं तावत्त्रिभिः श्लोकः वादिविप्रतिपत्तिनिराकरणपूर्वकं त्वंपदार्थो 29 While fixing a post it is repeatedly shaken to make sure that it is fixed firmly and each shaking makes the fixture more firm. This is the 'Sthūna-nikhanananyāya' the analogy of fixing the post. B 60 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु निर्धारितः । सम्प्रति तत्पदार्थस्तथैव निर्धारणीयः । तत्र निराकार्या वादिविप्रतिपत्तयः प्रदर्श्यन्ते । 111. Thus, by these three verses, the meaning of the word 'Thou' has been ascertained after refuting the contradictory views of the disputants. Now the meaning of the word 'That' has to be ascertained in the same way. So the contradictory views of the disputants which have to be refuted are being shown. ११२. ननु न ब्रह्मणा सह जीवस्यैक्यमुपपद्यते । तथा हि, सच्छब्दवाच्यं जगत्कारणं ब्रह्म 'सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्' इत्यादिवाक्येन प्रतिपादितम् । जगत्कारणं च प्रधानमचेतनमिति साङ्ख्याः । 112. Objection : - The oneness of the soul with the Infinite is not acceptable to reason. Thus: The Infinite, Brahman, is the cause of the world, expressed by the word 'Reality', in the sruti-statement, "My dear boy, in the beginning all this was Reality." ( Ch. U. iv, 2, 1) But the Sankhyās hold that the cause of the world is pradhāna which is insentient. ११३. पशुपतिरैव जगत्कारम्, स च चेतनोऽपि जीवाद्भित्रः स उपास्य एवेति पाशुपताः । 113, Pasupati (the Lord of creatures) only is the cause of the world. Though He is sentient, He is different from the individual soul and only to be worshipped (by the soul). This is the view of the Pāsupatās. ११४. भगवान् वासुदेव ईश्वरो जगत्कारणम्, तस्मादुत्पद्यते सङ्घर्षणाख्यो जीवः, तस्मात् मनः प्रद्युम्नः ततोऽहड्वारोऽनिरुद्धः । तेन कार्यत्वाज्जीवस्य तेन सह न ब्रह्मणो वासुदेवस्यात्यन्ताभेद इति पञ्चरात्रिकाः । 114. The blessed Vāsudeva, the Lord, is the cause of the world. The soul called Sankarashana originates from Him; from that, the mind, Pradyumna; out of that again, the ego, Aniruddha. Therefore, since the soul is a product, it is totally different from the cause सिद्धान्तबिन्दु Vasudeva, the Infinite. This is the view of the Pancharātrikas. 61 ११५. परिणामी नित्यस्सर्वज्ञो भित्राभित्र इति जैनाः, त्रिदण्डिनश्च । 115. That (God) is eternal and subject to transformation, omniscient, different and non-different (from the soul) is the view of the Jainās and the Tridandins. ११६. नास्ति सर्वज्ञत्वायुपेतं ब्रह्म, आम्नायस्य कियार्थपरत्वेन तत्र तात्पर्याभावात् । किंतु वाग्धेन्वादिवत्सर्वज्ञत्वादिदृष्टया जगत्कारणं परमाण्वादि जीवो वा उपास्य इति मीमांसकाः । . 116. The māmāmsakas hold that there is nothing like the Infinite, ' Brahman'. Because all scriptures have action for their purport, the scriptures do not have the purport (the non-dual, attributeless Infinite) that you ascribe to them. But like the statement,'" Speech is the Cow ', and such others, (they have to be understood to ordain) the worship of either the atom and the like or the indivudial soul, as posessing omniscience and such qualities and as the cause of the world. १२७. अस्ति नित्यज्ञानादिमानीश्वरः सर्वज्ञः पृथिव्यादिकार्यलिङ्गानुमितः, स च जीवाद्भित्र एवेति तार्किकाः । 118. There is the Lord, having attributes like eternal wisdom and all knowing who can be inferred from the and such others. He is products like the earth however, different from the individual soul; this is the view of the tarkikās, the logicians. ११८. क्षणिकस्सर्वज्ञ इति सौगताः । 118. He is omniscient but endures for an instant only say the Bauddhas. ११९. क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैरपरामृष्टो नित्यज्ञानरूपः प्रधानांशसत्त्वगुणप्रति फलिततया सर्वज्ञः संसारिपुरुषविलक्षण एवेति पातञ्जलाः । 119. The followers of Patanjali hold that He is untouched by sorrow, activity and change, essentially 62 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु eternal knowledge, all knowing because of His being reflected in the quality of satva, which is a part of. pradhana and certainly different from the soul which is involved in samsāra.. १२०. अद्वतीयपरमानन्द एव ब्रह्म, तच्च जीवस्य वास्तवं स्वरूपं. मायया च सर्वज्ञत्वादिविशिष्टं जगत उपादानं निमित्तं चेति औपनिषदः । 120. The followers of the Upanishads hold that the Infinite is non-dual supreme Bliss only. That is the real essence of the individual soul. Because of Maya it has the attributes like omniscience and such others. It is both the substantial and the intelligent cause of the world, १२१ • एवं वादिविप्रतिपत्तिभिः सन्दिग्धे तत्पदार्थे औपनिषदपक्षस्य परिशेषेण तन्निर्णयायाह भगवान् न साङ्ख्यं न शैवं न तत् पाञ्चरात्रं न जेनं न मीमांसकादेर्मतं वा । विशिष्टानुभूत्या विशुद्धात्मकत्वात् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ४ ॥ 121. Thus, because of these conflicting views of the disputants, the true meaning of the word "That" is in doubt. To ascertain that (by refuting other views and showing that) the view of the Upanishads is the only one left, the Blessed Lord (Sankara) has said : Not the Sankhya, not the Saiva, not the Pancharātra ; Not the Jaina, not the view of the Mimamsakas and others. Because I am essence of the pure Self, experienced in a special manner, I am the one, the residue, Siva, the Absolute. www : सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 83 १२२. आदिशब्देनानुक्तानां सङ्ग्रहः । न तावदचेतनं जगदुपादानम्, 'तदेक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय' इति ईक्षणपूर्वकसृष्टिश्रवणात् 'अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि ' इति च जीवात्मव्यपदेशात् यस्मिन्विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवति' इति चैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानप्रतिज्ञानात् प्रधानज्ञानेन चं तदप्रकृतिकानां पुरुषाणां ज्ञातुमशक्यत्वात् । ऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्व तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि' इति च तदभेदस्य नवकृत्व उपदेशात् 'तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशास्सम्भूतः' इति च श्रुत्यन्तरात् अचेतनस्य जगत्कारणत्वे विचित्ररचनानुपपत्तेः प्रधानमहदादेर प्रामाणिकत्वाच्च न साङ्ख्यमतं साधु । 122. The word " other" sums up all the views not specifically mentioned. A non-sentient principle can not be the cause of the world. Scriptural statements like, "It thought, I shall become many, I shall multiply." (Ch.u. vi, 2, 3). ''Having entered (into this creation ) as the essence of this soul, I shall manifest names and forms", (Ch.u. vi, 3, 2) specifically mention that the individual soul is the self. There is the statement, "When That is known everything becomes known", (M.u.i,I,3) which assures the knowing of all by knowing one ; and by knowing the pradhāna, the purushas, the units of intelligence which are of an enirely different character cannot be known. • All this has That for its essence, That is the Truth, That is the Self, That thou art O,Svetaketu." (Ch.u. vi, 8, 7 ) This instruction is repeated nine times. Another passage of the scripture says, "From this Self, space came into being." (T.u. ii, I,I.). If a non-sentient principle should be the cause of the world, the wonderful (and complex ) creation cannot be reasonably understood. There is also no evidence for the existence of principles like pradhana and mahat. Because of all these reasons the view of the Sankhya is not tenable. 66 64 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु १२३. एवं पाशुपतमतं पाञ्जरात्रिकं जैनं च मतं श्रुतियुक्तिबाधितत्वादयुक्तम् । 123. Likewise, the views of the Saivas, the pāncharatras and the jainas are all contradicted by the scriptures and reason and are therefore untenable. १२४. न च विधिशेषत्वाच्छुतिर्न ब्रह्म प्रतिपादयतीति मीमांसकमतं युक्तम्, असिद्धत्वाद्विधिशेषत्वस्य न चार्थवादाधिकरणन्यायाद्विधिशेषत्वम्, वैषम्यात । 124. The view of the māmāmsakas that all statements are part of injunctions and therefore, the scriptures do not teach about the Infinite is also not valid. Because it has not been established that all statements are parts of injunctions. It cannot be claimed that the subordination to injuctions is proved by the reasons given in the topic of 'statements in praise'; because there is a difference. १२५. स्वतःप्रयोजनवदर्थाप्रतिपादकानां 'वायुर्वे क्षेपिष्ठा देवता' इत्येवमादीनां स्वाध्यायविधिग्रहणान्यथानुपपत्त्या प्रयोजनवदर्थपरत्वे कल्पानीये शब्दभावनेतिकर्तव्यतांशसाकाङ्क्षस्य विधेः सम्प्रदानभूतदे वतादिस्तुतिद्वारेण तदंशपूरकत्वात् नष्ठाश्वदग्धरथन्यायेन तदुभयेकवाक्यतेत्यर्थवादाधिकरणे निर्णीतम् । 125. Statement like, " Vayu is the fastest God", (T.s. ii, I, I) which do not expound a meaning that is useful by itself, cannot be understood reasonably without reference to the injuction regarding the study of the scriptures. When it (the statement regarding the speed of Vayu) has to be construed as having a purposeful meaning, the question remains regarding why it is to be done with reference to injunction. This is satisfied by the praise of the God who is to receive the sacrifice. Therefore, on the analogy of the lost horses and the burnt chariot36, the two statements are 30 If, in the course of a battle, the horses of one chariot are ( ; सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 65 understood as having a common purport. This is the conclusion (of the discussion) on the topic regarding statements in praise. १२६. वेदान्तवाक्यजन्यज्ञानाच्च साक्षादेव परमानन्दप्राप्तिः निश्शेषदुःखनिवृत्तिश्च पुरुषार्थो लभ्यत इति निराकाङ्क्षत्वान्नान्यशेषत्वसम्भावना, प्रत्युत विधय एव अन्तःकरणशुद्विद्वारा तच्छेषतां भजन्त इति तस्मात्प्रयोजनवदबाधिताज्ञातज्ञापकत्वेन वेदान्तानां स्वत एव प्रामाण्यादस्त्येव ब्रह्येति न मीमांसकमतसिद्धिः । 126. But by the knowledge arising from the statements of the upanishads, supreme bliss is directly obtained and sorrow is totally destroyed. And thus the supreme value is achieved. It is thus not dependent on any other. So there is no possibility of understanding it as subordinate to or part of any other (statement or injunction). On the other hand, injunctions themselves become subordinate to it, as aids to the purification of the mind. The statements of the Vedānta, which have a useful purpose and convey knowledge that is not known and is not sublated, are thus valid by themselves. Therefore, there is the Infinite and the view of the mīmāmsakas is untenable. > १२७ तार्किकादीनां च मतं ' तत्त्वमसि ' ' अहं ब्रह्मास्मि' 'अयमात्मा ब्रह्म ' सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म,' 'एकमेवाद्वितीयं ' ब्रह्म, 'नेह नाताऽस्ति किञ्चन ' इत्यादिश्रुतिबाधितं च । 127. The view of the Tarkikas and such others is contradicted by the statements of the scriptures, destroyed and another chariot only is destoyed leaving the horses intact, it is possible to use those horses with the´ undestroyed chariot making a useful unit of two otherwise useless parts. This is the nashtāsva-dagdha-ratha-nyāya', the analogy of the lost horses and the burnt chariot. C 5 66 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु (6 " That thou art ¨, ( Ch. u.vi, 8, 7 ). " I am the Infinite " ( Ma.u. 2 ) "This Self is the Infinite (B.u. vi, 4, 10). Brahman, The Infinite, (is) truth, knowledge endless " (T.u. ii, I,I). Also by such statements as ' The Infinite (is) one only without a second " "Here there is no multiplicity whatever." ( K.u. 11, I, 22). १२८. भिन्नाभिन्नत्वं क्षणिकत्वं च 'आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः' इत्यादि श्रुतिबाधितम् । अत्र सर्वेषां मतस्यासत्त्वे प्रतिज्ञाते विशुद्धात्मकत्वात् इति हेतुः निर्विकल्पाद्वितीयचैतन्यरूपत्वादित्यर्थः । अत्र हेतुः विशिष्टानुभूत्येतिविशिष्टा सविकल्पकानुभूतिभ्यो व्यावृत्ता या तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यजन्या अखण्डानुभूतिः तयेत्यर्थः । 128. The difference-cum-identity view and the view of momentariness are contradicted by statements like, "He is present everywhere like space, and eternal." In thus asserting and demonstrating the incorrectness of all other views, the reason is "Being the essence of the pure Self." It means that it is of the nature of indubitable, non-dual, consciousness. The reason for this again is "Because of a special experience." Special is what is different from all other experiences which have objects, the non-differentiated experience generated by the statements, " That thou art" and such others. It means because of such an experience. १२९. तेन सर्वव्यापकम द्वितीयं परमानन्दबोधरूपं च ब्रम्हेति सिद्धम् ॥ ४ ॥ 129. Thus it is established that the Infinite is all pervading without a second and supreme Bliss-consciousness. 4 4 १३०. ननु ' स एषोऽणिमा ' 'अणोरणीयान्' इति ब्रह्मणोऽणुत्वश्रुते 'अङ्गुष्ठमात्र: पुरुष' 'आराममातो ह्यवरोऽपि दृष्टः' इत्यदिश्रुतिप्रतिपादिताणुजीवाभिनत्वा च न ब्रह्मणः सर्वव्यापकत्वमित्याशय 'ब्रह्मवेदममृतं पुरस्तात् ब्रह्म पश्रद्ब्रह्म दक्षिणतश्चोत्तरेण अधश्चोर्ध्वं च प्रसृतं ब्रह्मवेदं विश्वमिदं वरिष्ठं' fearafare 67 . 'तदेतद्ब्रह्यापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यम्' इत्याद्याः श्रुतयो निर्विशेषमेव ब्रह्म प्रतिपादयन्तीति पूर्वोक्तमेव द्रढयत्राहन चोर्ध्वं न चाघो न चान्तर्न बाह्यं न मध्यं न तिर्यह्न पूर्वा परा दिक् । वियद्व चापकत्वादखण्डेकरूप: तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ५॥ 130. Brahman, the Infinite, has been described in some scriptures as "That which is very small, (Ch. u.i, 8,7) "Smaller than the atom." (K.u. ii, 20) The soul has also been described as "The person who is just as large as the thumb", (K.u. iv, 12). "Is seen as smaller than the end of the needle ", (S.u. v, 7). The Infinite. is not different from the soul as described above. Therefore He cannot be all-pervading. Such a doubt may arise. But scriptural passages like "This immortal (principle) in front is the Infinite only; what is behind is also the Infinite. On the right Brahman, on the left is also the Infinite. Below and above also the Infinite spreads. This beautiful universe is the Infinite only." (M.u. ii, 2, II) "Therefore this Infinite is without a before or an after, without an inside or an outside (B.u. ii, 5, 19); indicate only the Infinite without any attributes. Thus confirming what has been said already, tbe Acārya says: » [Not above, not below, not inside, not outside Not in the middle, not sideways, not the direction in front or behind. Because It covers space and is one and non-differentiated in essence Therefore I am the one, the residue, Siva, the absolute.] 5 68 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु १३१. वियद्व्यापकत्वात्, 'आकाशवत्सर्वगतश्च नित्यः' इति श्रुतेः । वियतो व्यापकत्वादिति वा. 'ज्यायानाकाशात्' 'महतो महीयान्' इत्यादिश्रुतेः । जीवस्यापि सकलदेहव्यापिचैतन्योपलब्ध्या महत्त्वेप्युपाधिधर्माध्यासेन आराग्र मात्रत्वाभिधानात् 'बुद्धेर्गुणेनात्मगुणेन चैव ह्याराग्रमात्रो ह्यवरोऽपि दृष्टः' इति श्रुतेः । ब्रह्मणश्च सूक्ष्मत्वाभिप्रायेण अणुत्वव्यपदेशात् । शेषमतिरोहि- तार्थम् ॥ ५ ॥ 131. Because it covers space: Because of the scriptural statement, " It is all covering like space," It covers space also; or because of the statement, " It is greater than space", (Ch.u.iii, 14, 3 ) " Greater than the greatest " (K.u.ii, 20 ). Though the soul also is great because it is seen to be the consciousness pervading all bodies, yet by the superimposition of the attribute of the adjunct, it is spoken of as being as the end of the needle. The scripture says, — By the quality of the mind He is seen as being as the end of the needle though by His own quality He is great' (S.u.v,8), The infinite is spoken of as small, to convey that it is subtle. The meaning of the rest is clear. १३२. ननु ब्रह्मणो जगदुपादानत्वात् उपदानोपादेययोश्चाभेदात् विचित्र जगदभिन्नत्वेन ब्रह्मणः दुःखरूपत्वात् न तदभित्रत्वेन जीवस्य परमपुरुषार्थ प्राप्तिरित्याशङ्ख्य ब्रह्मणः स्वप्रकाशपरमानन्दरूपत्वात् निखिलजगद्भूमाधिष्ठानत्वेन कारणत्वव्यपदेशात् अध्यस्तेन च समं सम्बन्धाभावात्र तत्रानर्थलेशोऽव्यस्तीत्याहन शुल्कं न कृष्णं न रक्तं न पीतं न कुब्जं न पीनं न हस्वं न दीर्घम् । अरूपं तथा ज्योतिराकारकत्वात् तदेकोवsशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ६ ॥ 132. An objection may arise : The Infinite is the substantial cause of the world; the cause and the product are not different in substance. And so the 1 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 69 Infinite being non-different from the wonderful world, it would be essentially sorrowful. The individual soul being non-different from Brahman could never attain the highest purpose. The answer is that the Infinite is self-luminous supreme Bliss, and being the basis or locus for the superimposition of the illusion of the world, it is, in that sense only, called the cause. There can the no relation with what is superimposed; and therefore not the least trace of any disvalues like grief and such others. So the Acārya.says : Not white, not black, not red, not yellow, Not dwarfed, not fat, not short, not long. And without form being like light, 6 I am the one, the residue, Siva, the absolute. १३३. कुब्जं अणु । पीनं महत् । तेन अणु महत् ह्रस्वं दीर्घमिति चतुर्विधपरिमाणनिषेधात् द्रव्यत्वप्रतिषेधः । रूप्यत इति रूपं प्रमेयम्, न प्रमेयं अरूपम् । तेन सर्वेषामेव द्रव्यगुणकर्मादिपदार्थानां तत्तद्वाद्यभ्युपगतानां निषेधः । तथा च श्रुतयः – 'अस्यूलमनण्वहस्वमदीर्घमलोहितम्' इत्याद्याः 'अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्यं तथारसं नित्यमगन्धवञ्च यत्' इत्याद्याश्च सर्वानर्थ शून्यं परमात्मस्वरूपं प्रतिपादयन्ति । श्रौतस्याप्यर्थस्य न्यायेन निर्णयाय हेतुमाह - ज्योतिराकारकत्वादिति । स्वप्रकाशज्ञानरूपत्वेन अप्रमेयत्वात्, प्रमेयत्वे घटाधिवज्जडत्वापत्तेः । 'एतदप्रमेयं घुवम्' इत्यदिश्रुतेरित्यर्थः ॥ ६॥ 133. Dwarfed, small; fat, large - thus by discarding the four kinds of magnitude, small, large, short and big, substance-hood is denied of it. That which is seen is 'rupa', colour and form, what can be measured or known. Without form, immeasurable. By this, the different categories like substance, quality, activity etc., accepted by different disputants are refuted. The scriptures say 'Not stout, not small, not short, not long not red' (B.u. iii, 8, 8); also "Without sound, 70 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु without form or colour, without diminishing, also without taste, eternal and without smell'",(K.u. iii, I0). These statements indicate the supreme Self devoid of all disvalue. To ascertain this meaning of the scriptures by reason, he states the reason, 'Being like light '. Because it is immesurable, not an object of knowledge, being self-luminous awareness. If it should be knowable it would become insentient like a pot. The scriptures also say, " This is immeasurable, permanent" (B.u. iv, 4, 20 ). १३४. ननु कस्य ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते ? ब्रह्मण: ? अब्रह्मणो वा ? । नान्त्यः तस्य जडत्वादसत्त्वाच्च । न प्रथमः, उपदेशानर्थक्यात् ब्रह्मभावस्य स्वत एव सिद्धत्वात् । जीवस्य स्वतो ब्रह्मभावेऽप्यविद्याव्यवधानं ज्ञानेन निवर्त्यत इति चेत्र, अविद्यानिवृत्तेरात्मभित्रत्वे द्वैतापत्तेर्ब्रह्मणोऽसिद्धिप्रसङ्गात् । वार्तिकेतदुक्तं अव्यावृत्ताननुगतं वस्तु ब्रह्मह्मेति भण्यते । सार्थो दुर्लभोऽत्र स्यात् द्वितीये सति वस्तुनि ॥ इति ॥ अभिनत्वे चोपदेशानर्थक्यमित्युक्तम् । अत्र किं परमार्थतः फलाभावमभिप्रैषि ? किं वा प्रतीतितोऽपि ? तत्राद्यमिष्टापत्त्या परिहरति- न शास्ता न शात्र न शिष्यो न शिक्षा न च त्वं न चाहं न चायं प्रपञ्चः । स्वरूपावबोधो विकल्पासहिष्णु: तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ७ ॥ 134. An objection can be raised : Now who is being taught that he is Brahman, is it Brahman or nonBrahman? It is not the latter because that is nonsentient and non-existent. Not the former, because its being Brahman is self- evident and instruction would be useless. If you say that though the soul is itself the Infinite, the intervention of ignorance is being removed by knowledge, that is not so. Because, if the re1 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 71 moval of ignorance is the Self, duality is reached and the Infinite (as defined by you ) is not proved. It has been said in the Vārtika "The Infinite is said to be Reality which is neither other nor the same (as anything else). In this Reality, if there should be a second, it would be impossible to find it." In the case of identity (i.e., of the instruction regarding the Infinite is to the Infinite itself), the teaching has been said to be futile. Is this futility meant in the ultimate sense or conceptually also? If it is the former, the objection is answered by accepting it as the attainment of what is desired. [Not the instructor, not the scripture, not the disciple, not the instruction, Not you, not I, not this world. The awareness of the Self does not bear questioning. Therefore I am the one, the residue, Siva, the 7 absolute]. १३५. शास्ता उपदेशकर्ता गुरुः । शास्त्रं उपदेशयकणम् । शिष्य उपदेशकर्म । शिक्षा उपदेशक्रिया। त्वं श्रोता । अहं वक्ता अयं सर्वप्रमाणसन्निधापितः प्रपञ्चो देहेन्द्रियादिरनर्थः परमार्थतो नास्तीत्यर्थः । द्वितीयं निराकरोति — स्वरूपा वबोधो विकल्पासहिष्णुरिति । अयमर्थ: – यद्यपि अविद्यानिवृत्तिरात्मा- नात्मा वेत्यादिविकल्पने किमपि फलं निरूपयितुं न शक्यते । तथाऽपि स्वरूपाव- बोधो विज्ञानफलमनुभूयते । न चैतत्कथमिति विकल्पनीयम्, सर्वद्वैतोप- मर्देन विकल्पासहिष्णुत्वात् । न हि दृष्टेऽनुपपत्रं नाम । तथा च श्रुतिः - न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो न च साधकः । न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ 'ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीत्तदात्मानमेवावैदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत्' इत्याद्या पूर्वमपि ब्रम्ह - स्वरूपस्यैव सतो जीवस्य ज्ञानाद्ब्रम्हभावं दर्शयति, सवं च द्वेतं वारयति ॥ ७॥ 135. The Instructor, one who teaches, the Guru, the scripture, the means of instrnction. Disciple, the fagrafare object of instruction who is instructed. Instruction. the activity, the process of teaching. You, the listener, I, the speaker. This, the object presented by all means of knowing. It means that the world, presented by all the means of knowing does not exist in reality. He refutes the second by the statement "The awareness of the Self does not bear questioning." The meaning is this Though it is not possible to specifically answer the question whether the removal of ignorance results in the self or the non-self, still the result or knowledge, the awareness of the self is a fact of experience. The question "How is it?" does not rise at all. Because when all duality has been negated there can be no question. What is experienced cannot be rejected as unreasonable. Thus the scripture says, "No destruction, no origination, none enlightened, none who is trying (to be enlightened), none desiring freedom, none free; this is the supreme truth." (M.k. ii, 32) "In the beginning this was the Infinite only. It knew itself as "I am the Infinite". Therefore it became all" (B.u.b. 4, 10). And demonstrates the becoming Infinite through knowledge, of the soul which was even originally the Infinite. And all duality is negated. 72 १३६. नन्वात्मनः स्वप्रकाशचैतन्यरूपत्वे सर्वदा भासमानत्वेन जाग्रत्स्वम सुषुप्त्यादिव्यवस्था कथम् ? । न च भ्रान्त्यैव व्यवस्थेति वाच्चम् । तथा सति सर्वस्यैव स्वप्नत्वापत्तिरिति चेत्र, लक्षणतत्रयाणामपि स्वप्नेऽपि प्रतिभासतोऽविद्याकृतविशेषसम्भवात् सदसद्विलक्षणत्वेन च सविशेषत्वाद्वयवस्थोपपत्तेः । परमार्थतस्तु न काऽपि व्यवस्थेत्याहन जाग्रन्न मे स्वप्नको वा सुषुप्तिः न विश्वो न वा तेजसः प्राज्ञको वा । I सिद्धान्तबिन्दु अविद्यात्मकत्वात्त्रयाणां तुरीयः तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ८ ॥ ८॥ 78 136. But, because the Self being self-luminous consciousness is always shining, how can there be any distinctions between the state of waking, dreaming and deep sleep? It is not proper to say that such distinction is only illusory, because, in that case, everything would be a dream. The answer to this objection is that though, properly by their characteristics, all three states are dream only, there can be apparent distinctions caused by ignorance because it is neither existent nor nonexistent. In reality there is no distinction. The Acārya tells us thus : There is no waking state for me, nor dream, nor sleep, Not the viswa, not taijasa, not the prājna, Because all these are essentially ignorance, I am the fourth, with reference to these three ; I am the one, the residue, Siva, the absolute. १३७ अत्र लयक्रमेण पौर्वापर्यव्यपदेशः । 137. Here the order of mentioning is the order in which they are absorbed. 8 १३८. तया हि : अस्मिन्मते पदर्थो द्विविधः, दृक् दृश्यं च, अन्येषां वादिपरि कल्पितानां पदार्थानामत्रैवान्तर्भावात् । तत्र दृक्पदार्थ आत्मा पारमार्थिक एकः सर्वदैकरूपोप्यौपाधिकभेदेन त्रिविधः ईश्वरो जीव: साक्षी चेति । तत्र. कारणीभूताज्ञानोपाधिरीश्वरः, अन्तःकरणतत्संस्करावच्छिन्नाज्ञानोपहितो जीवः । प्रपञ्चितं चैतदधस्तात् । अविद्या प्रतिबिम्बेश्वरपक्षे बिम्बचैतन्यं साक्षी । बिम्बेश्वरपक्षे तु बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बमुखानुगतमुखस्वरूपवज्जीवेश्वरानुगतं सर्वानुसन्धातृचैतन्य साक्षीत्युच्यते । वार्तिककारमतेत्वीश्वर एव साक्षीति द्वैविध्यमेव जोवेश्वरभेदेन दृशः । 138. Thus : In this view there are only two categories, sight, 74 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु the subject and the seen, the object; because all the categories constructed by other disputants are included in these two. Of these, the subject is the Self. It is ultimately real, only one, and though always one appears as three, because of temporary adjuncts; God, the soul and the witness. God has causal ignorance as the adjunct, the soul has the mind and its impressions for the adjunct. This has been dealt with elaborately already. In the view of God as the reflection (of consciousness) in ignorance, consciousness, as the thing reflected,31 is the witness. In the view of God as the thing reflected, the witness is consciousness as the thinker of all thought, which is common, like the face by itself, to both the reflected thing and the reflected image of it. In the view of the author of the Vārtika, God himself is the witness. Thus sight has only two-fold distinction as the soul and God. १३९. तत्रेश्वरोऽपि त्रिविधः, स्वोपाधिभूताविद्यागुणत्रयभेदेन विष्णुब्रह्मरुद्रभेदात् । कारणीभूतसत्त्वगुणावच्छित्रो विष्णुः पालयिता । कारणीभूत रजउपहितो ब्रह्मा स्रष्टा । हिरण्यगर्भस्तु महाभूतकारणत्वाभावान ब्रह्मा । तथाऽपि स्थूलभूत स्रष्टृत्वात् क्वचिद्ब्रह्मेत्युपचर्यते । कारणीभूततम उपहितो रुद्रस्संहर्ता । एवं चेकस्यैव चतुर्भुजचतुर्मुखपञ्चमुखाद्याः पुमाकाराः, श्रीभारतीभावान्याद्याश्च स्त्र्याकाराः । अन्ये च मत्स्यकूर्मादयोऽनन्तावतारा लीलायैवाविर्भवन्ति भक्तानुग्रहार्थमित्यवधेयम् चिन्मयस्याद्वितीयस्य निष्कळम्याशरीरिणः । उपासकानां कार्याथं ब्रह्मणो रूपकल्पना ॥ 31 The thing-by-itself is there whether the reffecting medium (the adjunct, upādhi ) is present or not. When the adjunct is present the thing becomes the thing reflected and there is also a reflected image of it. सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 75 139. God, again, is three-fold. Because of the three fold distinction in the qualities that constitue His temporary adjunct, He is Vishnu, Brahma or Rudra. Vishnu is the protector or sustainer, determined by the causal quality of satva. Brahma the Creator has the causal quality of rajas as His adjunct. Hiranyagarbha is not Brahma because he is not the creator of the subtle (primordial) elements. But as the creator of the gross elements he is called Brahma, sometimes, by courtesy. Rudra, the destroyer, has the causal quality of tamas for his adjunct. Thus one (consciousness) alone has the male forms with four arms, four faces, five faces and so on and female forms of Sri, Other endless descents Bharatī, Bhavānī and so on. like the fish, the tortoise etc., also manifest in sport only, for the purpose of blessing the devotees. Thus it has to be understood. " Of that (infinite) which is consciousness, One without parts and without a body, forms are constructed (imagined) for the purpose of those who worship it". स एव १४०. जीवोऽपि त्रिविधः स्वोपाध्यबान्तरभेदेन विश्वतेजसप्राज्ञभेदात् । तंत्र अविद्यान्त:करणस्थूलशरीरावच्छिन्नो जाग्रदवस्थाभिमानी विश्वः । स्थूलशरीराभिमानरहित उपाधिद्वयोपहितः समाभिमानी तेजसः । शरीरान्तःकरणोपाधिद्वयरहितोन्तःकरणसंस्कारवच्छिन्नाविद्यामात्रोपहितः सुषुप्त्यभिमानी प्राज्ञः । एतेषां च खतन्त्रोपाधिभेदाभावेन स्वतन्त्रभेदाभावेऽप्यवान्तरोपाधिभेदादेकत्वेऽप्यवान्तरभेदो व्यवहियते । साक्षीतु सर्वानुसन्धाता सर्वानुगतस्तुरीयाख्य एकविध एव । तत्रोपाधिभेदेनापि न क्वचिद्भेदः, तदुपाधेरेकरूपत्वात् । 140. The soul also is threefold because of the internal distinctions in its adjunct. He is viswa, taijasa or prajna. With ignorance, the mind and the gross body for his determinant and identified with the 76 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु waking state, he is visva. He alone, without the gross body and with the other two adjuncts only is the taijasa, identified with the dream state. Without the two adjuncts of the gross body and the mind, having as an adjunct only ignorance determined by the impressions of the mind and identified with the state of deep sleep, he is prajna. Because the adjuncts which are the basis of the distinctions are not independent, these three are not totally distinct entities, but one only, which is conceived as three for practical purposes. But the witness as the seer of all, continuing in all, called the fourth, is one only. In that there are no distinctions even due to the distinction of adjuncts, because the adjunct thereof is also of one form only. १४१. अविद्यातद्व्याप्यतत्कार्यात्मकः प्रपञ्चो दृश्यपदार्थः । तस्यापारमर्थिकत्वेऽपि व्यावहारिकसत्त्वाभ्युपगमात् न स्वप्निकपदार्थवत्रिरूपणं व्यर्थम्, उपासनादावुपयोगादिति । सोऽपि त्रिविधः अव्याकृतमूर्तामूर्तभेदात् । तत्र साभासाविद्या मूर्तामूर्तप्रपञ्चबीजशक्तिरूपात् तदजन्यत्वेऽपि तनिवृत्तौ निवर्त मानत्वेन तद्वयाप्यचैतन्यतत्सम्बन्धजीवेश्वरविभागचिदाभासैः सहानादित्वादव्याकृतमित्युच्यते । अयं चाव्याकृतपदार्थ इश्वरोपाधिः । । जडाऽप्यजडेन चिदाभासेनोपज्वलिता पूर्वपूर्वकंस्कारजीवकर्मप्रयुक्ता सती शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगन्धात्मकान्याकाशवायुतेजो जलपृथिव्याख्यानि पञ्च भूतानि जनयति । तत्र पूर्वपूर्वभूतभावापनाया अविद्याया उत्तरोत्तरं प्रति कारणत्वात् पूर्वपूर्वभूतगुणानामुत्तरोत्तरभूतेष्वनुप्रवेशः । सा च स्वयं 141. The world which consists of ignorance is pervaded by it and is a product of it, is the meaning of the word the "seen" (the object ). Though it has no absolute reality, since a phenomenal reality is conceded to it, to describe it is not meaningless like a thing seen in a dream. It is useful in meditation and the like. That also ( worship or meditation) is of 77. faarafars three kinds. Because of the distinction (of the object) as unmanifest, with form and without form. Among these the unmanifest is ignorance along with the appearance of consciousness, in the form of the seedIt power of the world with and without form. pervades ignorance, the relation between itself and consciousness, the distinction between the soul and God and the appearance of consciousness in itself, divided as God and.soul, all of which are not generated by it but are removed with its removal and is, like them, without a beginning. Though itself inert it is made luminous by the appearance of consciousness which is non-inert. In combination with the impressions of the previous actions of the souls, it generates the five great elements, space, wind, light, water and earth which are characterised by (the quality of) sound, touch, colour, taste and smell. Since ignorance in the form of each earlier element is the cause of each later element, the qualities of the earlier element enter the later. १४२. एवमविद्यात एवान्धकारोऽपि भावरूप एवावरणात्मा चाक्षुषज्ञानविरोधी आलोकनाश्यश्च झडिति महाविद्युदादिवदाविर्भवति तिरोभवति चेति सिद्धान्तः । संसारहेतुदेहोपादानत्वाभावाञ्च न श्रुतिषु सृष्टिप्रकियायामाम्नात इत्यविरोधः । दिक्कालौ त्वप्रामाणिकत्वात्रोक्तो, आकाशस्यैव दिग्व्यवहारजनकत्वसम्भवात्, 'दिशः श्रोत्रम्' इति श्रुतेश्च । कालस्त्वविद्यैव, तस्या एव सर्वाधारत्वादिति ॥ 142. In the same way, only because of being ignorance, darkness is also a positive entity, produced by ignorance. It is characterised by obscuration, opposed to visual knowing and liable to destruction by light. It manifests and disappears instantaneously like a mighty flash of lightning. This is the final view of the doctrine. Because it is not a substantial 78 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु cause in the production of the body which is caused by samsāra, it is not mentioned by the scriptures while describing creation. So this fact does not contradict its being an entity. Direction and time are not mentioned because there is no evidence (of their existence). Because it is possible for space only to be treated as the basis of the sense of direction. Also because the Sruti says, "Direction is the faculty of hearing „ ( B. u. iii, 2, 13). Time is ignorance only. Because again, that ( ignorance ) is the basis of all (phenomena). १४३. तानि च सूक्ष्माण्य पञ्चीकृतानि पञ्चमहाभूतान्यमूर्ताख्यानि कारणैक्या- त्सत्त्वरजस्तमोगुणात्मकानि सत्त्वांशप्राधान्येन ज्ञानक्रियाशक्त्यात्मकमेकं स्वच्छद्रव्यं चित्ररूपमिव मिलित्वा जनयन्ति । तस्य च ज्ञानशक्तिप्रधानां- शोऽन्तःकरणम् । तच बुद्धिर्मन इति द्विधोच्यते । क्रियाशक्तिप्रधानांशः प्राणः । स च पञ्चधा प्राणोऽपानो व्यान उदानस्समान इति ॥ 143. The same five eat elements, in their subtle form and uncombined, consist of their cause, the three qualities of satva, rajas and tamas because of identity (of the product) with the cause. Together they generate like a picture a single clear substance having the powers of knowing and action, because of the predominance of the satva part. Of this clear substance, again, the part in which the power of knowing predominates is the inner instrument, the mind. This is said to be twofold, intelligence and the mind. The part in which the power of activity predominates is prāna life - prāna, apāna, vyāna, udāna, and samāna. १४४. एवमेकैकभूतेभ्यो ज्ञानकियाशक्तिभेदात् प्रत्येक मिन्द्रियद्वयं जायते। आकाशाच्छ्रोत्रवाचौ । वायोस्त्वक्पाणी । तेजसश्चक्षुष्पादौ । अद्भयोरसनपायू पृथिव्या घ्राणोपस्थौ । अत्र 'तेजोमयी वाक्' इति श्रुतेस्तैजसी वाक्, पादस्तु 4 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 79 नाभस इति केचित् । शब्दव्यञ्जकेन्द्रियत्वेन श्रोत्रवद्वाचो नाभसत्वम् । पादचिकित्सया च चक्षुषः स्वास्थ्यदर्शनाच्चक्षुर्वत्पादस्यापि तेजसत्वमिति तुं युक्तमुत्पश्यामः। तेजोमयत्वश्रुतिस्तु मनसः पञ्चभूत कार्यस्यापि अत्रमयत्व- श्रुतिरिव तदुपकार्यतया व्याख्येया । मनमश्च पञ्चभूतगुणग्राहकत्वेन तद्वत्त्व- निश्चयात्पञ्चभूतात्मकत्वमित्यन्यदेतत् ॥ 144. In the same way, each of the five elements produces two faculties distinguished by the powers of knowing and activity. Space produces hearing and speech; wind produces the tactile faculty and holding; light produces vision and locomotion, water produces taste and elimination; and earth produces smell and procreation. Among these again some hold that, because the scripture says, "Speech is a product of light", speech is a product of light and locomotion of space. We consider it proper to classify speech as spatial because it manifests sound (the quality of space ), like hearing, and locomotion as luminous because that function needs the help of light, like vision. Also because the eyes are seen to improve by the treatment of feet. The scriptural text regarding the luminosity (of speech) should be understood, like the text which speaks of the mind as consisting of food, to mean that, though it consists of all the five elements, it is aided by light. Because the mind is able to perceive the qualities of all the elements, it is known to have all these qualities and so consists of all the five great elements and is a separate faculty. १४५० एतेषामधिष्ठातारो देवा अपि ज्ञानक्रियाशक्तिप्रधानाः – दिगग्नी । वातेन्द्रौ। आदित्यचिष्णू । वरुणमित्रौ । अश्विप्रजापती । तत्र ज्ञानशक्ति समष्टिरन्तःकरणम् । क्रियाशक्तिसमष्टिः प्राणः । 145. The deities presiding on these faculties also have 80 faarafate a predominance of knowing or activity. They are: Direction and Fire; Vayu and Indra, the Sun and Vishnu, Varuna and Mitra the Ashvins and Prajapathi. Here the totality of the power of knowing is the mind and the totality of activity is life, prāna. १४६. शब्दस्पर्शरूपरसगन्धग्राहकाणि श्रोत्रत्वक्वक्षूर सनन्नाणाख्यानि पञ्च ज्ञानेन्द्रियाणि । त्वक्वक्षुषी स्वग्राह्यगुणाश्रयं द्रव्यमपि गृह्णतः । श्रोत्रमपि चक्षुर्वत गत्वा शब्दग्राहकम् । 146. The five faculties of knowing are the ear, the skin, the eye, the tongue, and the nose which are able to perceive sound, touch, form and colour, taste and smell respectively. The skin and the eye perceive also the substance which is the locus of the quality that they perceive. The ear also goes out, like the eye, to perceive its object; because of the notion "The sound is distant.' १४६ वचनादानगतिविसर्गानन्दजनकानि वाक्पाणिपादपायूपस्थाख्यानि पञ्च- कर्मेन्द्रियाणि । एतच सवं मिलित्वा सप्तदशकं लिङ्गम् ज्ञानशक्तिप्रधान्येन हिरण्यर्भ इति क्रियाशतिप्राधान्येन सूत्रमिति चोच्यते । अयममूर्तपदार्थः कार्यत्वाद्वयाष्टौ समष्टौ च जीवोपाधिरेव ॥ 147. The five faculties of activity are the voice, the hands, the feet, the organ of elimination and the organ of procreation. These give rise to the activities of speech, moving, elimination and joy. All this together consisting of seventeen components is the (cosmic) symbolic (or subtle) body. When the emphasis is on the knowing power it is called Hiranya garbha and when the emphasis is on the power of activity, it is called the Sutra (or Sutrātman). This entity which is without form is a product and as such, is only the adjunct of the soul in its individual as well as its collective aspects. 1 ( । ----सिद्धान्तबिन्दु १४८. तानि च तथाभूतानि भूतानि भोगायतनं शरीरं भोग्यं च विषयमन्तरेण भोगं जर्नायितुमशक्नुवन्ति जीवकर्मप्रयुक्तत्वात्स्थौल्याय पञ्चीकृतानि भवन्ति । तत्र च प्रत्येकं पञ्च भूतानि द्विधा विभज्यन्ते । तत्रैकैको भागश्चतुर्धा विभज्यते तद्भागचतुष्टयं च स्वभागं विहायेतरभूतचतुष्टयार्धभागेषु प्रविशतीति स्वस्यार्धभागेनेते रेषामष्टमभागेन च पञ्चीकरणान्मेलनेऽप्याधिक्यादाकाशादिशब्दप्रयोगः । 81 148. Those, such elements, being unable to generate experience without a locus of experience, the body and the thing experienced, the object; and being impelled by the ( previous) actions of the soul, combine in a fivefold way and become gross. In this process, each of the five elements is divided into two halves. Again one half of each element is divided into four parts. Each of these quartered halves of each element combines with a half of every element other than itself. Thus (the aggregate ) formed by the fivefold combination of a half of each element with an eighth of every other element is called by the name of the predominating element as space and the like. १४९. अत्र च — त्रिवृतं त्रिवृतमेकैकां करवाणि' इति श्रुतेः त्रिवृत्कुर्वत उपदेशात् ' इति सूत्राच त्रयाणामेव मेलनप्रतीतेश्च त्रिवृत्करणमेव केचिन्मन्यन्ते । ते वियदधिकरणन्यायेनैव निराकृताः । तथा हि तैत्तिरीय के तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशस्सम्भूतः । आकाशाद्वायुः' इत्यादिश्रुतेः छान्दोग्ये त्रयाणां तेजोबनानां सृष्टिश्रवणोऽपि द्वयोरूपसंहारः । तेज:प्राथम्यपदार्थधर्मीपेक्षया आकाशवायुपदार्थयोर्बेलीयस्त्वात्, छान्दोग्ये चैकविज्ञानेन सर्वविज्ञानप्रतिज्ञानादाकाशवय्वो रचेतनयो ब्रह्मकार्यत्वस्यावश्यवाच्यत्वात् । तत्र पञ्चानामेव मेलनेऽप्यवयुत्यानुवादेन त्रिवृत्करणोपपत्तिः । त्रिवृतमेवेति कल्पनायां वाक्यभेदप्रसङ्गः । 4 149. In this context, some consider that there is only a threefold mixture because of the statement of the scripture, 'I shall make each of these threefold ? (Ch. u.vi. 3.3 ) and of the sutra " Because of the I 6 farafainstruction about the maker of the threefold". refuted by the (B.S. iii, 4,). That view has been arguments in the topic on space. Thus: In the Taittiriya Upanishad it is said, "From that such self space came into being" (T. u. ii, I,I) . . . . . and so on; in the Chandogya we hear of the creation of three elements-light, water and food; two elements have been abridged. Because space and wind (energy) being substances are more powerful than light which is an attribute of a substance; because the knowing of all through the knowing of one is proclaimed and space and wind which are non-sentient must necess essarily be taught as products of Brahman; if the combination of five (elements) is accepted, the statement regarding the combination of three can be understood as only an omission of the two (which can be supplied) 82 १५०. ' त्रिवृत्कुर्वत उपदेशात् ' इति सूत्रं त्वनुवादकत्वान पञ्चीकरणं न्यायासिद्धं बाधितुमुत्सहते । मेलनप्रतीतिश्च शरीरादौ पञ्चानामविशिष्टेव, 'पञ्चीकृतपञ्चमहाभूतानि ' इति च भाष्यकारवचनम् । तस्मादलमनेनानात्मचिन्तनेनेति दिक् । 150. The sutra "Because of the instruction regarding the maker of the threefold ", is only a repetition (of the makership of the threefold by the Supreme Self) and is not meant to contradict the creation of the five elements established by reason. The idea of the combination of the five elements in the formation of the body etc., is general. The author of the Bhashya, şri Şankara, also talks of the "five great elements in their fivefold combination". Therefore enough of this discussion of the non-self. This is the direction (the way it goes). 11 I 1 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 83 १५१ तानि च पञ्चीकृतानि पञ्चमहाभूतानि मूर्ताख्यानि मिळित्वैकं कार्यमिन्द्रियाणामधिष्ठानं भोगायतनमुत्पादयन्ति । तदेव शरीरमित्युच्यते । तत्र सत्त्वप्रधानं देवशरीरम् । रजः प्रधानं मनुष्यशरीरम् । तमः प्रधानं तिर्यगादिस्थावरान्तं शरीरम् । तस्य च शरीरस्य पाञ्चभौतिकस्यापि चित्ररूपस्येव क्वचित् न्यूनाधिकभावो भूतानां न विरुध्यते । एवं विषया अपि पञ्चीकृतैकैकभूतजन्याश्चतुर्दशभुवनाख्या ऊर्ध्वमध्याधोभावेन सत्त्वरजस्तमश प्रधानाः । एतत्सर्वं ब्रम्हाण्डाख्यं विराडिति मूर्तमिति चोच्यते । अयमौपनिषदः सृष्टिक्रमः । 151. These five great elements, combined fivefold, which are said to possess a form, combine and create a product which is the basis or locus of the faculties and the abode of experiences. That is called the body. Among them, satva predominates in the bodies of the gods, rajas predominates in the bodies of the men and tamas predominates in bodies, from those of animals down to the immovable ones. Though the body is composed of the five elements one or the other of these being somewhat more or less in some cases does not contradict this fact, as the dominance or recession of any colour in any part of a picture would not vitiate it. Thus the objects called the fourteen worlds are also the products of the several elements in their combined or gross form; above, in the middle and below, according to the predominance of satva, rajas or tamas. All this together called the cosmic egg, is also known as the Virāt and as having form. This is the Upanishadic order ( process) of creation.. १५२ तद्विपरीतो लयक्रमः । मूर्तं पञ्चीकृतपञ्चमहाभूततत्कार्यात्मकं विराढाख्यं पृथिव्याद्येकैकंभूतलयेनामूर्ते अपञ्चीकृतषञ्चमहाभूतात्मके हिरण्यगर्भाख्येस्वका रणे लीयते । स एव दैनन्दिनः प्रलयः । अमृतं चाव्याकृते परमेश्वरोपाधौ । 1 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु अव्याकृतस्य तु अनादित्वेन कारणाभावत्र लयः । स्वकारणे सुक्ष्मरूपेणावस्थानं लयं इति तल्लक्षणात् । अयमेव प्राकृतः प्रळयः । 152. The order or process of absorption is the oppo site of this. The universe with form, called Virat, consisting of the five gross elements and their products is merged in its cause, the universe without form consisting of the five uncombined or subtle elements and called Hiranyagarbha. This is the daily absorption. The universe without form merges in the unmanifest which is the adjunct of the Supreme Lord. The unmanifest having no origination has also no cause, therefore it does not merge (in anything). The definition of merging is to be in the cause in subtle form. This is the merging of nature. 84 १५३. ब्रम्हज्ञानादात्यन्तिक उच्छेदस्तु आत्यन्तिकः प्रलयः । सच कारणक्रमेणैव। कारणोच्छेदादेव कार्योच्छेदात् । सर्वं च सृष्टिप्रळयादिकं स्वमसृष्टिप्रळयवदपारमार्थिकमपि वासनादार्ढ्याद्वयवहारक्षम मिति न मायिकस्वेऽपि तुच्छत्वप्रसङ्गः । यथा चैतत्तथाव्यक्तमाकरे । 153. The total destruction of all this by the knowledge of the Infinite is total dissolution. This also occurs in the order of the causation, (i.e. in the reverse order) because the product is destroyed only when the cause is destroyed. All this creation and dissolution is unreal like creation and dissolution in a dream. Yet because of the strength of the impression it is the basis of all the activity of living. Thus, though it is illusory it is not non-existent. This is made clear in the original. १५४. एवं स्थिते जागरणादिव्यवस्थोच्यते । इन्द्रियवृत्तिकालीनार्थोपलम्भो जागरणम् । तत्र च मूर्तं विराडाख्यं भोग्यं प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणषट्केन व्यवट्रियमाणत्वाद्वयावहारिकं विश्वाख्येन जीवेनोपभुज्यते स च देहेन्द्रियादिषु i 1 faarafats 85 प्रवेशात् व्यापनाद्वा विश्व इत्युच्यते । 'विश प्रवेशेने, विष्ऌ व्याप्तौ इति च स्मरणात् । अत्र यद्यापि विश्वेनामूर्तमव्याकृतं चानुमानादिनाऽनुभूयते तथापिव्यावहारिकं सर्वं विश्वेनैव ज्ञायत इति नियमात स्थूलशरीरोपाध्यभिमानित्वाच्च न तस्यावस्थान्तरव्यापकत्वम् । शुक्तिरजतादिज्ञानानामप्रमाणिकत्वात्तद्विषयस्याव्यावहारिकत्वेऽपि इन्द्रियव्यापारकालीनत्वाजागरणत्वोपपत्तिः। ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यादि प्रक्रिया चाधस्तादुक्तैव । 154. This being so, the distinctions waking and other (states of consciousness) will be explained. Knowing of objects when the faculties are functioning is the waking state. In that condition, the soul called Visva enjoys the world of forms called Virāt through the six ways of knowing, sensory perception and others. 32 Because it is the state of all practical activity it is called practical or phenomenal. The soul is then called Vişva because of its having entered The word is derived into the body, the faculties etc. from the root vis., meaning to enter or vishl, to pervade. Though, the Vișva does experience the formless and the unmanifested through inference and the like, yet there is no extension of this state because of the rule that all that is practical is enjoyed by the Visva alone and also because of the Visva being identified with the gross body. Shell-silver and such knowings are not practical and the objects of such knowings have no practical value. Yet because of occurring while the faculties are functioning they are accepted 32 The six ways of valid knowing pramāṇas', accepted by the advaitin are: sensroy perception, 'pratyaksha'; inference, 'anumāna'; verbal testimony, 'Şabda'; comparision, presumption, 'arthapatti' and non-cognition, 6 upamâna', anupalabdhi'. 6 " 27 86 as pertaining to wakening. The process by which knowing arises was explained earlier. १५५. एवं जाग्रद्धोगजनकर्मोदये च सति निद्राख्यया तामस्या वृत्त्या स्थूलदेहाभिमाने दूरीकृते सर्वेन्द्रियेषु देवतानुग्रहाभावात्रिर्व्यापारतया लीनेषु विश्वोऽपि लीन इत्युच्यते । तदा च स्वावस्था । तत्र चान्त:करणगतवासनानिमित्त इन्द्रियवृत्त्यभावकालीनार्थोपलम्भः स्वमः । तत्र मन एव गजतुरागाद्यर्थाकारेण विवर्तते; अविद्यावृत्त्या च ज्ञायत इति केचित् । अविद्यैव शुक्तिरजतादिवत् स्वमार्थाकारेण परिणमते, ज्ञायते च अविद्यावृत्त्येन्यन्ये । कः पक्षः श्रेयान् ? उत्तरः; अविद्याया एव सर्वत्रार्थाध्यासज्ञानाध्यासोपादानत्वेन क्लृप्तत्वान्मनोगतवासनानिमित्तत्वेन च क्वचिन्मनःपरिणामत्वव्यपदेशात् । सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 155. When the karma that can be experienced in waking only is exhausted and when karma arises which can be experienced in dream, the identity with the gross body is set aside by the function of tamas called sleep. Then because of the absence of the grace of the presiding deities, all the faculties cease functioning and merge (in their cause), the Visva is also said to merge. Then is the state of dream. Dream is the state of knowing caused when the faculties are not functioning, by the impressions that have got into the mind. In that state the mind itself is apparently transformed into objects like elephants, horses and such others and is known through the functioning of ignorance. This is the view of some. Others hold that ignorance itself is transformed into the dream objects, as happens in the case of shell-silver and the like and is also known through the functioning of ignorance. Which is the better view? The latter. Because ignorance only has been constructed as the substantial cause of the superimposition of objects as well as of knowings and it is ● 87सिद्धान्त बिन्दु sometimes spoken of as undergoing transformations caused by the impressions in the mind. १५६. ननु तदा मनसो दृश्याकारपरिणामानभ्युपगमे द्रष्टृत्वसम्भवेनात्मनः स्वयंज्योतिष्ट्वासिद्धिरिति चेत् ॥ 156. Objection: If the transformation of the mind as the object is not admitted in that condition it would become the subject and the self-luminosity of the Self would be disproved. १५७. न बहिरिन्द्रियजन्यवृत्त्यभावेन तदानीं मनसोऽग्राहकत्वात् तत्सह कारेणेव तस्य ग्राहकत्वनियमात् सवृत्तिकान्तःकरणावच्छिन्त्रस्यैव चैतन्यस्य प्रमातृत्वनियमात् तदाऽन्तःकरणसत्त्वेऽपि प्रमात्रभावः ॥ 157. Answer : No. Because the knower through the means of valid knowing, the cogniser, is only consciousness delimited by the mind, the mind can perceive only by means of the functions generated by the faculties; and such functioning being absent in that condition the mind cannot perceive, the mind cannot be the cogniser. तथा १५८. किमधिष्ठानं स्वमाध्यासस्य ? मनोऽवच्छिनं जीवचैतन्यमित्येके । मुला- ज्ञानावच्छिन्नं ब्रह्मचैतन्यमित्यपरे । किं श्रेयः ? मतभभेदेनोभयमपि । हि; जायद्बोधेन स्वमभ्रमनिवृत्त्यम्युपगमादधिष्ठानज्ञानादेव च भ्रमनिवृत्तेर्ब्रह्म चैतन्यस्य चाधिष्ठानत्वे संसारदशायां तज्ज्ञानाभावात् ज्ञाते वा सर्वद्वैत- निवृत्तेर्न जाग्रद्बोधात्स्वमनिवृत्तिस्स्यात् । स हि कर्ता' इति च जीवकर्तृत्वश्रुतेः आकाशादिप्रपञ्चवत् सर्वसाधारण्यापत्तेश्च न मूलाज्ञानावच्छिन्नं ब्रह्मचैतन्य मधिष्ठानम् ॥ 158. What is the substratum, basis or locus of the superimposition of dream? Some hold that it is the soul-consciousness determined by the mind. Others hold that it is the Brahman-consciousness determined by the primal or root ignorance. Which is better? Both (are good), depending on the differerce of 88888 fearafare opinion. It is admitted that the illusion of dream is dispelled only by the knowledge of the locus. Since the knowledge of. Brahman-consciousness is not attainable when one is still involved in samsāra, then the illusion of dream would not be dispelled by the awareness of waking, if Brahman-consciousness is accepted as the locus. There is also the statement of the scripture about the soul in dream, that he is the maker. Again the experience of a particular dream should be, then, common to all souls like the experience of space. Therefore, Brahman-consciousness determined by primal ignorance is not the locus. १५९. ननु जीवचैतन्यस्यानावृतत्वेन सर्वदा भासमानत्वात् कथमधिष्ठानत्वम् । 159. Objection: Since the soul-consciousness is always seen brightly, being continuous, how can that become the locus ? १६०. सत्यम् । तत्रापि स्वमाध्यासानुकूलव्यावहारिकसङ्घातभानविरोध्यवस्थाज्ञानाभ्युपगमात् स्वमदशायां चाहं मनुष्य इत्यादिप्रातीतिकसङ्घातान्तर भानाभ्युपगमात् शय्यायां स्वपिमीति शय्यान्तरभानवत् भानसामग्रयभावश्च तुल्य एव । 160. Answer: True. In that condition also a state of ignorance suitable for the superimposition of the dream and unsuitable for the shining of the aggregate (seen) in waking is admitted. It is also admitted that the objects experienced in dream in the form 'I am a man' and the like are different (from those experienced in waking) like the bed seen while dreaming, 'I am sleeping in a bed', being different (from the bed in which one is actually sleeping at the time). The absence of the accessories to perception is, of course, similar. E ! सिद्धान्त बिन्दु १६१. नन्वहं मनुष्य इत्यादिव्यावहारिकसङ्घातज्ञानस्य प्रमाणाजन्यत्वात्कथमज्ञाननिवर्तकता । अवस्थान्तरान्यथानुपपत्त्या तत्कल्पने सुषुप्तावपि स्वप्नबाधकज्ञानमास्थीयेत, तच्चानिष्टम् जामत्त्वापत्तेरिति । 89 > 161. Objection : The waking knowing of aggregates, I am a man' and the like is not generated by means of valid knowing. How can it dispel ignorance? The change of state cannot be accepted as the cause, reasonably. If such a possibility is accepted, in deep sleep there could be a knowing which could sublate dream. That is not acceptable, because it would result in deep sleep being the same as waking up. १६२. साध्ववोचः । स्वमावस्थाज्ञानस्यैव अन्तःकरणलयसहितस्य सुषुप्तिरूपत्वात्र तत्र तद्बाधः। जागरणे तु मिथ्यैव स्वमोऽभादित्यनुभवादहमिति ज्ञानस्य प्रामाणाजन्यत्वेऽपि यथार्थत्वात् शरीरादिज्ञानस्य च प्रमाणजन्यत्वादवस्थाज्ञानविरोधित्वमनुभवसिद्धम् । विशेषाज्ञानं तु न प्रमाणजन्यवृत्तिमन्तरेण निवर्तते । साक्षिणश्चाविद्यानिवर्तकत्वाभावः अज्ञानसाधकत्वेनैव धर्मिग्राहकमानसिद्धेः इति न किञ्चिदवद्यम् । 162. Answer : You have spoken well. (The state of) deep sleep is the ignorance of the dream state only, along with the dissolution of the mind and so it does not contradict the dream state. In waking, there is the exper:ence, "The dream perceived was unreal". The knowing of 'I' ( in that state ), though not generated by means of valid knowing, yet corresponds to the actual object. The knowing of the body etc., is generated by the means of valid knowing.33 Thus it 9 38 In the knowing "I am a man there are two objects 'I', and ' man'. The knowing of 'I' is not generated by the means of valid knowing because that (valid knowing) has been defined in para 84 as that part of the mind which stretches between the body and the object; and the 'I' sense being internal, that part is not there. But the knowing of 'man', being dependent on the body, which is visible, is generated by means of valid knowing. 90 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु is clear that the ignorance (in general, which produces the dream objects) is opposed to the ignorance that produces the objects of the waking state. Special ignorance, however, is not dispelled except by the function generated by means of valid knowing. The witness which proves the existence of ignorance cannot dispel ignorance, for that very reason. It is proved by the perception of the qualified. Thus everything is accounted for. १६३. यावन्ति ज्ञानानि तावन्त्याज्ञानानीति चाभ्युपगमात् शुक्तिज्ञानेनैव व्यायहारिकसङ्घातज्ञानेनाज्ञानानिवृत्तावपि पुनरपि कदाचिद्रजतभ्रमवत्र स्वप्राध्यासानुपपत्तिरिति जीवचैतन्य मेवाधिष्ठानमिति पक्षे न कोऽपि दोषः । 163. It is also agreed that there are as many knowings as there are ignorances. So even though ignorance of the dream state is dispelled by the knowing of the aggregates of the practical (waking ) state, as in the knowing of the shell, the possibility of the recurrence of the dream cannot be considered as unreasonable, even like the recurrence of the illusion of silver. Thus by accepting the soul-consciousness as the locus there is no defect. १६४. यदा तु पुनब्रह्मज्ञानादेवज्ञाननिवृत्त्यभ्युपगमः तदा रज्ज्वां दण्डभ्रमेण सर्पभ्रमतिरोधानवदधिष्ठानज्ञानाभावेऽपि जाग्रमेण स्वमभ्रमतिरोभावोपपत्तेः ब्रह्मचैतन्यमेव स्वमाध्यासाधिष्ठानमिति पक्षेऽपि न कश्चिद्दोषः । प्रतिजीवं स्वमाध्यासासाधारण्यं तु मनोगतवासनानामसाधारण्यादेव । 164. Again, when it is agreed that ignorance is removed only by Brahman-knowledge, then like the illusion of the serpent disappearing by the illusion of a stick, even without the knowledge of the locus, it would be reasonable to accept the disappearance of dream illusion by the waking illusion. In that case 1 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 91 even accepting Brahman-consciousness as the locus of illusion would not be objectionable. But the uniqueness of the dream superimposition for each individual soul is due to the uniqueness of the impressions in the mind. १६५. मनोवच्छिन्नं ब्रम्हचैतन्यमेवाधिष्ठानम् । एतस्मिन्त्रापि पक्षे अवस्थाज्ञानस्यावरकत्वानीकारान काऽप्यनुपपत्तिः । अत एव शास्त्रेषु क्वचित्क्वचित् तथा व्यपदेशः । 165. Or Brahman-consciousness delimited by the mind can be considered as the locus. In this view the ignorance of that state alone is accepted as the covering ; therefore, there is no unreasonableness. That is why it is so described in some places in the disciplines. १६६. ननु मनोवच्छिन्नचैतन्यस्याधिष्ठानत्वे अहं गज इत्याद्यहवारसामानाधिकरण्येन गजप्रतीतिरस्यात्, इदं रजतमिति शुक्तिसामानाधिकरण्येन रजतप्रतीतिवत्, न त्वयं गज इति । ब्रम्हचैतन्यस्याधिष्ठानत्वपक्षेत्रपि गज इत्याकारैव प्रतीतिस्स्यान त्वयं गज इति । तत्रापीदवारस्पदीभूतबाह्यार्थाभावस्य समानत्वादिति चेन । 166. Objection : If consciousness limited by the mind is taken as the locus, the (dream ) idea of an elephant should arise as, 'I am an elephant', having a common basis with the 'I' concept or the ego, even as the idea of silver arises as 'This is silver', having a common basis with shell. And not as • This is an elephant'. Because the absence of the outer object which is the contentof the 'this' idea is common (as the basis) to both cases. १६७. आद्ये पक्षे अहङ्कारस्य शुक्तिवदधिष्ठानानवच्छेदकत्वात् शुक्ती रजतभितिवदहं गज इति न भ्रमाकारप्रसङ्गः । अहमिति ज्ञानस्येयं शुक्तिरिति ज्ञानस्येव भ्रमविरोधित्वात् । इदमंशस्य च भ्रमविरोधिन एव तत्र भानाभ्यु सिद्धान्तबिन्दु प्रतीतिकस्यैव पगमात् । स्वप्ने तु गज इत्याकारवदयमित्याकारोऽपि कल्पित एव । उभयाकारबाधेऽप्यधिष्ठानभूतचैतन्याबाधात्र शून्यावादप्रसङ्गः । जाग्रहशायामपि शुक्तीदवार विलक्षणस्य रजतेदवारस्य भानाभ्युपगमाञ्च । 'अध्यस्तमेवहि परिस्फुरति भ्रमेषु' इति न्यायात् शुक्तीद मंशभानपक्षेत्रपि नेदमंश सत्यत्वमध्यासे प्रयोजकं किन्त्वधिष्ठान सत्यत्वम् । अधिष्ठानं च तत्राज्ञातम् । शुक्तिचैतन्यामिवात्रापि साक्षिचैतन्यं विद्यत एवेत्युपपादितम् । तस्मात्र पक्षद्वयेऽपि काऽप्यनुपपत्तिः । 167. Answer : No. Since the determinant of the locus is absent as in the case of the shell (where the illusory knowing does not take the form, "The shell is silver") there is no possibility of its taking the form "I am an elephant". The knowing of the locus as 'I' would be opposed to the illusion even as the knowing of the locus as 'shell' would be. So the appearance of the aspect 'this' only which is not opposed to the illusion is accepted as being perceived therein. In the dream, however, the form 'this' is a construction even like the form 'elephant'. Even when both these forms are sublated, the ultimate substratum Consciousness, is not sublated and so there is no void. Even in the waking state, it is agreed that the silver seen is only notional or conceptual and different in nature form the shell seen as 'This'. The reason is that 'in illusory knowing only the superimposed is seen'. Even in the view that only the — This' element of shell is seen, the reality of the ' this' element does not participate in the illusion; but what does is the reality of the locus. The locus, like the unknown shell-consciousness, in that case, is here also as the witness-consciousness. This has been explained. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in either view. 92 i सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 93 १६८. अत्र च स्वामिकपदार्थभोक्ता तैजस इत्युच्यते, पित्ताख्यतेजः प्रधान- कत्वात् । आदित्यादिज्योतिरन्तरेणापि भासकत्वादिति वा ॥ 168. In this condition, the enjoyer of the objects of the dream is called Taijasa, because of the predominance of light in the form of bile; or because he is able to illumine objects even without the help of the sun or other powers of light. १६९. एवं जयत्स्वमभोगद्वयेन श्रान्तस्य जीवस्य तदुभयकारणकर्मक्षये `ज्ञानशक्त्यवच्छिन्नस्य सवासनस्यान्तःकरणस्य कारणात्मनाऽवस्थाने सति विश्रामस्थानं सुषुप्त्यवस्था । न किञ्चिदवेदिषमिति कारणमात्रोपलम्भः सुषुप्तिः । तंत्र जाग्रत्स्वमभोग्यपदार्थज्ञानाभावेऽपि साक्ष्याकारं सुखाकारम- •वस्थाज्ञानाकारं चाविद्याया वृत्तित्रयमभ्युपेयते ॥ 169. The resting place for the soul, tired by the experiences of the waking and the dream, when the Karma producing these states has been exhausted, is the state of deep sleep. Then the mind with all its impressions, delimited by the power of knowing, is identified with its cause only (i.e., merged in ignorance). Deep sleep is the knowing of the cause only in the form, "I know nothing". Even though the experience of the objects of the waking and dream states is absent in that condition, three functions of ignorance, are accepted, as the witness, as bliss and as the non-knowing of the state. १७०. अहङ्काराभावाञ्च नैका विशिष्टवृत्तिः, सुषुप्त्यभावप्रसगाव । 'अत एव वृत्तिरूपस्योपलम्भस्याभावात्र प्रळयेऽतिव्याप्तिः, तत्र तत्कल्पनाबीजाभावात् । इह च 'सुखमहमस्वा सम्, न किञ्चिदवेदिषम्' इति सुप्तोत्थितस्य परामर्शात् । अननुभवे च परामर्शानुपपत्तेः । अन्तःकरणोपरागकालीनानुभवजन्यत्वाभावाञ्च न तत्तोल्लेखाभावेऽपि स्मरणत्वानुपपत्तिः, स्मरणे तत्तोल्लेखनियमाभावाच जामद्दशायाम स्वाप्समित्यनुभवानुपपत्तेः, लिङ्गाभावेनाश्रयासिद्धया चानुमानस्यासम्भावात् । अहङ्कारस्तूत्थानसमय एवानुभूयते, सुषुप्तौ लीनत्वेन तस्याननुभूतत्वात् स्मरणानुपपत्तेः ॥ 94 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 170. Because of the absense of the ego it is not one composite function. Because it (the presence of the ego) would lead to the possibility of the absence of deep sleep. Therefore³4 and also because there is no knowing of the functioning form, the definition does not extend to total dissolution. There (in dissolution) the seeds for the construction of that (functioning form) are absent. In this case, one who wakes up after sleep recalls, "I slept well, I did not know anything". In the absence of experience, memory cannot be accepted. The experience (of deep sleep) does not occur at a time when there was contact with the mind (i.e., it does not occur as a function of the mind but of ignorance), therefore, it is not perceived as such in the recalled experience. The non-perception of suchness does not bar its being (classed as) memory, because, there is no rule of the invariable perception of suchness in memory. The knowing 'I slept', in the waking state cannot be accounted for otherwise. Because the absence of the sign would vitiate the locus and inference would be impossible. The ego is experienced only in the waking state. Because it is merged (in its source, ignorance) and so it is not experienced and memory thereof would not be reasonable. १७१. मुखप्रतिबिंबाश्रये दर्पणे जपाकुसुमलौहित्याध्यासेन रक्तं मुखमिति तिवदहवाराश्रयसाक्षिचैतन्यस्य स्मरणाश्रयत्वादहमस्वाप्समिति सामानाधिकरण्यप्रतीतिः, न पुनरहं सुखीतिवदाश्रयतया । स्मृतिसंशयविपर्ययाणां साक्षिचैतन्याश्रयत्वनियमादहङ्कारस्य च प्रमाणजन्यज्ञानाश्रयत्वनियमात् । प्रमात्वेनैव तत्कार्यतावच्छेदात् । आप्रमात्वावच्छेदेन च अविद्याया एव ' 84 Because of the acceptance of deep sleep as a function of ignorance. 1 faarafats 95 कारणत्वात् । अत एवानाप्तवाक्यादिजन्यपरोक्षविभ्रमोऽप्यविद्यावृत्तिरित्य- भ्युपगमो वेदान्त विदाम् । तत्रान्तःकरणवृत्तिजनकसामग्रीसम्भवेऽपि प्रमात्वा- भावावरोधेन अन्तःकरणस्यासामर्थ्यात् ॥ 171. When the redness of a hybiscus is superimposed on a mirror reflecting the face, one gets the idea, 'The face is red'. Similarly, the witness-consciousness is the locus of both the concept 'I' and of the memory and the two ideas having a common basis give rise to the idea 'I slept happy'. Not because it is the locus of the qualified experience, 'I slept as a happy person'. The rule is that witness-consciousness is the locus of memory, doubt and mistake; and ' I-ness' is the locus of knowings (cognition) generated by evidence, the means of valid knowing. That it (cognition) is a product is determined by its being generated by evidence. Ignorance as the cause of I-ness is determined by its (the I-ness) being not generated by evidence.35 That is why the knowers of Vedānta admit that even the illusion generated by the words of the unattained is also a function of ignorance only.³6 In that case, though the accessories needed for generating the function of the mind are present, the mind is unable to perform the function because of obstruction by the absence of evidential value.37 35 In the waking state three is no sign bywhich the preceding state of deep sleep could be inferred. So this idea "I slept well" cannot be an inference; therefore it must be only a memory of an experienced state. 36 See note 33. 37 Sabda, verbal testimony, to be a pramana, word of an apta, one who has attained the truth. those who have not attained truth are, therefore, as evidence. has to be the The words of without value 96 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु १७२. नामादिषु ब्रह्माध्यासस्तु इच्छाधीनतया भ्रमप्रमाविलक्षणा मनोवृत्तिरेव कामादिवत् । तदुक्तम् – अत एव चोदनाजन्यत्वान्मानसी क्रियैव सा न ज्ञानमिति । एतेन तर्कस्यापि मनोवृत्तित्वं व्याख्यातम् । व्याप्यारोपेण व्यापकप्रसञ्जनात्मकस्य तर्कस्येच्छाधीनतया भ्रमप्रमाविलक्षणत्वादिति । अत एव मनननिदिध्यासनसहिते श्रवणाख्ये वेदान्तवाक्यविचारे 'श्रोताव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः' इत्यादिविधिरप्युपपद्यते ॥ 172. But the superimposition of Brahman as name and the like is optional, subject to one's will and is therefore another kind of mental function, like desire and the others, different from both illusion and evidential knowing. So it has been said, " This is an activity of the mind, because of being generated by an injunction and is not knowing." (B.S.B.i, i, 4) This explains reasoning also (as a mental function distinct from knowing). Depending on the acceptance of the (presence of the) pervaded to find the (presence of the ) pervading principle, reasoning is subject to willing. And is therefore distinct from both illusion and cognition. That is the reason why the discussion of the statements of the Vedānta, called listening, along with reasoning and intense concentration is prescribed (for achieving Bhramajnāna). १७३. तस्य चतुर्विधान्वयव्यतिरेकादितर्करूपत्वात्, दृग्डश्यान्वयव्यतिरेकः, साक्षिसाक्ष्यान्वयव्यतिरेकः आगमापायितदवध्यन्वयव्यतिरेकः दुःखिपरमप्रेमा- स्पदान्वयतिरेक इति । अनुवृत्तव्यावृत्तान्वयव्यतिरेकः पञ्चमः । एतच सर्वेषां वेदान्तानुकूलतर्काणां चतुर्लक्षणीमीमांसा प्रतिपादितानामुपलक्षणमित्यभि- युक्ताः । विस्तरस्तु वेदान्तकल्पलतिकायामनुसन्धेयः ॥ 173. Reasoning with co-occurrence and absence is of four kinds : The co-occurrence and absence of sight and the seen ; the co-occurrence and absence of the witness and the witnessed; the co-occurrence and absence of what comes and goes and the limit thereof; T 1 1 ! fagrafare and the co-occurrence and absence of being sorrowful and the object of supreme love. There is a fifth kind of co-occurrence and absence, that of continuation and distinction (being and non-being). The wise elders say that these are the indication of all the arguments suitable for understanding the Vedanta employed in the discussions (regarding Brahman) in the work of four chapters. The elaboration of this may be studied in the Vedanta-Kalpalatika. १७४. तदेवं सुषुप्त्यवस्थायामस्त्यानन्दभोगः, तद्भोक्ता च सुषुप्त्यभिमानी प्राज्ञ इत्युच्यते । प्रकर्षेणाज्ञत्वात्तदानीं विशेषावच्छेदाभावेन प्रकृष्टज्ञत्वाद्वा । तदा चान्तःकरणस्य लयेऽपि तत्संस्कारेणावच्छेदात् न जीवाभावप्रसङ्गः । न वा सार्वज्यापत्तिः ॥ 97 174. Therefore, there is the experience of Bliss in deep sleep in this manner. The experience of that condition identified with it, is called 'Prajna', because of having enhanced ignorance. Or it may be taken to mean that because of the absence of particular determinants, his knowing is enhanced. In that condition, though the mind is absorbed because the impressions are there as the determinant, there is no possibility of ceasing to be a soul,. nor the attainment of omniscience. १७५. ईशाभेदप्रतिपादनं च शरीरेन्द्रियाद्यभिमानरहितत्वेनोपचारात् तत्संस्कारस्य च निमित्तकारणत्वेन साक्ष्याश्रित कार्योपादानकोटावप्रवेशान तद्भेदेऽपि साक्षिभेदः ॥ 175. Because of the absence of identity with the body, the faculties and the like, it is described by courtesy, as non different from God. The impressions therein being the intelligent cause (of the other states), it cannot be included in the group of the substantial causes of the products which have their locus in 7 98 सिद्धान्तविन्दु the witness. Because of this difference in the impressions it is different from the witness. १७६. जागरणे त्वन्तःकरणस्य प्रमात्राश्रितकार्योपादानकोटौ प्रवेशात्तद्भेदेन प्रमातृभेद एव । साक्षिण एव चाधिकोपाधिविशिष्टस्य प्रमातृत्वात्र प्रति- सन्धानानुपपत्तिरिति ॥ 1 मातृमानप्रभेदेऽपि प्रतिभेदेहं न भिद्यते । साक्षी बबाह्यार्थवद्यस्मात् स आत्मेत्युच्यते ततः ॥ व्यभिचारो मिथो यद्वत् प्रमात्रादेः स्वसाक्षिकः । सर्वमात्राद्यभाबार्थसाक्षित्वान्न तथात्मनः ॥ इति वार्तिककारपादैर्व्यवहारदशायामपि तद्भेदकल्पनं केषांचिद्वयामोह एवेत्यवधेयम् । 176. In the state of waking, the mind is included in the group of substantial causes of the products based on the cognizer and is therefore different from the cognizer. The witness only with added adjuncts becomes the congizer, therefore, it is not unreasonable to attribute memory to it. "The witness does not differ from body to body though the cognizer and the means of knowing do differ; (in this it is) like the object; therefore it is called the Self. The variation of the cognizer and such other categories and their absence also are seen by the witness; but not the absence of itself because it is the Self." ( B.u.v. iii. 4, 54, 55). Thus, the revered author of Vārtika has refuted multiplicity of the witness even in the waking state. Therefore, the view of some who would construct distinctions in the witness in the deep sleep is to be understood only as a great delusion. साक्षिभेदनिराकरणात् सुषुप्तौ सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 99 १७७. ननु दुःखमहमस्वा समिति कस्यचित्कदाचित्परामर्शात् सुषुप्तौ दुःखानुभावोप्यस्तु । 177. Objection: Some persons, sometimes, have the remembrance in the form 'I slept painfully'. Therefore the experience of pain in deep sleep is to be accepted. १७८. नं, तदानीं दुःखसामग्रीविरहेण तदभावात् । सुह्यस्य च आत्मस्वरूपत्वेन नित्यत्वात् शय्यादेरसमीचीनत्वेन च दुःखमित्युपचारत दुःखमहमस्वा प्समिति प्रत्ययोपपत्तिः । 178. Answer : No. Pain is absent in that condition because the accessories that produce pain are absent. Bliss being the essence of the Self is eternal ever present. The hardness etc., of the bed (felt in the last instant of the waking state, before entering in to deep sleep) conventionally considered as pain, accounts for the idea — I slept painfully'. १७९. अथ वा अवस्थात्रयस्यापि त्रैविध्यामीकारात् सुषुप्तावपिदुःखमुपपद्यते । यथा हि, प्रमाज्ञानं जायज्जाग्रात, शुक्तिरजतादिविभ्रमो जायत्स्वमः श्रमादिना स्तब्धीभावो जाग्रत्सुषुप्तिः । एवं स्वमे मन्त्रप्राप्तिः स्वप्नजाग्रत् स्वमेऽपि स्वप्नो मया दृष्ट इति बुद्धिः स्वप्नस्वप्नः । जाग्रद्दशायां कथयितुं न शक्यते, स्वप्नावस्थायां च यक्तिञ्चिदनुभूयते तत्स्वप्नसुषुप्तिः । एवं सुषुप्त्य- वस्थायामपि सात्त्विकी या सुखाकारा वृत्तिः सा सुषुप्तिजाग्रत् । तदनन्तर सुखमहममस्वाप्प्तमिति परामर्शः । तत्रैव या तामसी वृत्तिः सा सुषुप्तिस्वप्नः तदनन्तरमेव दुःखमहमस्वाप्समिति परामर्शोपपत्तिः । तत्रैव या तामसी वृत्तिः सा सुषुप्तिसुषुप्तिः, तदनन्तरं गाढं मूढोऽहमस्वाप्समिति परामर्शः । यथा चैतत् तथा वासिष्ठत्रार्तिकामृतादौ स्पष्टम् ॥ 179. Alternately, another explanation is possible : Admitting the threefold nature of the three states, grief can be explained even in deep sleep. Thus: Evidential knowing or cognition is waking in waking, delusions like shell-silver are waking dream; stillness resulting from fatigue and the like is waking sleep. 1 100 fagrafa-s Similarly, the getting of a mantra in a dream is dream-waking the knowing 'I am dreaming' in the dream-state is dream-dream; when the experience cannot be retold in the (subsequent) waking state it is dream sleep. In the same way, even in deep sleep the function of satva in the form of joy is wakingsleep; after that only there is the memory 'I slept happy'. In the same condition, the function of the rajas is sleep-dream. After that only there is the memory, "I slept painfully". In the same state the function of tamas is sleep-sleep. After that the memory is of the form "I slept in deep non-knowing". All this is clearly explained in the (yoga)Väsishtha and the nectar-like Vārtika. १८०. एवमध्यात्मं विश्वः, अधिभूतं विराट्, आधिदैवं विष्णुः, अध्यात्मं जाग्रत्, अधिदैवं पालनम्, 'अधिभूतं सत्त्वगुणः । एवमध्यमात्मं तैजसः अधिभूतं हिरण्यगर्भः, अधिदैवं ब्रम्ह, अध्याम स्वप्नः, अधिदैवं सृष्टिः, अधिभूतं रजोगुणः । एवमध्यात्मं प्राज्ञः अधिभूतमव्याकृतम्, अधिदैवं रुद्रः, अध्यात्मं सुषुप्तिः, अधिदेवं प्रळयः, अधिभूतं तमोगुण: । 180. Thus, based on the soul as body, it is Visva; based on the elements, Virat and based on the gods, Vishnu. (With reference to the function), based on the soul as mind it is waking; based on the gods it is protection or sustenance; based on the elements it is the quality of satva. Similarly, based on the self as the states of the soul is taijasa, based on the elements it is Hiranyagarbha, based on the gods ir is Brahma. Based on the soul as the states of consciousness it is dream, based on the gods it is creation, based on the elements the quality of rajas. Similarly, based on the soul, it is prājna, based on the elements, the unmanifest; based on the gods, Rudra; based on the 1 1 i सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 101 soul it is sleep, based on the gods, dissolution; based on the elements tamas. . १८१. एवमध्यात्माधिभूताधिदेवानामेकत्वात् प्रणवावयवत्रयसहितानामुपहितानामैक्योपासनया हिरण्यगर्भलोकप्राप्तिः, अन्तःकरणशुद्विद्वारा क्रममुक्तिश्च । एतत्सर्वोपाधिनिराकरणेन साक्षिचैतन्यमात्रज्ञानेन तु साक्षादेव मोक्ष इति । 181. Thus all these based on the soul, the gods and the elements are one. By meditating on the unity of these with their adjuncts as identical with the three parts of the praņava, one attains to the world of Hiranyagarbha. By the purification of the mind gradually there is liberation also. But by discarding all the adjuncts and knowing pure consciousness directly, liberation is direct. १८२. तदेवं त्रयाणामप्यवस्थात्रयसहितानां विश्वतैजसप्राज्ञानां अविद्यात्मकत्वात् दृश्यत्वेन च मिथ्यात्वादनुपहितः केवलस्साक्षी तुरीयाख्योऽहमस्मीत्यर्थः ॥ 182. Thus, because they are knowable, these three Viswa, Taijasa and Prajna are products of ignorance and so they are false; but I am the absolute, the witness without any adjunct, called the fourth. This is the meaning. १८३. एवं व्यवहारतः सर्वव्यवस्थोपपत्तेः परमार्थतः कस्या अपि व्यवस्थाया अभावात्र काप्यनुपपत्तिः । विस्तरेण चैतत्प्रपञ्चितमस्माभिर्वेदान्तकल्पलति- कायामित्युपरम्यते ॥८॥ 183. Thus, within the practical or phenomenal all the distinctions are reasonable but in reality as there is no distinction of any sort whatever; there is nothing unreasonable. This has been dealt with elaborately by us in the Vedanta-kalpalatikā. We shall now stop. 8 ९८४. ननु जाग्रत्स्वन्पसुषुप्तचवस्थासहितानां त्रयाणामपि तदभिमानिनां मिथ्यात्वात्तत्साक्षिणोऽपि मिथ्यात्वं स्यादविशेषादित्याशङ्कय विशेषाभिधानेन साक्षिणस्सत्यत्वमाह1 1 102 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु अपि व्यापकत्वाद्धितत्त्वप्रयोगात् स्वतस्सिद्धभावादनन्याश्रयत्वात् । जगत्तुच्छमेतत्समस्तं तदन्यत् तदेकोऽवशिष्टः शिवः केवलोऽहम् ॥ ९ ॥ 184. A doubt may occur : The three states of consciousness and the entities identified with them being false, the witness of these could also be false because there is no distinction. To dispel this doubt the Acārya affirms the reality of the witness by showing the distinction : And because It is pervasive and taught as (most) desirable, Because It is self-evident being and not dependent on any other, The whole world is unreal but being other than that, I am the One, the residue, Siva, the Absolute. 9 १८५. 'न हष्टेर्द्रप्टारं पश्ये: ' इति साक्षिणं प्रकृत्य, 'अतोऽन्यदार्तम् । इति श्रुतेः साक्षिणोऽन्यत्साक्ष्यं सर्वं जगत्तुच्छ्म्, न तु साक्षी । वाधावधित्वात् भ्रमाधिष्ठानतया ज्ञातत्वाच्च तद्वाधग्राहकाभावाचेत्याद्यनुक्तसमुच्चयार्थोऽपिशब्द । 185. Regarding the witness, beginning with "You cannot see the seer of sight ( B.u. iii, 4, 2), the Sruti goes on to say, " All other Than that is mortal" (B.u. iii, 4, 2), Therefore, all that is witnessed, the whole world other than the witness, is unreal; but not so the witness. Because it is the limit of all sublation, it is known as the basis or locus of illusory knowing and there is The word " and " none to grasp its sublation. stands for the totality of the above and all other reasons not specifically mentioned. 4 i सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 103 १८६: ' अथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्यम्' इति श्रुतेः परिच्छित्रत्वतुच्छत्वयोः समव्याप्त त्वात् परिच्छिन्न त्वनिवृत्त्या तुच्छत्वनिवृत्तिरित्याह, व्यापकत्वादिति ॥ ' सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म' इति सर्वात्मत्वोपदेशेन देशकालापरिच्छि नत्वादाकाशादीनां च देशकालपरिच्छिनत्वेऽप्यापेक्षिकमहत्त्वेन व्यापकत्वोपचारात् ॥ 186. " Now, that which is finite is mortal" (Ch.u. vii, 24, 4) From this statement of the scriptures and because limitation and unreality are mutually pervasive, it is said that unreality is removed by removing the state of being limited. The word 'pervasive' means this. Because " All this is verily Brahman", (Ch.u. iii, 14, 1) It is taught as the Self of all and as being unlimited by space and time. Space and the like are by courtesy called pervasive because they are comparatively so, though ( in the absolute sense) they are limited. १८७. ननु सर्वव्यापकंत्वेन नित्यत्वाद्भावरूपत्वाञ्च आत्मा न दुःखनिवृत्तिरूपः, नापि सुखरूप : सुखस्यानित्यत्वेन नित्यात्मस्वरूपत्वानुपपत्तेः । तथा चात्म स्वरूपो मोक्षोऽपुरुषार्थ एवेत्याशढय नेत्याह- हितत्वप्रयोगादिति । 187. It may be objected that because the Self is all pervading, eternal and of the form of pure existence, He cannot be of the form of the removal of pain. Nor is He of the form of joy; because joy is non-eternal and cannot be accepted as being the essence of the eternal Self. Then liberation which is the essence of the Self would be only a non-value. This is answered by "Because It is taught as most desirable. " ' १८८. हितत्वं पुरुषार्थत्वम् । 'तदेतत्प्रेयः पुत्रात्प्रेयो वित्तात्प्रेयोऽन्यस्मात्सर्वस्मादन्तरतरं यदयमात्मा' इति 'यो वै भूमा तत्सुखं एष एव परम आनन्द: ' ' विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म ' इत्यादिभिः श्रुतिभिः तस्य परमानन्दरूपत्वो पदेशात् । तस्य च नित्यत्वेऽपि लोके धर्मजन्यतत्तदन्तःकरणवृत्तिव्यमयतया तदुत्पत्तिविनाशोपचार: । अज्ञानव्ववहितस्य च तस्याप्राप्तस्येव ज्ञानमात्रादविद्यानिवृत्त्या प्राप्तिरिव भवतीति तदुद्देशेन मुमुक्षुप्रवृत्त्युपपत्तिः । 7 104 अध्यस्तस्य प्रपञ्चस्य दुःखरूपास्याधिष्ठानत्वात् स एवाभाव इति दुःखाभावारूपत्वेनाऽपि तस्य पुरुषार्थता । 188. Being desirable is being a value for the person, purushārtha. "That which is innermost, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all this, is the Self." '' (B.u.i. 4, 8). "That which is great (infinite) is joy" (Ch.u. vill, 23, i ) "This alone is supreme Bliss" (B.u. iv, 3, 33). "The Infinite is knowledge and Bliss (B.u. iii, 9, 28). These and such other passages of the şruti teach Its essence as supreme Bliss. Though It is eternal, in the world it is conventionally known as having a beginning and an end corresponding to the rise and subsidence of the several functions of the mind caused by dharma. Because of the intervention of ignorance It appears to be unattained. Only when ignorance is removed by knowledge, It appears to be attained. The efforts of the person who desires to be free can be understood only as meant to achieve this (removal of ignorance ). This world which is a superimposition is the basis of all that is pain or sorrow ; it ( the world ) is itself non-existent. That (knowing) has also a value for a person as the knowing of the absence of the pain and sorrow. १८९. ननु मोक्षे सुखं संवेद्यते, न वा ? नाद्यः । तदानीं देहोन्द्रियाद्यभावेन तद्वयञकाभावात् । व्यञ्जकाभावेऽपि तत्संवेदनाभ्युपगमे संसारदशायामपि तथा प्रसङ्गात् । न द्वितीयः । अपुरुषार्थतापत्तेः । ज्ञायमानस्यैव तस्य पुरुषार्थत्वात् । अत एव शर्करातद्भोजिनोरिवेति वैष्णवम्मन्यानामुद्गार इति चेत् । -189. Objection : In liberation, is there the knowing of joy or is it not there? It cannot be the first. Becase of the absence of the body the faculties and the like in that condition, there is nothing that can सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 1 ; ! सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 205 manifest it. If it is agreed that it can be known even in the absence of the means of manifestation, that should, then, be possible even in the state of Samsāra. It cannot be the second because in that case, it would cease to have any value. Only as being known, it can be a value like sugar and its enjoyer. This is the contention of those who claim to be devotees of Vishnu. १९०. नेत्याह, स्वतस्सिद्ध भावादिति । स्वप्रकाश ज्ञानरूपत्वादित्यर्थः । यद्यपि संसारदशायामविद्यावृतस्वरूपत्वादात्मा परमानन्दरूपतया न प्रथते तथाऽपि तत्त्वविद्ययाविद्यानिवृत्तौ स्वप्रकाशतया : स्वयमेव परमानन्दतया प्रकाशत इति न व्यञ्जकापेक्षा । . 190. Answer: "No,"he says, "because It is self-evident being." It means 'Because It is self-luminous knowledge.' In the state of samsāra, the Self is not known as being the supreme Bliss because of being covered by ignorance. Yet when ignorance has been removed by knowledge, It shines as supreme Bliss by itself because it is self-luminous. So it does not need another principle to manifest it. 'यत्सा9 १९१. ननु सुखस्य स्वप्रकाशज्ञानरूपत्वेऽपि नात्मरूपता । ज्ञानस्य धात्वर्थरूपतया क्रियात्वेन साश्रयत्वात् जानामीति प्रतीतेर्ज्ञानमहमस्मीत्यप्रतीतेश्च । तथां च कथमद्वैतवाद इत्याशय नेत्याह- अनन्याश्रयत्वादिति । क्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्रह्म ' 'अयमात्मा मुर्वान्तरः सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म 'विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म' इति श्रुतेः स्वप्रकाशज्ञाननन्दरूप एवात्मा । अन्तःकरणाद्युपाधितादात्म्याध्यासेन च तद्वत्तौ ज्ञानाध्यासाज्जानामीति तदाश्रयत्वप्रतीतिः । धात्वर्थत्वमुत्पत्तिविनाशवत्वं चान्तःकरणवृत्तेरेवेति ज्ञप्तिरूपमुख्यज्ञानस्य सर्वाधिष्ठानत्वेनान्याश्रयत्वाभावात्र द्वैतापत्तिः । 191. Objection: Even if bliss should be self-evident knowledge it is not the Self. Knowledge needs an object by the very nature of the meaning of the root ('to know'). Also the idea about anything is of the act 106 सिद्धान्तबिन्दु form 'I know' and not of the form 'I am knowledge.' So how can this theory of non-duality stand ? Answer: He says, 'No, because it is not dependent on any other.' "The Infinite is that which is direct and immediate' ( B.u. iii, 4, i). " The Infinite is truth, knowledge, endless " ( T. u. ii, I, I ). "The Infinite is knowledge and Bliss" (B.u. iii, 9, 28). Because of these and such other statements of the scripture, the Self is self-luminous knowledge and Bliss. The idea, 'I know', arises from the superimposition of identity with the mind and its function. The meaning of the rest as well as the ideas of origination and destruction pertain to knowing, which is a function of the mind only. Therefore, knowledge which is pure awareness and so the locus of everything else does not need another support. So there is no lapsing into duality. १९२• तेन ज्ञानसुखात्मक आत्मा सत्यः । तद्भिनं च सर्वं जगदसत्यमिति सिद्धम् ॥ ९ ॥ 192. Thus it is established that the Self is in essence Knowledge and Bliss and only That is real and the whole world, other than That, is unreal. 9 १९३. ननु सर्वस्य जगतः तुच्छत्वे तत्रिषेधेनात्मतत्त्वप्रतिपत्तिः न स्यात् । न हि शशविषणं निषिद्धयेत, क्वचित्प्रमितं क्वचित्रिषिद्धयत इति न्यायात् । तथा च निषेधानुपपत्यैव न जगतः तुच्छत्वमिति नेत्याह, न चैकं तदन्यद्वितीय कुतस्यात् न वा केवलत्वं न चाकेवलत्वम् । न शून्यं न चाशून्यामद्वेतकत्वात् कथं सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धं ब्रवीमि ॥९० ॥ एकत्व सङ्घयायोगि एकम् । तदपेक्षाबुद्धिजन्यद्वित्वसङ्घयायोगि द्वितीयम् । तत एकाभावे द्वितीयं कुतः स्यात् । द्वितीयं च तृतीयादी नामप्युपलक्षणम् । I i 1 " farafas 107 193. An objection can be raised thus: If the whole world is unreal, knowledge of the Self cannot arise by the denial of the world. The horn of a hare (an unreal entity) is never denied. The rule is that something known through evidence on some occasion is denied on some other occasion. Therefore, denial is itself unreasonable and the world is not unreal. He says 'No'. Not (even) the one is there, how can there be a second other than it? Not absoluteness nor even non-absoluteness. Not the void nor the non-void because of Its nonduality. How can I speak of That which is established by all the Upanishads? 10 The one, which can be associated with the numerical property of oneness. 'Second' that which can be properly associated with the numerical value of two, which is relative to the idea of one. So when the one is not there how can there be a second? 'Second' is indicative of the third and the rest. १९४. ननु 'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' इति श्रुत्या एकत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते । "Brahman is 194. Objection: Does not the Șruti say one only without a second" (Ch. u. vi. 2, i), and so establish oneness ? १९५. नेत्याह, न वा केवलत्वमिति । केवलत्वमेकत्वम् । तस्याविद्यकत्वात् । 195. Answer: 'No.' He says, 'not absoluteness.' Absoluteness is oneness; (it is denied) because it is essentially ignorance. १९६· यद्यात्मन एकत्वं श्रुत्या न प्रतिपाद्यते तार्हि प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणवशादने कत्वमेव स्यादिति चेत् । 108 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु 196. Objection : If the scripture does not establish oneness, then let it, the Reality, be the manifoldness as presented by perception and other means of valid knowing. १९७. नेत्याह – न चाकेवलत्वमिति । अकेवलत्वम् अनेकत्वम् । 'नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन' 'एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' ' अथात आदेशो नेति नेति ' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । 197. Answer: No, He says, 'Not non-absoluteness.' Non – absoluteness is manifoldness. Because of scriptural statements : 19 "There is no manifoldness whatever " (B. u. iv. 4, 29) "One-only without a second" (ch. u. vi. 2, I). "Now therefore the instruction is 'Not this ; not this ' (Bu.ii, 3, 6) and such others which totally deny all manifoldness. १९८ तार्हि सर्वप्रतिषेधाच्छून्यमेवस्यादिति । 198. Objection : Then since everything is denied let It be the void. १९९. नेत्याह, नशून्यमिति । 'असत्रेव स भवति । त् अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद । सन्तमेनं ततो विदुः' इति । 'सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म 'सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत्' इत्युपकम्य, ऐतदात्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्य सआत्मा तत्त्वमसि' इत्यादिश्रुतिभिः सत्यत्वप्रतिपादनात सर्वभ्रमाधिष्ठानत्वात् सर्वबाधावधित्वाच्च । 199. Answer : 'No', he says 'not the void.' Because of the scriptural statements, if one knows Brahman to be non-existent, he becomes non-existent ; if he knows that Brahman exists, he is known as existing or good (T. u. ii, 6, I). Brahman is Reality, Knowledge — endless' (T. u. ii, I, I ). The passage commencing with 'My dear boy, in the beginning all this was Reality only" and going on to say "All this has That for its essence, That is Real, That is the Self, That thou art" (Ch. u. vi, 8, 7) and such others which establish Reality. . E , सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 109 Also because it is the locus of all illusion and the limit of all negation. २०० तर्हि सत्यत्वज्ञानत्वादिधर्मवदपि स्यात् 200. Objection: In that case let it have at least the. attrributes of being real and of being known. २०१. नेत्याह, न चाशून्यमिति । एकमद्वितीयमिति पदद्वयेन सर्वभेदप्रतिपेधेऽप्येवकारेण धर्मधर्मिभावादिभेदप्रतिषेधात् । सर्वत्र हेतुमाह अद्वैतकत्वादिति । द्विधा इतं द्वीतम् । तस्त भावो द्वैतम् । तदुक्तं वार्तिकेद्विधेतं द्वीतमित्याहुः तद्भावं द्वैतसुच्यते । इति । न विद्यते द्वैतं द्विधाभावो यत्र तदद्वैतमित्यक्षरार्थः । 'सलिल एको. द्रष्टाद्वैतः' इति श्रुतेः प्रतियोगिज्ञानस्यैव लाघवेनाभावबुद्धौ कारणत्वात् द्वैतस्यानिर्वचनीयत्वानीकारेण प्रत्यक्षादिवेद्यत्वात्रिषेधोपपत्तिरित्यर्थः 6 201. Answer: No, he says, 'Not also nonvoid'. Because by the two expressions one and without a second ', everything else has been negated ; and by the expression 'only', even the (internal) distinctions of substantive and predicative have been refuted. The reason for all this is given, " being non-dual". Being known in two ways is dual; its abstract is duality. So it has been said in the Vartika. Being known in two modes is dual; its abstract or being is duality " . ( B.u.v. iv, 3, 186). The state in which there is no duality is non-dual" This is the literal meaning. "The one seer is like water, non-dual", (B.u. iv, 3, 32), says the scripture. Knowledge of the counter-correlate is admitted as the basis of the idea of negation only for the sake of simplicity and duality is accepted as indefinable. Because of all this and since negation is known through sensory perception and the like the denial stands to reason. meaning of the expression. This is the 66 110 सिद्धान्त बिन्दु २०२. तर्हेतादृश आत्मा अङ्गुलिनिर्देशेन प्रतिपाद्यतामिति । । 202. Objection : If that is so, let such Self be clearly explained as if being pointed out with the finger. २०३. नेत्याह, कथं ब्रवीमीति । किमाक्षेपे । अद्वैतकत्वेन वागविषयत्वात् । 'अवचनेनैव प्रोवाच' 'यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते । अप्राप्य मनसा सह' 'न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयात्' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः । 203. Answer: No. He says How can I speak ?" "How " expresses the impossibility of verbalising. 20 Because being non-dual it is not an object of speech, as shown by scriptural passages like, "He expounded through silence only " (N.u.t.u. 7), "Whence words return without reaching there, along with thought" (T.u. ii, 4, I). "You cannot know the knower of knowing" (B.u. iii, 4, 2) २०४. वागविपयत्वे वेदान्तानां कथं तत्र प्रामाण्य मिति चेत् । • 204. Objection : If it is not the object of speech how can the Vedanta produce valid knowledge about it? २०५. न. अविषयेऽप्यात्मनि तदाकारवृत्तिमात्रेण तदविद्यानिवर्तकत्वादित्याह सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धमिति । तथा च श्रुतिः यस्थामतं तस्य मतं सतं यस्य न वेद सः । अविज्ञातं विजानतां विक्षातमविजानताम् ॥ यन्मनसा न सनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ and such others. इत्यादिरविषयत्वमात्मनो दर्शयति । 205. Answer : Though it is not an object, (the Sruti conveys knowledge of it) by dispelling ignorance about the Self only by the mind-function of that form. He says this by the expression, "what is established by all the Vedanta". So the Sruti also says, " It is known by one who does not know; whoever (thinks be) knows does not know. Unknown to the सिद्धान्तबिन्दु 111 knowers, known only by the non-knowers " ( Ke.u. ii, 3); " Which is not known by the mind, by which, they say, the mind is known ; know That to be Brahman, not this which is worshipped" (Ke.u. i, 5). Such passages demonstrate that the Self is not an object. २०६. तदेवं वेदान्तवाक्यजन्याखण्डाकारवृत्त्या अविद्यानिवृत्तौ तत्कल्पित- सकलानर्थनिवृत्तौ परमानन्दरूपस्सन् कृतकृत्यो भवतीति सिद्धम् ॥ 206. Thus, therefore, it is established that, when ignorance has been dispelled by the (mind) function in the form of the Infinite all disvalues created by it (ignorance) are also dispelled and He is as Supreme Bliss and is fulfilled. 10 नस्तोमि तं व्यासमशेषमर्थ सम्यक्ष सूत्रैरपि यो बबन्ध । विनापि तैः सङ्ग्रथिताखिलार्थे तं शङ्करं नौमि सुरेश्वर् च ॥ १ ॥ लघुरपि बहर्थवहश्चिन्तामणिरिव निवन्धोऽयम् । मधुसूदनेन मुनिना विहितो गुणिनां विनोदाय ॥२॥ यदत्र सौष्ठवं किश्चित् तद्गुरोरेव मे न हि । यदत्रासौष्ठवं किञ्चित् तन्ममेव गुरोर्न हि ॥ ३ ॥ बहुयाचनया मयायमल्पो बलभद्रस्य कृते कृतो निबन्धः । यददुष्टमिहास्ति यच दुष्टं तदुदारास्सुधियो विवेचयन्तु ॥ ४ ॥ इति श्रीमत्परमहंसपरिव्राजकाचार्यश्रीविश्वेश्वरसरस्वतीभगवत्पाद शिष्यमधुसूदन सरस्वतीविरचितः सिद्वान्ताबिन्दुनामा ग्रन्थः समाप्त: It is not that I do not praise Vyasa who brought together all the meaning (of the Upanishads) by means of the Sūtras (threads). I salute Sankara and Sureshwara who have brought all the meanings together even without those Sūtras. 1 112 fuerafate This composition, like the. Cintāmaṇi, the wishfulfilling jewel, conveys much meaning, though it is small (in size). It is composed by the thoughtful ascetic Madhusudana for the entertainment of those who are qualified. 2 Whatever is good in this is the Guru's only and not mine; whatever is not good herein is mine, only and not the Guru's. 3 This small work was composed by me for the sake of Balabhadra who asked much for it. Whatever is right in this and whatever is not right, let the generous wise men decide. The Sidhanta-bindu composed by Maduhsudana Sarasvati, a disciple of the revered Visveswara Sarasvati, a wandering monk of the paramahamsa order and a teacher, is concluded. ओं तत्सत् 2 ... GLOSSARY Absolute. Not related to any other in any way; not to the world as its creator, not to the word as its meaning. Not even as the opposite of relative', because that would have the relation of being the opposite of something. kevalah, ħªß:. Absolute knowledge. Knowledge without any association. Normally knowledge is associated with the knower, the subject and the known, the object. But absolute knowledge is knowledge without such association. Awareness, knowledge, consciousness, pure consciousness also have the same meaning. kevala-jnānam, jnānam, caitanyam, suddha-caitanyam, cit, cinmatram; aşıti, ज्ञानं, चैतन्यं, शुद्धचैतन्यं, चित्, चिन्मातं. This is held to be undifferentiated, homogeneous and the same as pure or absolute Being and Bliss. Adjunct. A qualifying principle that is not integral with the substance it qualifies. upadhih; : see note 6 on page 8. Aggregate. A combination of several constituents, not necessarily a separate entity resulting from such combination. sanghatah;a:. 8 114 fear-afare Attribute. A qualifying principle that restricts, limits, determines, particularizes the meaning of a word or expression. Vişeshanam, avacchedakam; fatqui अवच्छेदकं. Attributive. Having an attribute or particulars, qualified, savişesham; fazo. Awareness. See absolute knowledge above. Basis. A substance or an idea on which an idea or a statement is based. Support, aṣrayam, ālambanam; आश्रयं, आलम्बनं. Beginning. Origination. A point in time or space or substance at which something starts. adih, mūlam; ³²:, मूर्ल. Beginningless. Without a beginning or origin; without an ascertainable beginning, anadih; IFE:. Bliss. Absolute or pure joy. Not the joy we are familiar with, which has its origin in a possession, an association of or contact with another. But the pure joy that is the Self only and so identical with Being and Awareness. anandah; 3. ' 1 7 ( Glossary 115 Cogniser. One who knows through the means of valid knowing or evidence; the person or principle in and for whom such means of valid knowing or evidence produce knowing. pramāta; galar. Cognition. Knowing of the object through such valid means or evidence. prama; Ht. Combination. A relation between substances that have in themselves or in their parts a definite shape or form and are capable of coming in contact. samyogah; jat:. Consciousness. See Absolute Consciousness. Construction. A postulate, hypothesis, supposition or assumption. Something or fact assumed as existing for the purpose of understanding some other thing or fact. Its only purpose is to facilitate the understanding of the other fact. It need not be real or even exist. kalpana; कल्पना. Content of an idea or a word. The object or the fact that is meant to be conveyed by the idea or the word, the meaning of the word. vishayah, arthah; faq:, 3Tef:. Contradiction. When the contents of two words or ideas cannot, 116 faarafars in fact, exist together, they are said to contradict each other. That relation is contradiction. virodhah; FERTET: Co-occurrence and absence. In reasoning, two things are seen to occur together. Eg. Wherever there is smoke, there is fire. This concomittance of fire and smoke is co-occurrence. 'Where there is no fire there is no smoke', this is the absence of one when there is to the absence of the other. In this example smoke is the pervading and fire the pervaded principle. Co-occurrence is anvayah, अन्वयः and absence is vyatirekah, व्यतिरेकः. Counter-correlate. Where some thing is denied, it is always denied in some locus. The object denied is the countercorrelate of the denial or negation (abhava-) pratiyogi. (अभाव – ) प्रतियोगी- Eg. "There is no pot (here)." The 'pot' which is denied is the counter-correlate of the denial. Here', the visible piece of the earth's surface is the locus of the denial. Deep sleep. The state of consciousness in which there is no knowing of the external world of objects or of the internal world of imagination and thought. But a knowing of the non-knowing is inferred from the memory of that state which occurs in the waking state sushuptih; ggf:. vide paras 29, 106, 108, 162, 169, 171. 9 3 1 Glossary 117 Discipline. A branch of knowledge with its own purpose, technique and terminology. șästrah ; ™:. Determine. To delimit or confine the meaning of word to its proper object, so that it covers the object completely witbout going beyond it. Determinant. That which determines, delimits, confines or qualifies. avacchedakam; ³ªt. faratan:. Discrimination. Ability to know clearly and distinctly. vivekah; Disputant. One who holds another view and therefore disputes or challenges the correctness of other views. vadi; वादी. Disvalue. The opposite of value, something to be shunned rejected or avoided. anarthah ; 37: Doer. One who does. The mental function of identifying oneself as the one who does action. kartā; f. Doership. Identification as the doer. The abstract of or being, 'the doer', kartytvam; icar. 118 fuer-afa-s Dream. The state of consciousness in which the mind sees objects of its own creation without the help of the faculties. svapram ; t. Duality. The condition wherein another is perceived, The doctrine which holds the perceived other to be real. dvaitam; . Ego. The apparent meaning of the word, 'I'. The principle or function of the mind that identifies itself as the performer of the functions of the faculties, as the hearer, the feeler (toucher), the seer, the taster, the speaker, the holder, the goer, the eliminator, the enjoyer, the cognizer and the knower. This is what each one of us thinks he is. But this is only a transient appearance constructed by ignorance and lasting only so long as ignorance lasts. ahamkarah; अहंकारः. End of dream. Waking or deep sleep. svapnantam ; End of waking. Dream or deep sleep. jāgaritāntam ; f. These two expressions cover the three changing states of consciousness, waking, dream and deep sleep. Enjoyer. The principle or function of the mind that identiGlossary 119 fies itself as the one who experiences pleasure or pain as a result of the contact of the mind with the objects through the faculties in waking and by itself in the dream. bhokta; . Elements of matter. The division of matter into elements is based on the basic means by which we know. These means are the faculties or the senses through which all knowing occurs. These are five in number; the faculties of hearing, feeling (touch), seeing, tasting and smalling. These have exclusive fields or objects of knowing. One cannot touch a sound, hear a colour or see a smell. These basic and descrete objects are called tanmatras ('that onlys). It is held that those can not be perceived through the senses. Only when they of pancikaraṇa process become gross by the (vide paras 142, 148 and 149) do they become objects of the faculties. bhūtani; f. Essence. That which makes a thing what it is, that-ness. tatvam ; तत्त्वं. Entra-Corporeal. Other than the body which may be gross, subtle or causal. This principle is other than all these which have to be transcended one after another before reaching it, deh ātiriktam, Zfakąd. Faculty. The means by which we get to know the outer world through the mind. The ear, the skin, the eye, 120 farafathe tongue and the nose are the organs through which these faculties function. The faculties themselves cannot to perceived by the senses. indriyam; fi. Function of the mind. The way the mind works or functions in the process of knowing, each of the changes that take place in the mind during the process and the changing mind itself. antahkaranavyttih, cittavyttih;:, farerThe sanskrit expression has been translated as, 'modifications of the mind-stuff', 'modification of the mind' and 'poychosis' also. Function of the word. The way the word functions to produce its meaning. sabda-vyttih, :. Function of a statement. The way the statement functions to produce the purport or the meaning intended by the speaker. The meanings of the words of the statement have to be modified or changed so that the whole statement conveys the meaning intended by the speaker. The understanding of these changes leads to the understanding of the way the statement functions. This last is the vākya-vyttih, .. A statement or a vākya is not always just a sentence. It may be a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a whole text or even a whole mass of literature having a common purport. It is the possession of this common purport that constitutes its ekavākyatā, . After the purport is first understood the 1 Glossary 121 statement is analysed to show how it functions to produce that purport. Having another. Knowing or being aware of a second, one other than the knower. The known other may be a group of sensations and the consequent idea produced in the mind by an external object or by the mind itself without such an object. So long as one is aware of sadvitiyatvam; another he is "having another". सद्वितीयत्वं. Identify. (wrongly). To think that one is something which he is really not; like a person thinking that he is the body. Such thinking is abhimanam; ¾Î¶¶. Identity Is also the relation of one-ness in which a single entity is considered as being composed of two distinct but inseparable elements. For example a red flower is one entity, but it is considered as consisting of two elements, the substance, flower and the red colour or quality of redness which are inseparable. samavāyah; समवायः of the naiyāyikas and tādātmyam तादात्म्यं of the vedantins. Ignorance. Limited knowledge. Knowledge being infinite and real, any limitation of it, beng limited is unreal. It is not the non-existence of knowledge but is considered a positive entity which is less real than the absolutely • 122 faarafare real Brahman. This is the postulate or hypothesis made to explain the appearance of multiplicity in the one undifferentiated Reality. avidya; n. Illusion. The cause of ignorance is again held to be an inexplicable principle of differentiation. This is also hypothetical or imaginary, the cause of its own and all other imagination. It is sometimes, or in some views, held to be identical with ignorance. Like the latter it cannot be defined as existent or as nonexistent, as real or as totally unreal. It cannot be said to be the same as Brahman nor as totally different por as partaking of sameness as well as difference. As it is a postulate, all that can be asked of it is, "Does it explain completely what it is supposed to explain? Does it serve the purpose adequately?" māyā; माया. Illusory. The false, the not-real, that is caused by maya. A state of things which cannot be described as real or unreal. Not real because it is subject to change. and destruction. Not totally unreal because it lasts for some time and functions while it lasts. mithyā; मिथ्या. Immediate. Not having anything in between. Immediate knowledge is that where nothing whatever intervenes between the subject and the object. In emperical knowing sensory perception is the most direct Glossary form of knowing. This is sākshāt; of ¶å or pratyaksham; . Sometimes it is described as aparo-ksham; ³ or immediate because of the identification of the self with the mind and the senses at that level. In fact as the mind and the senses which are not the self are there between the self, the subject and the object, emperical knowing is not really immediate. Only the final It is mediate or paroksham only. knowing when the subject is the object and none other and where knowing is Being and not a relation between the two can be described as immediate. aparoksham, . Immediate knowing could possibly be described as knowing by identity. 123 Impression (Latent). Every one of our thoughts and actions leaves on our mind a mark which gives rise to a similar thought and a tendency to repeat the action under similar condition in the future. This mark is called the latent impression. It is this that causes the feelings of pleasure and pain, judgements of good and bad and all the complex reactions of the mind to the sensations that the faculties present to it. samskārah; सम्स्कार:. Inconstant. Changing, variable. vyabhicari; fand. Indefinable. Something that cannot be defined as having either of two opposite characteristics; neither as real nor 124 fagrafare as unreal, neither as different nor as the same and so on. anirvacanīyam ; ft. Infinite. Not limited, measured or finite, endless. Finiteness can be of three kinds, in time, in space and in substance. The truly infinite is therefore totally without limitation in time, space and substance. It is everywhere, at all times and everything. If it were not any particular thing, that particular thing would limit it and it would not be unlimited or infinite. There cannot be two infinites. If there were, each would limit the other because the other is not that, and so neither of them would be infinite. anantam; bhūmā, अनन्तं, भूमा. Inner instrument. The means of knowing that is inside the body, the mind. antahkaraṇam; ³:TV. Inner Self. The innermost core of Being and Consciousness, prathygatma, प्रत्यगात्मा. Knowing. The knowing of an object by a subject; a function of the mind or of ignorance. One element of the three that are inseparable and always found together in usage. jnanam; à¶. Knowledge. Knowing in the absolute sense. Not one of the 1 I 125 Glossary three inseparable elements but the principle of which these three are apparent divisions, jnanam, √¶. Knower One who knows, the locus of knowing. Another of the triad which is found inseparable. jnāta; ar. Known. The object of knowing. Another element in the inseparable triad of usage. jneyam, vishayam, kshetram; ज्ञेयं, विषयं, क्षेत्रं. Life. The vital energy; the energy that functions biologically; the vital breath; one of the five functions of the vital breath; respiration. pranah; :. Non-attributive. Not having an attribute or predicative element; unqualified. nirvişesham, nirvikalpam; Afå, facudi. Non-attributive memory. The recalling by the mind of the object itself without the association of any attributes with which it was perceived earlier. nirvikalpaka-smrtih; fufa:. Non-discrimination. Failure to discriminate or distinguish· avivekah; अकिवेकः. Non-objective. Objectless, without an object. nirvishayam,nirvikalpam; निर्विषयं, निर्विकल्पं. int 126 faarafare Non-self. That which is not the Self or subject; what is presented as object in emperical knowing. anatman; अनात्मन्. Non-sentient. Without consciousness, sentience or awareness. acetanah, jadah; ³√¶¶:. :. Non-unchanging. Changing, variable. akůṭasthah; A&cf¶:. Predicative. What is said of the thing or substantive. e.g. In the simple statement, 'It is', is-ness or existence is predicated of the sustantive 'It'. The element of the statement that conveys the predicate is the predicative element of the statement. visesana; fati. Purport of a statement. What it is meant to convey; the sense that the speaker or writer wishes to communicate or convey to his listener or reader. There are six criteria by which this purport is understood or made out. They are (1) the harmony of the commencement and conclusion, (2) repetition, (3) novelty, (4) a definite result, (5) praise of what is taught and (6) reasoning in support of it. upakramopasamharavabhyaso' půrvata phalam arthavadopapatti ca lingam tatparyanirnaye tatparyam ; ताप्तयं. Product. What is produced; what results from a given cause. karyam, vikrtih; æå. fàşfia.: ** Remote. Glossary 127 Being remote or at a distance; mediate, having something in between, indirect, paroksh; . Remoteness. The abstract or state of being removed, parokshyam ; परोक्ष्यं. Revealed scripture. Revelation that has come to us through the pure minds of wise persons, who, however, are not the authors of what they communicate but the seers,. the rshis. In popular language, the word of God; in the language of the sastra the wisdom that has revealed itself, the impersonal word, vedah, şrutih, apaurushyasabdah; वेदः, श्रुतिः, अपौरुषेयशब्दः Self. The ultimate principle; the final seer who is never seen; the final knower who is never known. The ultimate and pure meaning of the idea 'I', when all the varying predications associated with it are discarded. Pure being which is also pure awareness and absolute Bliss. The inner Reality. This immanent Reality is not different from the transcendent Reality, the Infinite, according to the advaita-vedanta. atman, sanmātram, cinmātram, brahman; ³¶¶, Ecali, Paralei, ब्रह्मन्. Self-hood. The state of being the Self or the abstract of the Self. Since the Self is itself the highest abstraction fagrafas further abstraction does not alter the meaning in any way. atmatvam; 128 Self-luminous. Something that does not need anything else to make it known or to manifest it, which can manifest or illumine itself. All objects that can be seen need the help of light to be seen, to become manifest, to become visible, or to be object of visual perception. But light which manifests other things does not need any other means to manifest it. It manifests itself. Similarly, in all knowing, the objects are made known or manifested by consciousness or intelligence. But consciousness or awareness does not require anything else to make it known, or to illumine or manifest it. It is self-luminous. svayam-jyotih, svayam-prakāṣah; स्वयंज्योतिः, स्वयंप्रकाशः. Sentient. Being conscious, possessing consciousness or awareness. Such a principle does not need any other to illumine or manifest it unlike the insentient which does. cetanam; i. Sight... Vision, the abstract of seeing, the principle of seeing. dyshțih, dyk; fè:, . Soul. The self limited by the mind as an individual. The mind, a product of ignorance, is the limiting adjunct. When this limitation is destroyed, that is when it is realized as unreal, the soul becomes the ! I 1 1 Glossary 129 Self, or is said to know that it is and always was the Self. The sense of individuality or of the limitation which constituted it is lost or destroyed, but not the underlying Reality; jivah. :. Space. When two separate objects are seem, what is in between them is space. This cannot be perceived by It this through which light and any of the senses. The sky, other forms of radiant energy move. akaşah, ³. This is also the basis of the sense of direction, dik; f. Space-clad. Clothed in space, the sky or nothing; naked. digambarah, digvasanah; दिगम्बर:, दिग्वसनः. Sublate. To contradict or cancel in a special way. To illustrate: Walking in the dusk one sees a snake lying "There is a snake" and across the path. He thinks, Sometime halts, perhaps he is afraid to go nearer. later, he sees the snake move away. He then thinks. "There is no snake". This latter thought contradicts the first thought. But he does not think, 'There was no snake'. On another occasion under the same "There is a snake". He circumstances he thinks, shines a light on the object in front and finds it is a rope. Now also he thinks, "There is no snake ". But because, with the light, he has seen the rope which looked like a snake in the dusk, he knows with certainty that there was no snake there even while he 9 130 fagrafas had thought there was one. This latter case is an instance of sublation, a special kind of contradiction where the original perception or idea is now known to have been wrong or erroneous and the object perceived is subsequcently known not to have existed there even when it was perceived. Such sublation is badha; . The object sublated is a bādhita-vishayah ; fa: and the idea sublated is a badhita-pratyayah; बाधितप्रत्ययः Substantive. Every statement has two elements; something is said about some other thing. Let us take the simplest statement, 'It is'. Here existence is said or predicated of the thing, 'It'. In this statement, 'It' is the substantive element and 'is', the predicative, viseshyam; faztozi. Suffering. Sorrow; grief; pain. duhkham; . Superimpose. . To see something as something else which it is not or to see an attribute which is not actually present in the object. When a rope is seen as a snake, the snake is superimposed on the rope. When a conch which is actually white is seen as yellow, the yellow colour is superimposed on the conch. Such erroneous perception is said to be due to superimposition and the object seen in error is said to be superimposed. Such an object cannot be described as real or unreal. It cannot be called real because it is actually not 0 €4 1 1 131 there; it cannot be called unreal because the unreal is never seen. The error is discovered when the defect in the means of perception is removed and the real object seen as it is. The defect that causes the error in non-sensory perception or apprehension is called ignorance or nescience, avidya, ³. Such superimposition is adhyāsah or adhyaropah; अध्यासः; अध्यरोपः. Glossary Undifferentiated. Wherein no distinction actual or conceptual is possible; indivisible; undivided; the same everywhere or throughout; akhandam, que. Value. Something to be sought, the source of satisfaction. arthah; ³²f:. Variable. Changing; subject to change or variation; not the same at all times and at all places anekantikam ; अनेकान्तिकं. Vital breath. The breath of life. pranah; T: Waking. The state of consciousness in which external objects are experienced through the faculties and the mind. Empirically considered as the state wherein knowing the truth is possible. With reference to this the other two states are considered false or untrue. jagrat ; जाग्रत्. --1 Page Para- Line graph 2 Nig sngg do do do 6 8 do do ५ do note 1 4 note 2 5 5 do do 10 do do do 12 do 13 14 do 15 17 18 19 do. ३ do 20 do 4 do do ८ ६ 1 do 8 note 4 note 7 note 10 11 17 ९ १० do 10 12 do १५ १९ note १९ 24 1 7 9 2 शुद्वेण्यात्मानि 3 शस्त्री येण 2 be' 4 ERRATA For २८ 1 29 1 ३३ 1 ३२ 1 ३४ 1 एतानुभावनु... agnyābhāna e.g. e.g. जीवब्राह्मणोः सद्वितीयत्वाम्मां kuşi implied ; substantative upadhi viseshana 1 वाक्यार्थ: बोधे 1 .... साक्षात्कार 1 शास्त्रताप्पय 2 ....मोक्ष भगितया 9 तदेकोऽवशिष्ट: 10 lights 3 ....भ्युपगमातू 1 प्राणमनसौर्निरास: 1 momentarines, 1 कर्तृत्व.... non-existance आत्मोति "The meaning विभति दृष्टेष्टरं प्रमाश्तयात Read शुद्धेप्यात्मनि शास्त्रीयेण be एतावुभावनु agnyādhāna E.g. E.g. जीवब्रह्मणोः सद्वितोयत्वाभ्यां kāşi implied substantive upädhi viseshana. वावयार्थ बोधे साक्षात्कारं शास्त्रतासर्यं मोक्षभागितया तदकोऽवशिष्ट : light ....भ्युपगमात् प्राणमनसोर्निरासः momentariness, कतृत्व. non-existence आत्मेति The meaning 'विभाति दृष्टेर्दष्टा प्रमश्तयान .... ▸ 134 21 21 do 22 do do do do do do do do 28 do 24 do do do do 25 do 26 27 do do do do do ' ३९ ४१ do 43 ४३ do do do 3 do 4-5 46 do do do do ४७ ४८ note do 10 do 18 do 8 note 13 note 14 15 17 18 19 20 2 1 lart 40 dd : do 3 -50 4 8 1 1 2 do.. do 5 (after) "Illusion.. Lord" Siddhantabindu बै लक्षणण्य.... चक्षुषोsषेक्षणात् नान्यादित्य.... 28 51 16 29 ५४ do ५५ do Eevn बभूवा ....करोति इत्यादिश्रुतिः । इतिस्मृतिः । "He is seen as one and... the moon in the water" (N.u. 4, 12 ) . . ५५ 3 (B.u, ii, 12) (B.s. iii, 2, 10) % तमेव '.... स्वप्रकाशात्मानि begining, ess 1. हृद्यन्त र्जोति: 5 इत्यद्या 5 8 '7 (B.u. iv, 41, 9) ....तत येवानात्मानि..... (ch.u. viii, 7, 2) 12. (B.u. iv, 1, 15 ) orgination Sankshepasāriraraka Sureśvracharya Sankshepasāriraka Sureşvarācārya (M.u. ii, 2, 8) (M.u. ii, 1, 8) (Su.u. vii, 8, 1, 13 ) ( S. u. iii, 8 ) (Ch.u. vii, 8, 1, 13 ) ( chu vii, 1, 3 ) (B.u. iv, 4, 2) (B.u. iii, 4, 2) (B.u. iv, 4, 19) ....ततयैवानात्मनि.... स्वप्रकाशात्मनि beginningless हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः इत्याद्या अकर्त्रभोवतृ..... ( B.u. iv, 3, 7) अकर्तृभोक्त.... ( Buiv, 4, 7). : 3 ...त्मेत्ययाः 8 स्कलल्पनीय कल्पामान वेलक्षण्य .... चक्षुषोऽपेज्ञणात् नान्यदित्य.... 1 Even बभूव । .... करोति । इत्यादिश्रुतिः । Read this after : "Illusion Maya cuates the appeacenes of the Soul and the Lord" (B.b.u. 12). (Add) (N.u. 9). (T.u. ii, 6, 1) (B.s. ii 3, 50) 'तमेव.. : (ch.u. viii, 7, 1) ( B.u. iv, 3, 15) : origination त्मेत्याद्यां कल्पनीयं कल्पमान30 do 31 do do do do 32 do 33 do do 34 do 35 36 37 do • 55 5 ५६ 2 ५७ 2 do do do 43 44 do 58 do do do 45 do 46 47 do do 48 ६० ६१ do 63 ६४ ६५ ६६ ६७ 41 note 42 79 note ७२ do ७३ 73 do 8 8 15 8 10 2 1 3 11 4 ६८ :3 38 70 do 71 7 Pratibimbavada do note 1 Pratibimba Vada 39 5 जीवभेद भ्रान्ति: ' do 1. Protype 40 7 (-values represent Errata Conciousness धार्मि.... "देवात्मशकिं स्वगुणौनिंगूढां" 27202723 तद्विशिष्टें mvya ( s.u. 1, 10 ) suprimposition atributes प्रेम चिदाचि.... अवश्यामित.... Suprimposition .... त्वाभिधनाच्च ....विवेकः जीव: तत् अविविक्तं नौsan आभासावाद 3 protype they) to regarded 5 means dues ... सर्वभासकत्वात् सर्वज्ञ 1 last ७४ 7 देहविषषय.... do 11. .... वच्छिनचिदंशा : 85 last differenoe ८६ ८७ do 90 धर्माधिमा .. नान्तैः करण.... do ... मात्रण 2 (and the like) Consciousness धर्मि... "देवात्मशक्ति वगु नंगू तद्विशिष्टे māyā (s.u. 1, 10). superimposition attributes प्रेम.... चिचि.... . अवश्य मित.... superimposition • त्वाभिधानाच्च' .....विवेकाशीवः तदविविक्तं नोSनथा आभासवाद prototype Pratibimbavada Pratibimbavāda जीवभेदभ्रान्ति:, Prototype .....values they represent) to be regarded ments ir does सर्वभासकत्वात् सर्वज्ञ देहविषय ...वचित्रचिदंशः difference धर्माधर्मा नान्तःकरण..... ... मात्रेण and the like 135 138 48 49 do 50 do do 51 do do do do do 53 do do 54 do 55 do do do do ९१ ९३ 93 94 note do 85 do do do ९६ do 98 99 do १०० ૧૦૧ 102 do do do 2 4 2 57 104 do १०५ 58 106 ९९० 1 Sacriptural 4 dispells 5 as do 8 do 1 2 4 4 2 4 289 १०३ 7 do 103 1 do do do 56 do 5 do do do do 19 14 वस्तुति .....इर्न्यवादर्शन statements. non-existance 59 १०९ do do do 100 1 do do 7 do note last 60 ९१३ ૧ Siddhantabindu cornch directions is removed ....च्छित्रसा जाना self as self .. बुद्धिस्तेपां वेदप्रामाण्यार्थ or after ? Classes' yoga Siva .... सस्तस्म्य २०४ 6 6 1 6 1 स्यूनिखनन्यायेन 1 ....मशनाधतीत do do blassess Brahmanclassess other's तदैकोवशिष्टः Siva १०1 candala no candala यद्वह्म verseis (ch.u. vi, B. 1) sthuna-nikhanana.. पशुपतिरैव वस्तुनि .... रन्यवादर्शन statements, non-existence Scriptural dispels and conch directions should be removable ....च्छिन्नसाजानाSelf on Self ... बुद्धिस्तेषां वेदप्रामण्यार्थं or after ?" Classes yoga Siva .... सस्तस्य blasses Brāhmanaclasses others तदेकोऽवशिष्ट: 1 Şiva २०५ candāla no candāla स्थूणानिखननन्यायेन ....मशनाद्यतीतं यद्ब्रह्म verse is (ch.u. vi, 8, 1) sthuna-nikhanana.. पशुपतिरेव is M 1 1 I 80 do 61 do 62 do 63 do 64 do do do do do do do 65 66 do do 113 do 115 116 121 do १२५ do 125 do d'o do 127 do .the Absolute . ९२२ 5 एतदात्ममिदं सर्व 122 7 self 123 1 Saivas 2 कल्पानीये 3 ... भूतदे वतादि.... 1 statement do do do do do do do ९३० 67 १३० do 130 do do do do do do 68 १३१ do do 69 132 do do do do do do 183 70 do do १३४ १३३ १३३ do 1 4 (by 3 5 8 12 Pasupati 4 6 9 1 2 do 5 Tridandins 'Speech Not the.. 6. Errata Vayu injuction Vayu God 6 (k.u. 11, 1, 22) 3 4 2 (ch.u. i, 8, 7) (S.u.v, 7) infinite 4 Tarkikas ( Ma. u. 2 ) (B.u. vi, 4.10 ) without a second" इत्याशय तिर्यह 14 15 (M.u. ii, 2, II) 1 ..दिति वा 4 .....भिधानात, 12 15 1 . Not white.. ....the absolute स्वं॑ 'अस्यूलमनण्व.. 8 घटाधिव.... 4 rupa 2 ( ku iii, 10) 6 बह्मह्मेति Pasupati (by Tridandins 'Speech [Not the.. the Absolute.] 'एतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं Self Saivas : कल्पनीये . भूतदेवतादि.... ... stetements Vāyu injunction Vāyu : Diety Tärkikas → (B.u. i, 4, 10) (B.u. i1, 5, 19) ..second" 137 (ch.u. vi, 2, 1), (k.u. ii, 1, 11) इत्याशक्य तिर्यङन (ch.u. vi, 8, 7) (S.u. v, 8) Infinite (M.u. ii, 2, 11) .....दति वा । .....भिधानांत । [Not white.. .....the Absolute.] हस्वं 'अस्थूलमनण्व.... घटादिव.... rūpa (k.ū. i, 3, 15) होत 186 48 49 ९३ do 93 50 94 do note do do 51 do do do do do 53 do do 54 do 55 do do do do do do 58 do do ९१ 85 do do do ९६ do 98 99 do १०० ૧૦૧ 102 do do do 2 वस्तुति 4 ......इर्न्यवादर्शनं 2 statements. 4 non-existance 1 Sacriptural 4 dispells 5 do ९९० 4 2 8 19 14 १०३ 7 103 1 do do do 5 do do cornch 6 directions do is removed ....चिझनसा 1 2 जाना 4 self 4 as self 8 as 100 1 do note ९१३ Siddhantabindu 7 last १ बुद्धिस्तेपां वेदप्रामाण्यार्थ or after ? Classes' yoga Siva २०४ 6 तदैकोवशिष्टः 57 104 6 Siva do १०५ 1 १०1 58 106. 6 59 १०९ 1 do 1 do do do do do do 60 ....सस्तस्स्य blassess Brahmanclassess other's candala no candala स्यूणनिखनन्यायेन ....मशनाधतीत यद्वह्म verseis (ch.u. vi, B. 1) sthuna-nikhanana.. पशुपतिरैव वस्तुनि .... रन्यनादर्शनं statements, non-existence Scriptural dispels and conch directions should be removable ....च्छिन्नसाजानाSelf on Self ... बुद्धिस्तेषां वेदप्रामण्यार्थं or after ? " Classes yoga Şiva .... सस्तस्य blasses Brāhmanaclasses others तदेकोऽवशिष्ट: Şiva २०५ candāla no candāla स्थूणानिखननन्यायेन ....मशनाद्यतीतं यद्ब्रह्म verse is (ch.u. vi, 8, 1) sthuna-nikhanana.. पशुपतिं रेव 20 । 1 । 1 1 ; 60 do 61 do 62 do 63 do 64 do do do do do do do 65 68 do do 113 do 115 116 121 do ९२२ 122 7 123 1 2 १२५ do 125 127 do 1 do do do d'o do do do do do do ९३० 67 १३० do 130 do do do do do do 68 do १३१ do 182 do 69 do do १३३ do do do १३३ do 1 Pasupati 4 (by 133 do TO do १३४ 3 5 'Speech 6 12 5 3 4 8 9 1 2 do 5 6 2 6. 14 15 1 12 15 1 4 8 Tridandins Errata Not the.. . the Absolute एतदात्ममिदं सर्व self Saivas कल्पानीये .. भूतदे वतादि.... statement Vayu injuction Vayu God Tarkikas ( Ma. u. 2 ) ( B.u. vi, 4.10 ) without a second" . (k.u. 11, 1, 22) इत्याशय तिर्यह (ch.u.i, 8, 7) (S.u. v, 7) infinite ( M.u. ii, 2, II ) .. दिति वा .... भिधानात, Not white.. ....the absolute ह्रस्वं 'अस्यूलमनण्व.. घटाधिव.... rupa 2 (k.u iii, 10) बह्यह्मेति Pasupati (by Tridandins ' Speech [Not the.. the Absolute.] 'एतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं Self Saivas : कल्पनीये .. भूतदेवतादि.... stetements Vāyu injunction Vāyu : Diety Tärkikas ( B.u.i, 4, 10) ( B.u. i1, 5, 19) ..second" (ch.u. vi, 2, 1), ( ku. ii, 1, 11) इत्याशक्य तिर्यहन ( chu. vi, 8, 7 ) (S.u. v, 8) Infinite 137 (M.u. ii, 2, 11 ) ... । दति वा । .... भिधानात् । [Not white.. ....the Absolute.] ह्रस्व 'अस्थूलम नण्व.... धटादिव.... rūpa (k.i. i, 3, 15) ब्रह्मेति 138 71 134 do १३५ 72 135 73 138 do do do ९३७ do १३९ do do do १४९ do do do do do 140 78 do do १४१ do do do 147 81 १४८ do १४९ 21 12 16 1 7 8 7 78 142 8 do १४३ 5 do 143 13 do १४४ 80 १४५ 3 83 १५२ 1 3 सप्नाभिमानी 4 2 1 2 1 1 ....ignorance is the Self, उपदेशकणम् ( B.u. b, 4, 10) There is no .... ....the absolute वादिपरि लीलायेवा.... निष्कळस्या.... स्वोपा ध्यबान्तर.... 60 1 82 149 2 do do 16 2 Siddhantabindu do San.147 1 ९४६ do ९४७ do do ....संस्कारवच्छिन्ना.... visva visva - स्वप्निक.. पूर्वपूर्वकंस्कार.. Sruti पच्चधा life-prāna ज्ञानकिया.. शब्दमा हकम् । 4 7 hiranya 4 क्रियाशति... ....द्वयाष्टौ.... तद्भागचतुष्टये - सृष्टि श्रवणो (B.s. iji, 4) ....supplied) अपञ्चीकृतषञ्चभू.... ..ignorance is other than the Self, उपदेशकरणम् (B.u. i, 4, 10) [There is no waking.... ....the Absolute] वादिपरिलीलयैवा.... निष्कलस्या.... सोपाध्यवान्तर.... स्वप्नाभिमानी संस्कारावच्छिन्ना.... visva visva स्वाप्निक.. पूर्वपूर्वसंस्कार.. Șruti पञ्चधा : life-divided fivefold as prāņa ज्ञानक्रिया.. शब्दग्राहकम् । दूरे शब्द इति प्रत्ययात् ९४७ क्रियाशक्ति.... द्वयष्टौ hiranya तद्भागचतुष्टयं सृष्टिश्रवणेsपि ( B.s. ii, 4, 20) ....supplied). If the threefold only is accepted there is the possibility of incompatible meanings of the same topic. अपञ्चीकृतपञ्चभू.... 1 84 152 do do 86 १५५ 87 १५७ do do 88 158 89 १६१ 90 १६४ 91 १६६ do १६७ do do 92 do do do do 187 98 १७६ do do 2 6 do 176 99 १७८ do १७९ 100 179 do १८० do 180 101 182 do 188 do १८४ 102 184 1 1 2 9 1 5 १ 2 94१७१ 95 note 35 1 97 173 6 do do 8 7-8 do 174 2 6 18 5 6 1 virāt 14 3 7 Hiranyagorbha ... जनकमा दये 3 तत्सह कारेणेव maker. प्रामाणा.. 2 5 Errata पुनब्रह्मज्ञाना..... चेत्त । अद्येपक्षे.... तभितिव.. शून्यावाद.. .. चैतन्यामिवा.. seen'. Even आप्रमात्वाव.. 1 7 three Vedanta SCR बबाह्यार्थ .. यद्गत् in the deep sleep Vedantakalpalalika. ...is absorbed because ....as the determinent, there is no....soul, nor the attainment of omniscience, सुह्यस्य तामसी Väsishtha अध्याम्मं Vishnu Visva.. Prajna Vedanta.... viraţ ....सुषुप्त चवस्था ..... And because... Hiranyagarbha .... जनककमा दये तत्सहकारेणैव maker ( B.u. iv, 3, 10). प्रमाणा.. पुनर्ब्रह्मज्ञाना.... चेत् । नः आद्ये पक्षे.... तमितिव . शून्यवाद... ... चैतन्य मिवा.. seen (s.s.i, 36):'. Even अप्रमत्याव.. there Vedanta: Vedāntakalpalatikā is absorbed, there is no posibility....soul, nor of the attainment of omniscience, because the impressions are there as the determinent. ! . बाह्यार्थ... यंद्वत् in deep sleep 139 सुखस्य राजसी Vas ishtha अध्यात्म Vishnu Visva....Prājna Vedanta.... ...सुषुप्त्य वस्था.... [And because.... endri MOS 140 102 184 12 103 186 2 104 188 5. 105 189 8 do 190 ** 106 191 12 do do 14 9 14 4 6 2 107 198 do do 108 197 do do do 199 do do 5 110 292 5 do 204 2 do 205 5 111 After208 1 do do 2 do do do do do 15 112 do 4 do do 13 do do 14 3 113 3 119 3 1 do do 120 2 4 123 1 do do 126 do do 127 do do 129 130 11258g123I2 do do 8 Siddhantabindu Absolute. 24, 4) (ch.u. vill, 23, 1) Vishnu "because it.. rest knowledge Not (even upanishads ? 3 these 1 (B.u. 4.1.29) (B.u. i, 3, 6 if one knows. ...good (T. ii, 1.1). (N.u.t.u. 7) Vedanta Vēdanta" ....मर्थ ....ताखिला थें सुरेश्वरच Sankara Madhusudana Sidhantabindu Visvesvara उपाधि : su. Entra-corporcal 'purvata 10 dopapatti posoksh; परोयं. sastra seem antahkaranavṛttih of साक्षात् immediate. Condition ...samhasava... 8 viseshyam Alsolute.] 24, 1). (ch.u. vii, 23, 1) Vishnu "Because it.... root the main Knowledge [Not (even upanishads ?] (B.u. 4.1.19) (B.u. ii, 3, 6) "If one knows.. good" (T.u. ii, 1, 1) (N.u. 7) Vedānta Vedānta" .... मथं ..नाखिलाथं सुरेश्वर च Şankara Madhusudana Siddhantabindu Vişveşvara उपाधि : See Extra-corporcal antahkaranavrttih those साक्षात् immediate Conditions ....samhārāva 'purvatā do apatti pasoksha; पारोक्ष्य şastra seen vişeshyam ரவிலூர் ஆண்டவர் A.No. 0.618.3. R65(8) கலகம், கேரவிலூம். *** PRAS SORE MYSORE SOR F ITA RAS RE 150 NG 47.3 Berte RANGA SARE NGA MYSOAL RASARA NG MYSORE RE O 417 NGA MYSORE 104 304 MYSORE ray so SARANDA FRONT BR 485 AMO CASARANG UME Vso ORE 104 MYSORE PRASARA BASARA 417 PRASAR The translator, Swami Achalananda Sarasvati is an advaitin monk. Retiring from the service of the Government he took to spiritual life earnestly under the guidance of Srimat Swami Yatiswaranandaji Maharaj of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission who was then the President of the Ramakrishna Ashrama at Bangalore. Early in 1966 he was ordained as a sanyasin by Srimat Swami Chidananda Sarasvati Maharaj, President of the Divine Life Society. He is a keen student of the Vedanta and is trying to share his understanding with fellow-seekers by translations of some of the classics of that Sastra. A FEW TITLES ON PHILOSOPHY 1. Aspects of Bhakti-K. C. Varadachari 2. Yoga a Therapeutic Fact--Swami Adidevananda 3. Advaita as Philosophy and Religion - Dr. K. B. Ramakrishna Rao 4. Is Bhagavadgeetha Antiquated ?-Swamy Chidbhavananda 5. Philosophy of Evolution-Western and Indian: Thakur Jaidev Singh Vedanta Delights of Being-N. A. Nikam 6. 7. The Insights of Advaita-Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan 8. The Four Values in Indian Philosophy and CultureDr. P. Nagaraja Rao 9. Mystics Awareness-Dr. K. B. Ramakrishna Rao 10. Two Trends in Indian Philosophy Deviprasad Chattopadhyaya 11. Dvaita Philosophy and Its Place in the Vedanta-H. N. Raghavendrachar 12. The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and other Essays Philosophy and Social-A. R. Wadia 13 Brahma Mimamsa Vol. I-H. N. Raghavendrachar 14. Naiskarma Siddhi-S. S. Raghavachar 15. The Concept of Cosmic Harmony in the Rg-VedaG. N. Chakravarthy 16. Contributions to Interpretation of Rg-Veda-Dr. A. Venkatasubbaiah 17. The Karma Theory-N. N. Bhide 18. The Philosophy of A. N. Whitehead-L. V. Rajagopal 19. Sankhya-Dr. K. B. Ramakrishna Rao 20. Vishishtadvaita-N. S. Anantharangachar