उद्भूतरुपवत्त्वं न प्रतिबिम्बनोपाधिताप्रयोजकम् ;
The visibility of the reflecting medium does not confer the capacity of reflection upon the medium.
अस्वच्छेऽपि लोष्टादौ प्रतिबिम्बापत्ते:, किंतु स्वच्छत्वम्,
Because even an unrefined surface surface (that is visible) would have the capacity to reflect then. Rather, it is the refinement of the medium that determines its capacity to reflect.
तच्च प्रकाशस्वभावत्वेन मनसस्तत्परिणामभूताया वृत्तेश्चास्त्येव ;
As the nature of the mind is of light, the mind and the vRtti which is a modification of the mind possess that characteristic. The mind is said to be a product of the sattva aspect of the five subtle elements and is of the nature of light.
त्रिगुणात्मकस्याप्यज्ञानस्य स्वच्छसत्त्वात्मकताया अपि सत्त्वेन तत्रापि प्रतिबिम्बितोपाधिताया: सत्त्वात् |
Even though ignorance is composed of all three guNa-s, as it also contains pure sattva, it too possesses the characteristic that enables reflections to occur.
नापि चाक्षुषत्वं प्रतिबिम्बितत्वप्रयोजकम् |
Further, nor is the capacity of being reflected dependent on the material being visible.
अचाक्षुषस्याप्याकाशादे: प्रतिबिम्बितत्वदर्शनात् |
Because it is observed that space, even though not visible, is reflected (in water etc).
A point to be noted is that the reflection of consciousness implies that it is available in the mind. That does not mean that it is a physical reflection.
ननु - चाक्षुषवृत्त्युपारूढचित: कथं रूपमात्रप्रकाशकत्वम् ? नच प्रभावन्नियम:; वैषम्यात्,
The nyAyAmRtakAra objects – Why does the consciousness reflected in the vision vRtti only reveal form? It cannot be argued that it is because it is like light which can only reveal form. There is a difference between the two.
तथाहि - प्रभायां तमोविरोधित्वं रूपं प्रतीव गन्धादीन् प्रत्यपि समम् ;
To explain – Just light has the capacity to remove darkness that obscures the cognition of form, it must have the capacity to reveal smell too.
नहि सा गन्धदेशस्थं तमो न निवर्तयति,
Nor can it be argued that that does not remove the ignorance that obstructs the cognition of smell.
नच - अज्ञाननिरोधित्वलक्षणं प्रकाशकत्वं रूपं प्रत्येव, नतु रसादीन्प्रतीति - वाच्यम् ;
Don't say the nature of illumination which removes ignorance can only reveal form, not taste, etc.
Because you (the advaitin) have not accepted that consciousness in the absence of vRtti is capable of removing ignorance.
There is another difference between light and consciousness.
प्रभाया रूपग्राहकचक्षु:सहकारित्ववत् गन्धादिग्राहिघ्राणादिसहकारित्वाभावेऽपि चितो ग्राहकान्तरासहकारित्वेन तद्वत्सहकारिविलम्बेन विलम्बस्य वक्तुमशक्यत्वात् |
Even though light does not support the revelation of smell by the eye unlike the revelation of form by the eye, consciousness is not a supportive cause for the revelation of form, smell etc - it is the primary revealer. On that basis, the absence of the supportive cause cannot be cited as a reason for the absence of revelation.
That is, consciousness should reveal everything.
तथाच चित: सर्वगतत्वेन सर्वसंबन्धाद्रूपादिवत् गुरुत्वादेरप्याश्रयद्वारा साक्षाद्वा संबन्धित्वात् प्रकाशापत्ति:,
Therefore, as consciousness is all pervading, it is connected to every object, it should like form, also reveal weight (and other such imperceptible things) on account of it illuminating everything either as it is their locus or directly.
As long as consciousness has a relationship with objects by means of vRtti, it should reveal everything.
'असङ्गो ह्यं पुरुष' इति श्रुतिस्तु तत्कृतलेपाभावपरा,नतु संबन्धनिषेधिका ;
However, the Shruti "this puruSha is free of any relations" does not mean there is no relation, rather what it means that the relations do not attach to Brahman (i.e. relations do not sully it, not that it has no relations)
'स यत्तत्र यत्किञ्चित्पश्यत्यनन्वागस्तेन भवती'ति पूर्ववाक्यात्,
The previous sentence of the Shruti says – “Whatever he sees in the dream, he’s not associated with them”.
'यथाकाशस्थितो नित्यं वायु: सर्वत्रगो महा'नित्यादिस्मृतेश्चेति
The smRti also says – “Like wind even when located in space, travels everywhere”. Thus consciousness is all pervading even if associated with things.
- चेन्न ; The siddhikAra now responds to the argument - no.
प्रभाया रूपरसादिदेशगततमोनाशकत्वं तत्संबन्धाद्युज्यते, चैतन्यस्य तु स्वभावतोऽसंबद्धत्वात् तदाकारवृत्त्या तदेकसंबन्धस्योपदानात् कथमन्यावभासकत्वप्रसङ्ग:?
While light removes the darkness in the location of form, taste etc and is related to the object through that relationships, consciousness being intrinsically unrelated, is connected to the object through a tadAkAra vRtti, and thus as the relationship is based on that AkAra, how can it reveal anything else?
The vRtti establishes a connection between consciousness and object. If the vRtti is a visual one, then as its AkAra is form, the consciousness will reveal only that AkAra.
स्वभावतो ह्यसङ्गत्वे 'असङ्गो ह्यं पुरुष' इति श्रुति: प्रमाणम् |
The pramANa for this is the Shruti is “Consciousness is unrelated”.
नचैषा लेपाभावपरा अकर्तृत्वप्रतिपादनाय संबन्धाभावपरत्वात् यथाचैतत्तथा व्यक्तमाकरे |
This section is not to say that the consciousness is unattached. Rather the import of the section is to prove that consciousness is actionless, which it does through revealing that it has no relation to anything. The exact means by which it does so has been revealed in the bhAShya.
एवं स्मृतिरप्येतच्छ्रुत्यनुरोधेन नेया अत: सर्वै: सह संबन्धाभावात् न सर्वावभास:, किंतु यदाकारा वृत्तिस्तस्यैव |
Thus the smRti must be explained in line with the shruti, therefore as consciousness is not associated with anything, it does not reveal everything, rather it reveals only that which comes into contact with the tadAkAra vritti.
There is a manovRtti for "idam" (this) and avidyAvRtti for "rajatam" (silver). The two together give rise to "idam rajatam" (this is silver).
अत एवं 'इदं रजत' मिति भ्रमे इदमाकारवृत्त्यवच्छिन्नचैतन्येन रजतभानानुपत्ते: रजताकाराप्यविद्यावृत्तिरभ्युपेयते; स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बाग्राहके चैतन्यस्य तदाकारत्वायोगात्, स्वतश्चिद्बिम्बग्राहके त्वन्त:करणवृत्त्यादौ न वृत्त्यपेक्षेति नानावस्था |
That is why in the 'this is silver' illusion, as the 'this' cognition delimited consciousness cannot reveal the silver, it has been postulated that there is another vRtti which is silver-AkAra. The object on its own is not able to reflect consciousness in its own AkAra. Thus, in addition to the silver, there is a requirement for the silver-AkAra vRtti. The mind and its vRtti-s, though, are able to reflect consciousness and do not require any other vRtti for themselves to be revealed. Thus, there is no infinite regress involved in the cognition of thought.
नच - आश्रयसंबन्धाविशेषेऽपि रूपाकारा वृत्तिर्न गन्धाद्याकारेति कुत इति - वाच्यम्;
Nor can it be argued that even though both form and fragrance exist in the same locus, then why does the form-AkAra vRtti arise, but not the fragrance-AkAra vRtti (in the case of visual perception)?
यथा तव चाक्षुषज्ञाने आश्रयसंबन्धविशेषेऽपि न गन्धो विषय:, तथाऽस्माकमपि चक्षुर्द्वारकवृत्तौ न गन्धाद्याकारत्वम्,
Because just like you say that the object being the same, the vRtti of sight does not objectify smell, we hold that the vRtti contacting the object through the eyes cannot take the AkAra of fragrance etc.
इन्द्रियविषयसंबन्धानां स्वभावस्य नियामकस्य समानत्वात् |
That each sense organ is only able to objectify a particular aspect of the object only is common to us both.
ननु -आध्यासिकसंबन्धो वृत्ते: पूर्वमप्यस्त्येव, अन्यस्तूपरागो न दृश्यत्वे तन्त्रमिति किं तदर्थया वृत्त्येति - चेन्न ;
The opponent objects - the mithyA relationship between consciousness and objects exists even before the vRtti (then why is a vRtti needed to create another relationship between the object and consciousness?). If another relationship is required, you cannot say that it is the relationship between consciousness and objects that leads to the object becoming knowable. (As that is not acceptable to you), what purpose is served by the vRtti?
The siddhikAra responds - no.
जीवचैतन्यस्याधिष्ठानचैतन्यस्य वाऽभेदभिव्यक्त्यर्थत्वाद्वृत्ते: |
The vRtti is needed to make the jIva consciousness one with the substratum consciousness.
अन्यथा मयेदं विदितमिति संबन्धावभासो न स्यात् |
If that is not accepted, the cognition of the relationship (between me and the object) in 'I know this” will not occur.
ननु - जीवचैतन्यस्यासङ्गत्वे ब्रह्मचैतन्यं सुतरामसङ्गम्, तथाच मायोपाधिकविषयोपरागत्वात् स्वत: सार्वज्ञ्यं न स्यात् ,
The nyAyAmRtakAra objects – If you say the jIva consciousness is relationless, then Brahman is even more so. If it is argued that even Brahman needs mAyA upAdhi to make the connection with objects, His intrinsic omniscience will be lost.
नच - ब्रह्म सर्वोपादानत्वादुपाधिं विनैव स्वस्वरूपवत्वस्वाभिन्नं जगदवभासयतीति - वाच्यम् ;
Nor can it be argued that as Brahman is the material cause for everything, even without any adjunct, he is intrinsically non different from anything in the world, and therefore knows everything.
उपादानत्वं न तावद्विशिष्टनिष्ठं परिणामित्वम् ;
Because material causation cannot mean being the cause for transformation located in Brahman endowed with mAyA.
As it breaks the rule of the superimposed relationship. The world is supposed to be superimposed on consciousness. If the world is a product of consciousness, the relationship is not of superimposed and substratum, it is one of cause and effect.
अनाद्यविद्यादिकं प्रति तदभावाच्च,
Such a relationship does not apply to beginningless entities such as ignorance.
नापि शुद्धनिष्ठमधिष्ठानत्वम् ;
Nor does it (material causation) refer to being the substratum that is located in pure consciousness.
Because pure consciousness does not have omniscience, omnipotence etc (only consciousness endowed with mAyA has those qualities).
The siddhikAra replies
- चेन्न ; No.
ब्रह्मणोऽसंगत्वेऽपि सर्वेषां तत्राध्यासेन मायोपाधिं विनैव तस्य सर्वप्रकाशकतया सार्वज्ञ्योपपत्ते: |
Even though Brahman is relationless, as the entire world is superimposed there, even without a mAyA vRtti establishing a relationship it can be called omniscient on account of illuminating everything.
In the chitsukhi there is a Sloka (4th paricCheda, 4th sloka) -
स्वरुपतः प्रमाणैर्वा सर्वज्ञत्वं द्विधा स्थितम् ।
तच्चोभयं विनाविद्यासम्बन्धं नैव सिध्यति ।।
Omnisicience is of two types - one that is intrinsic, one that is achieved through the vRtti. Both cannot be proven without some sort of relationship with ignorance.
नच - शुद्धनिष्ठमधिष्ठानत्वं नोपादानत्वम् सार्वज्ञ्याभावादित्युक्तमिति - वाच्यम् ;
Nor can it be said that you have already said being the substratum, which is a quality present in pure consciousness, cannot mean material causation, because it is not omniscient.
अविद्याकल्पितानां सर्वज्ञत्वादीनाम् शुद्धे सत्त्वात् |
An omniscience can be postulated in pure consciousness as a result of ignorance.
अन्यथा तेषां तटस्थलक्षणत्वमपि न स्यात् |
Otherwise the taTastha lakshaNa of Brahman as the cause of the world would be an impossibility.
ननु - आवरणाभिभवार्थत्वपक्षो न युक्त:, विवर्ताधिष्ठानस्य चिन्मात्रस्याज्ञानादिसाक्षित्वेन सदा प्रकाशनात्, अन्यस्याज्ञानकल्पित्स्यावरणस्याभावादिति - चेन्न ;
The nyAyAmRtakAra makes a different objection - it is not logical to say that the vRtti is to remove the veil of ignorance (over consciousness), because as the changeless substratum, consciousness is witness to the ignorance, and therefore it is eternally known. There is no other ignorance of anything else that can be the veil.
Ignorance can be a veil of only a conscious entity. An inert object does not require a covering as it would not be known anyway. As the changeless substratum, pure consciousness is the witness of ignorance too. So how can such an ignorance cover the consciousness - because when one knows ignorance, that consciousness is automatically known. If such a consciousness is known, how can you say ignorance veils it? If you say ignorance veils something else, then as anything else apart from consciousness is a creation of ignorance, that cannot be covered by ignorance. As ignorance is beginningless, its object must also be beginningless. A product cannot be beginningless. Thus, a product of ignorance cannot be the object of ignorance.
The siddhikAra says - If this is the argument, no. He says:
अज्ञानादिसाक्षित्वेन स्वप्रकाशेऽप्यशनायाद्यतीतत्वादिना प्रकाशाभावादावरणस्यावश्यकत्वात् |
Even if consciousness as the witness of ignorance is self-evident, as its freedom from hunger, thirst, old age, death etc., is unknown, a veil becomes necessary to account for this.
What is the locus of the veil? If the veil is in the object, when it is removed, it becomes visible to everyone. If the veil is in the seer, when it is removed, only he can see it. The opponent uses this to argue
ननु - अज्ञानस्य नयनपटलवत् पुङ्गतत्वे चैत्रस्याज्ञाननाशेऽपि मैत्रस्य तदनाशात् अप्रकाशो युक्त:, विषयगतत्वे तु चैत्रार्जितया वृत्त्या अज्ञाने दीपेन तमसीव नाशिते मैत्रस्यापि प्रकाश: स्यादिति - चेन्न ;
If ignorance is like a film covering the eyes, when Chaitra's ignorance is removed, Maitra would not see the object because his ignorance is not destroyed. Whereas if ignorance is in the object, when it is removed due to Chaitra's vRtti, like darkness being removed by light, Maitra too would see it.
Thus, ignorance would have to be in the seer, not the object. So says the opponent.
To this, the siddhikAra says - no.
He presents his position with respect to ignorance – ignorance is one, but its powers are many.
चैत्रावरणशक्तेरेवाज्ञानगतायाश्चैत्रार्जितवृत्त्या नाशितत्वेन स पश्यति, न मैत्र:, तत्प्रतियोगिकावरणशक्तेरनाशात्,
It is the power of ignorance that veils the object for Chaitra alone that is removed because of Chaitra's vRtti and as a result he sees the object, not Maitra, because the power of ignorance that veils the object for Maitra is not destroyed.
आवरणशक्तीनां द्रष्टृविषयभेदाभ्यां भिन्नत्वात्,
(This is) because the powers of veiling are different for different objects and people.
तमस्तु न तथेत्येकानीतप्रदीपेनाप्यन्यान्प्रति प्रकाशो युज्यते |
Whereas darkness is not like that. When any one person brings a lamp, it removes darkness for all.
एतेन - एकाज्ञानपक्षे शुक्तिज्ञानेन तदज्ञाननिवृत्तौ सद्य एव मोक्षापात:, अनिवृत्तौ रूप्यादे: सविलासाविद्यानिवृत्तिरूपबाधायोग इति - निरस्तम् ;
By this the following is refuted - "If it is held that ignorance is one, when the shell knowledge destroys shell ignorance, the seer will end up as instantly liberated. If that ignorance is not removed, it would be impossible for the sublation of silver along with its cause, ignorance."
How then can this be used for an example in the inference of the world’s mithyAtva?
This has been answered because in the one ignorance position, that one ignorance has several powers which veil each object, so when a particular veiling power is removed, only that particular object is revealed and not something else.
आवरणशक्तिनाशेऽपि मूलाज्ञाननाशाभावेन सद्यो मोक्षाभावस्य रूप्यादौ सविलासशक्तिमदविद्यानिवृत्तिरूपबाधस्यचोपपत्ते: |
Even though the veiling power (over the shell) is destroyed, as mUlAjnAna (primal nescience) is not destroyed, instant liberation does not occur. The sublation of the shell silver along with its cause, the ignorance containing that power, is also thus possible.
In vedAnta paribhASha there is a difference drawn between bAdha and nivRtti. The locus of dream objects is pure consciousness. However, if that is the substratum, how does the dream state end because the direct perception of Brahman does not occur in the dream? The answer is that bAdha does not happen, nivRtti happens. nivRtti does not require the direct cognition of the locus, even another illusory cognition can do nivRtti, whereas bAdha requires the cognition of the substratum. The dream objects have nivRtti because of the illusory cognition of the waking world. Where the material cause does not get destroyed, but the effect is destroyed, nivRtti is said to happen (ie where the clay pot breaks, but clay is not destroyed).
The opponent says this principle must be used in the position that ignorance is only one (eka ajnAna paksha). He says:
ननु - एकाज्ञानपक्षे रूप्यादे: शुक्तिज्ञानेन स्वकारणे प्रविलयमात्रं क्रियते, मुद्गरप्रहारेणेव घटस्य, न त्वज्ञानं निवर्त्यत इति ते मतम् न युक्तम् ;
“Your position that - as ignorance is said to be only one, the shell silver etc, merely resolves into its cause by the cognition of the shell, like in the destruction of a pot by a hammer, whereas ignorance is not destroyed (he says so, taking the advaitin advocating the position that ignorance is one) - is incorrect.
In the panchapAdika, it is said that the sUtra - athAto brahmajijnAsa - proves that bondage is mithyA. How? By atha, the one desiring freedom from bondage is denoted. So a person desiring freedom from bondage, has the desire for knowing brahman (brahmajijnAsa). Therefore, the cognition of Brahman is denoted as a means for the destruction of bondage. The cognition of any object only destroys the ignorance of that object. Therefore, the cognition of Brahman, which has been enjoined for one desiring freedom from bondage, can only destroy the ignorance of Brahman. This follows that the ignorance of Brahman is the cause of bondage, and therefore bondage must be mithyA.
The nyAyAmRtakAra takes the panchapAdikAkAra’s statement ज्ञानमज्ञानस्यैव निवर्तकम् – that cognition only removes ignorance – to argue that the shell cognition can only remove shell ignorance, it cannot remove the shell silver. Cognition cannot remove the shell silver without ignorance also being destroyed. However if it is said ignorance is destroyed, as ignorance is only one, one should be instantly liberated when shell ignorance is destroyed.
यतो ज्ञानमज्ञानस्यैव निवर्तकमिति व्याप्तिबलात् ज्ञानस्याज्ञाननिवृत्तिद्वारैवान्यविरोधित्वेनाज्ञानमनिवर्त्य रूप्यादिनिवर्तकत्वायोगात्
This is incorrect, because on the strength of the (panchapAdikAkAra’s) concomitance that knowledge can remove only ignorance, knowledge's ability to sublate an object is only through the means of destroying ignorance, it is not possible to remove the shell silver without removing ignorance too.
शुक्तिज्ञानेनाज्ञानानिवृत्तावभिव्यक्तचैतन्यसंबन्धाभावेन भ्रान्ताविव बाधेऽपि शुक्तेरप्रकाशापत्तेश्चेति -
If ignorance is not removed by the cognition of the shell, as the connection with consciousness does not occur, then, like in the case of illusion, even following the sublation of silver, the shell remains unseen.
The siddhikAra says:
चेन्न ; no.
यतो ज्ञानमज्ञाननिवर्तकमिति व्याप्तेरुछेदविषयत्वात्,
The statement that cognition removes ignorance refers to the total elimination of ignorance, root and all.
The intention of the panchapAdikAkAra is in saying that if cognition succeeds in destroying something along with its cause, it follows that the cause of that thing is ignorance.
स्वकारणे सूक्ष्मरूपेणावस्थाने तदनङ्गीकारात्,
That (concomitance) does not accept that the object is resolved back into its cause in a subtle form, like in the case of the example.
शुक्तिज्ञानस्य चानवच्छिन्नचैतन्यावरणमूलाज्ञानानिवर्तकत्वेऽपि अवच्छिन्नचैतन्यावरणरूपतूलाज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वेनाभिव्यक्तचैतन्यसंबन्धात् बाधदशायां रूप्यनिवृत्तिशुक्तिप्रकाशयोरप्युपपत्ते: |
Even though the shell cognition does not have the capacity to remove the primal nescience veiling the undelimited consciousness, as it has the capacity to remove a secondary nescience veiling the object delimited consciousness, upon sublation, the connection with consciousness happens and therefore both sublation of silver and the illumination of shell can happen.
नच - उपादेयभूतया वृत्त्योपादानभूताविद्याभिभवो न घटते; उपादेयेनोपादानभिभवादर्शनादिति - वाच्यम् ;
Nor can it be argued that "the vRtti which is after all a product of nescience cannot overpower its own cause, nescience - For the destruction of the cause by the effect is not seen anywhere."
वृश्चिकादिना गोमयादेरुपादानस्याप्यभिभवदर्शनात् | For it is seen that a scorpion which is born from cow-dung, is born by destroying its material cause.
The ArambhavAda philosopher (logician) argues that the transformation of the cause into the effect is not real. He argues that the cause disintegrates into paramANu-s, atomic particles, which reintegrate into the effect. Thus, to say that the cause transforms into the effect is wrong in his view.
The siddhikAra says, this does not apply to us because we don't agree with ArambhavAda.
आरम्भवादानभ्युपगमाच्च न गोमयावयवानामुपादानत्वशङ्का | As we do not accept ArambhavAda, one cannot raise an objection citing that it is the parts of the cow-dung (i.e., paramANu) that are the material cause.
The nyAyAmRtakAra raises another objection:
ननु - चक्षुरादिजन्यशुक्त्यादिवृत्ते: सप्रकारिकाया: निष्प्रकारकशुद्धचैतन्याविषयतया तदावरणरूपमूलाज्ञानाभिभवाभावेऽप्यवच्छिन्नविषयया तया अवच्छिन्नचैतन्यावरणरूपतूलाज्ञानाभिभवो युज्यत इति ते मतमयुक्तम् ;
Your view that – as the cognition of the shell that is born from sense organs such as eyes etc, is a partite cognition, and does not have the impartite pure consciousness as its object, it can remove the secondary nescience that veils the object delimited consciousness, even if it is unable to remove the primal nescience that veils pure consciousness – is wrong.
Why? Ignorance veils only that which requires obstruction. There is no need to postulate an ignorance to explain why the inert object is not seen, because an inert object needs no veil, it is incapable of revealing itself. Therefore, one can postulate ignorance only to explain why the self-evident consciousness is not automatically known.
अवच्छिन्ने अविद्याकल्पिते अप्रसक्तप्रकाशे मूलाविद्याया इव तदावरणशक्तेरयोगात्,
As delimited consciousness is unreal as it is a result of ignorance, it is incapable of revealing itself. Therefore, unlike in the case of primal nescience, there is no basis to postulate a secondary ignorance (to explain why it is not revealed).
You too agree that it is not primary ignorance that obstructs delimited consciousness.
If it is said that it is the self, endowed with inertness that is being veiled - that is, when it is said that ignorance covers consciousness delimited by the shell, it will mean that it is consciousness that is covered, because the shell, being inert does not require ignorance to cover it. Thus, the cognition that removes such an ignorance, would need to objectify consciousness but not its attribute, the shell - only then, will ignorance and the cognition that removes it have the same object. Therefore, it must be accepted that the vRtti that has the shell as its object must objectify consciousness for it to remove the ignorance that gives rise to the shell. As a result, it will mean that the cognition of shell leads to moksha.
जडविशिष्टात्मानं प्रति तदभ्युपगमेच विशेषणानावारकविशिष्टावारकशक्त्यभिभवस्य विशेष्यावारकशक्त्यभिभवं विनाऽयोगेन शुक्त्याकारवृत्त्यैव शुद्धात्मप्रकाशापातादिति
If it is said that consciousness delimited by the inert (object) is veiled by a secondary ignorance, then as the removal of ignorance with the power to veil the qualified consciousness (consciousness delimited by the shell) but not the qualifier (shell), is not possible without the removal of ignorance which veils the undelimited (consciousness), the cognition of the shell will end up revealing pure consciousness itself.
The siddhikAra says
- चेन्न ; अनवबोधात् | No, it has not been understood.
न ह्यविद्याकल्पितेऽवच्छिन्ने अस्माभिरविद्या वा तच्छक्तिर्वाभ्युपेयते, किंतु चैतन्यमात्र एव ;
According to us, neither the consciousness that is a product of ignorance nor the object delimited consciousness that is veiled ignorance or its power (and thus is the object of ignorance). Rather it is consciousness alone (that is veiled by ignorance).
If in a dark room there is a pot, the space within the pot would be dark too. When a lamp is placed within the pot, the darkness delimited by the pot is removed, illuminating the pot space - by that much, the room is not illuminated.
Similarly, consciousness which is covered by ignorance is delimited by the shell. When a cognition in the AkAra of the shell arises, it removes the ignorance in the shell-delimited consciousness allowing that consciousness to reveal the shell. That does not mean that consciousness overall is revealed.
तस्मिंस्तु सर्वं जडमध्यस्तमस्तीत्येकाश्रयाश्रितत्वसंबन्धात् जडावच्छिन्नचैतन्यमावृतमिति व्यपदेश:,
On that (pure consciousness) everything inert is superimposed. Therefore, as both ignorance and the inert object are collocated in the same ignorance, it is said that the consciousness delimited by the inert object is veiled.
घटाद्याकारवृत्त्या तु तदधिष्ठानचैतन्याभिव्यक्तौ तदवच्छेदेनैव तन्निष्ठावरणाभिभवो जायत इति न शुद्धात्मप्रकाशापत्ति: |
When the pot AkAra vRtti arises, the pot’s substratum consciousness shines when the ignorance located in the pot-delimited consciousness is destroyed, but that does not mean that pure consciousness shines.
Continued in part 4.