Braham Sutra समन्वयाधिकरणम्।।1.1.4।।
तुशब्दः पूर्वपक्षव्यावृत्त्यर्थः। तद्ब्रह्म सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकारणं वेदान्तशास्त्रादवगम्यते। कथम् समन्वयात्। सर्वेषु हि वेदान्तेषु वाक्यानि तात्पर्येणैतस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपादकत्वेन समनुगतानि। सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीत् एकमेवाद्वितीयम् आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् तदेतद्ब्रह्मापूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यम् अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सर्वानुभूः ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्तात् इत्यादीनि। न च तद्गतानां पदानां ब्रह्मस्वरूपविषये निश्चिते समन्वयेऽवगम्यमाने अर्थान्तरकल्पना युक्ता श्रुतहान्यश्रुतकल्पनाप्रसङ्गात्। न च तेषां कर्तृदेवतादिस्वरूपप्रतिपादनपरता अवसीयते तत्केन कं पश्येत् इत्यादिक्रियाकारकफलनिराकरणश्रुतेः। न च परिनिष्ठितवस्तुस्वरूपत्वेऽपि प्रत्यक्षादिविषयत्वं ब्रह्मणः तत्त्वमसि इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्य शास्त्रमन्तरेणानवगम्यमानत्वात्।
The word tu means the inversion of the former aspect. That Brahman, the omniscient, omnipotent, cause of the creation, existence and dissolution of the universe, is understood from the Vedanta scriptures. How about coordination. For in all the Vedanta the statements are followed by the meaning as expressing this meaning. Sadeva Somyeda was the first, the one and only Self, or this one and only Self, was the first, that is the Brahman, the previous, the next, the next, the external, this Self, the Brahman, the all-perceiving Brahman, this nectar before, and so on. Nor is it proper to imagine a difference of meaning when the terms involved are understood in a certain coordination about the nature of the Brahman, since there is no case of imagining the loss of hearing and other hearing. Nor does their attachment to the presentation of the form of the doer, the deity, etc., cease, since the scriptures reject the cause and effect of the action, such as who should see whom. Nor is it the object of direct perception and other things even in the form of the established object, since the Brahman-self-being, that you are the essence of the Brahman, is not understood by any other scripture
यत्तु हेयोपादेयरहितत्वादुपदेशानर्थक्यमिति नैष दोषः हेयोपादेयशून्यब्रह्मात्मतावगमादेव सर्वक्लेशप्रहाणात्पुरुषार्थसिद्धेः। देवतादिप्रतिपादनपरस्य तु स्ववाक्यगतोपासनार्थत्वेऽपि न कश्चिद्विरोधः। न तु तथा ब्रह्मण उपासनाविधिशेषत्वं संभवति एकत्वे हेयोपादेयशून्यतया क्रियाकारकादिद्वैतविज्ञानोपमर्दोपपत्तेः। न हि ब्रह्मैकत्वविज्ञानेनोन्मथितस्य द्वैतविज्ञानस्य पुनः संभवोऽस्ति येनोपासनाविधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्येत। यद्यप्यन्यत्र वेदवाक्यानां विधिसंस्पर्शमन्तरेण प्रमाणत्वं न दृष्टम् तथाप्यात्मविज्ञानस्य फलपर्यन्तत्वान्न तद्विषयस्य शास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं शक्यं प्रत्याख्यातुम्। न चानुमानगम्यं शास्त्रप्रामाण्यम् येनान्यत्र दृष्टं निदर्शनमपेक्ष्येत। तस्मात्सिद्धं ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वम्।।
But that the preaching is meaningless because it is without the Heyopadeya is not a fault, since the Purushartha is attained by the renunciation of all suffering from the understanding of the Heyopadeya-void Brahman Self. But there is no contradiction even in the fact that it is for the purpose of worship in its own words after the representation of deities and others. But it is not possible for the Brahman to be the remainder of the ritual of worship in that way, since the knowledge of the duality of the cause and effect is attained by the absence of the Heyopadeya in the unity. For there is no possibility again of the knowledge of duality, which has been crushed by the knowledge of the oneness of the Brahman, by which the remainder of the ritual of worship of the Brahman can be established. Although elsewhere the authenticity of the statements of the Vedas has not been seen without the touch of law, yet the authenticity of the scriptures on the subject cannot be rejected because they extend to the fruits of self-knowledge. Nor is there any inferential scriptural authenticity by which evidence seen elsewhere would be required. Therefore it is proved that Brahman is the authority of the scriptures.
अत्रापरे प्रत्यवतिष्ठन्ते यद्यपि शास्त्रप्रमाणकं ब्रह्म तथापि प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रेण ब्रह्म समर्प्यते यथा यूपाहवनीयादीन्यलौकिकान्यपि विधिशेषतया शास्त्रेण समर्प्यन्ते तद्वत्। कुत एतत् प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिप्रयोजनपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य। तथा हि शास्त्रतात्पर्यविदामनुक्रमणम् दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनं नाम इति चोदनेति क्रियायाः प्रवर्तकं वचनम् तस्य ज्ञानमुपदेशः तद्भूतानां क्रियार्थेन समाम्नायः आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यमतदर्थानाम् इति च। अतः पुरुषं क्वचिद्विषयविशेषे प्रवर्तयत्कुतश्चिद्विषयविशेषान्निवर्तयच्चार्थवच्छास्त्रम्। तच्छेषतया चान्यदुपयुक्तम्। तत्सामान्याद्वेदान्तानामपि तथैवार्थवत्त्वं स्यात्। सति च विधिपरत्वे यथा स्वर्गादिकामस्याग्निहोत्रादिसाधनं विधीयते एवममृतत्वकामस्य ब्रह्मज्ञानं विधीयत इति युक्तम्। नन्विह जिज्ञास्यवैलक्षण्यमुक्तम् कर्मकाण्डे भव्यो धर्मो जिज्ञास्यः इह तु भूतं नित्यनिर्वृत्तं ब्रह्म जिज्ञास्यमिति तत्र धर्मज्ञानफलादनुष्ठानसापेक्षाद्विलक्षणं ब्रह्मज्ञानफलं भवितुमर्हति। नार्हत्येवं भवितुम् कार्यविधिप्रयुक्तस्यैव ब्रह्मणः प्रतिपाद्यमानत्वात्। आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः य आत्मापहतपाप्मा||
Here others argue that although Brahman is the authority of the scriptures, yet Brahman is offered by the scriptures as the subject of the ritual of assumption, just as other worldly things such as the altar and sacrifice are offered by the scriptures as the remainder of the ritual. Where is this, since the scripture is beyond the purpose of instinct and renunciation? Thus, the sequence of the scriptural semantics is seen, for its meaning is the encouragement of action, the initiator of the action, the knowledge of it, the instruction of the beings, the action of the scriptures, and the meaninglessness of the opinions. Therefore, the meaningful scripture sometimes engages man in a particular subject and sometimes withdraws him from a particular subject. That and the rest are otherwise useful. From that generality, the Vedanta would have the same meaning. And in the case of being beyond the law, it is logical that just as the means of Agnihotra and others are prescribed for the desire for heaven and other things, so the knowledge of the Brahman is prescribed for the desire for immortality. Now, since the difference between the inquired and the inquired is stated here, the future Dharma is to be inquired in the Karmakanda, but here the past, the eternally resolved Brahman is to be inquired. This cannot be so, since the very Brahman used in the method of action is asserted. Or the soul, O Arjuna, should be seen who is the self-destroyed sin.
सोऽन्वेष्टव्यः स विजिज्ञासितव्यः आत्मेत्येवोपासीत आत्मानमेव लोकमुपासीत ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति इत्यादिषु विधानेषु सत्सु कोऽसावात्मा किं तद्ब्रह्म इत्याकाङ्क्षायां तत्स्वरूपसमर्पणेन सर्वे वेदान्ता उपयुक्ताः नित्यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वगतो नित्यतृप्तो नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावो विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म इत्येवमादयः। तदुपासनाच्च शास्त्रदृष्टोऽदृष्टो मोक्षः फलं भविष्यति। कर्तव्यविध्यननुप्रवेशे तु वस्तुमात्रकथने हानोपादानासंभवात् सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती राजासौ गच्छति इत्यादिवाक्यवद्वेदान्तवाक्यानामानर्थक्यमेव स्यात्। ननु वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽपि रज्जुरियम् नायं सर्पः इत्यादौ भ्रान्तिजनितभीतिनिवर्तनेनार्थवत्त्वं दृष्टम् तथेहाप्यसंसार्यात्मवस्तुकथनेन संसारित्वभ्रान्तिनिवर्तनेनार्थवत्त्वं स्यात्। स्यादेतदेवम् यदि रज्जुस्वरूपश्रवणमात्रेणेव सर्पभ्रान्तिः संसारित्वभ्रान्तिर्ब्रह्मस्वरूपश्रवणमात्रेण निवर्तेत न तु निवर्तते श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि यथापूर्वं सुखदुःखादिसंसारिधर्मदर्शनात् श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः इति च श्रवणोत्तरकालयोर्मनननिदिध्यासनयोर्विधिदर्शनात्। तस्मात्प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतयैव शास्त्रप्रमाणकं ब्रह्माभ्युपगन्तव्यमिति।।
He should be sought, he should be inquired, he should worship himself as the Self, he should worship the Self alone, he should worship the world, Brahman knows Brahman, etc. From worshiping that, liberation, seen and unseen in the scriptures, will be the fruit. But in the case of the introduction of the method of duty, since there is no possibility of causing loss in the statement of the object alone, the statements of Vedanta, like the statements of the seven islands, the earth, the king goes, etc., would be meaningless. Indeed, even in the statement of the object alone, meaningfulness has been seen by the reversal of fear caused by delusion, etc., such as this is a rope and not a snake. This would be the case if the illusion of worldliness and the illusion of worldliness were removed by merely hearing the form of the rope, but not by merely hearing the form of the Brahman. Therefore, the Brahman, the authority of the scriptures, should be approached only as the subject of the method of assumption.
अत्राभिधीयते न कर्मब्रह्मविद्याफलयोर्वैलक्षण्यात्। शारीरं वाचिकं मानसं च कर्म श्रुतिस्मृतिसिद्धं धर्माख्यम् यद्विषया जिज्ञासा अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा इति सूत्रिता। अधर्मोऽपि हिंसादिः प्रतिषेधचोदनालक्षणत्वाज्जिज्ञास्यः परिहाराय। तयोश्चोदनालक्षणयोरर्थानर्थयोर्धर्माधर्मयोः फले प्रत्यक्षे सुखदुःखे शरीरवाङ्मनोभिरेवोपभुज्यमाने विषयेन्द्रियसंयोगजन्ये ब्रह्मादिषु स्थावरान्तेषु प्रसिद्धे। मनुष्यत्वादारभ्य ब्रह्मान्तेषु देहवत्सु सुखतारतम्यमनुश्रूयते। ततश्च तद्धेतोर्धर्मस्यापि तारतम्यं गम्यते। धर्मतारतम्यादधिकारितारतम्यम्। प्रसिद्धं चार्थित्वसामर्थ्यविद्वत्तादिकृतमधिकारितारतम्यम्। तथा च यागाद्यनुष्ठायिनामेव विद्यासमाधिविशेषादुत्तरेण पथा गमनम् केवलैरिष्टापूर्तदत्तसाधनैर्धूमादिक्रमेण दक्षिणेन पथा गमनम् तत्रापि सुखतारतम्यम् तत्साधनतारम्यं च शास्त्रात् यावत्संपातमुषित्वा इत्यस्माद्गम्यते।
It is not meant here because of the difference between karma and Brahma-vidya-fruit. Physical, verbal and mental action, proved by scripture and memory, is called Dharma, and the inquiry about it is therefore formulated as Dharma inquiry. Even iniquity, such as violence, is to be inquired into for avoidance, since it is characterized by the incitement of prohibition. In the fruit of the two characteristics of the impulse, meaning and evil, righteousness and irreligion, in the direct pleasure and pain, enjoyed only by the body, speech and mind, caused by the union of the senses of objects, known in Brahma and other immovable ends. From humanity onwards, the continuity of happiness is heard in the embodied at the end of the Brahman. Furthermore, the continuity of the Dharma of that cause is also understood. From the difference of religion to the difference of authority. It is also well known that there is a difference in authority caused by the ability to seek, the ability to learn, etc. Similarly, the practitioners of sacrifice and others themselves go to the north path from the specialty of knowledge and trance, and go to the south path in the order of smoke and others only by the means given to fulfill their desires.
तथा मनुष्यादिषु स्थावरान्तेषु सुखलवश्चोदनालक्षणधर्मसाध्य एवेति गम्यते तारतम्येन वर्तमानः। तथोर्ध्वगतेष्वधोगतेषु च देहवत्सु दुःखतारतम्यदर्शनात्तद्धेतोरधर्मस्य प्रतिषेधचोदनालक्षणस्य तदनुष्ठायिनां च तारतम्यं गम्यते। एवमविद्यादिदोषवतां धर्माधर्मतारतम्यनिमित्तं शरीरोपादानपूर्वकं सुखदुःखतारतम्यमनित्यं संसाररूपं श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायप्रसिद्धम्। तथा च श्रुतिः न ह वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्ति इति यथावर्णितं संसाररूपमनुवदति। अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः इति प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शनप्रतिषेधाच्चोदनालक्षणधर्मकार्यत्वं मोक्षाख्यस्याशरीरत्वस्य प्रतिषिध्यत इति गम्यते। धर्मकार्यत्वे हि प्रियाप्रियस्पर्शनप्रतिषेधो नोपपद्येत। अशरीरत्वमेव धर्मकार्यमिति चेत् न तस्य स्वाभाविकत्वात् अशरीर्रीरेषु अनवस्थेष्ववस्थितम्। महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति अप्राणो ह्यमनाः शुभ्रः असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। अत एवानुष्ठेयकर्मफलविलक्षणं मोक्षाख्यमशरीरत्वं नित्यमिति सिद्धम्।
Similarly, it is understood that the pleasure-seeking in the ends of the living entities, such as man, is achievable by the characteristics of inducement, existing in continuity. Similarly, by seeing the continuity of suffering in the bodily beings who have gone up and down, the continuity of the characteristics of the cause of irreligion, of the prohibition and the inducement, and of those who practice it is understood. Thus, the cause of the difference between religion and irreligion for those who are defective in ignorance and others, the difference between happiness and pain before the body, is the form of the eternal world, as is well known in the law of scripture and memory. And so the scripture follows the form of the world as described, that there is no destruction of the beloved and the beloved of the true with the body. From the prohibition of touching the pleasant and the unpleasant, since the incorporeal being is not touched by the pleasant and the unpleasant, it follows that the function of the dharma characterized by inducement is forbidden for the dis-embodiedness called moksha. For in the case of righteousness, the prohibition of touching pleasant and unpleasant would not arise. If it is said that incorporeality is the work of righteousness, it is not because it is natural that it is situated in incorporeal bodies. The steadfast does not grieve, considering himself to be the great Lord, for this man is lifeless, white, unattached, etc., from the scriptures. Hence it is proved that the incorporeality called moksha, characterized by the fruits of the actions to be performed, is eternal.
तत्र किंचित्परिणामिनित्यं स्यात् यस्मिन्विक्रियमाणेऽपि तदेवेदमिति बुद्धिर्न विहन्यते यथा पृथिव्यादि जगन्नित्यत्ववादिनाम् यथा वा सांख्यानां गुणाः। इदं तु पारमार्थिकं कूटस्थनित्यं व्योमवत्सर्वव्यापि सर्वविक्रियारहितं नित्यतृप्तं निरवयवं स्वयंज्योतिःस्वभावम् यत्र धर्माधर्मौ सह कार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते तदेतदशरीरत्वं मोक्षाख्यम् अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्मादन्यत्रास्मात्कृताकृतात्। अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। अतस्तद्ब्रह्म यस्येयं जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता। तद्यदि कर्तव्यशेषत्वेनोपदिश्येत तेन च कर्तव्येन साध्यश्चेन्मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्येत अनित्य एव स्यात्। तत्रैवं सति यथोक्तकर्मफलेष्वेव तारतम्यावस्थितेष्वनित्येषु कश्चिदतिशयो मोक्ष इति प्रसज्येत। नित्यश्च मोक्षः सर्वैर्मोक्षवादिभिरभ्युपगम्यते।
There is something eternal in consequence in which, even when it is transformed, the intellect that it is this is not disturbed, as the qualities of those who claim that the earth and other universes are eternal, or as the qualities of the Sankhyas. But this transcendental, unchanging, eternal, all-pervading like the sky, devoid of all reactions, eternally satisfied, devoid of components, self-luminous nature, where dharma and dharma and the three times do not return with action, this incorporeality is called moksha. Elsewhere, from the scriptures, such as past and future. Therefore that Brahman to whom this inquiry is presented. If that is taught as the remainder of the duty and if it is attainable by that duty, liberation would be attained, it would be impermanent. In such a case, it would apply that there is some excess of liberation in the impermanent continuity of the fruits of action as mentioned above. And eternal liberation is attained by all the liberationists.
अतो न कर्तव्यशेषत्वेन ब्रह्मोपदेशो युक्तः। अपि च ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति क्षीयन्ते चास्य कर्माणि तस्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन अभयं वै जनक प्राप्तोऽसि तदात्मानमेवावेदहं ब्रह्मास्मीति तस्मात्तत्सर्वमभवत् तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यतः इत्येवमाद्याः श्रुतयो ब्रह्मविद्यानन्तरमेव मोक्षं दर्शयन्त्यो मध्ये कार्यान्तरं वारयन्ति। तथा तद्धैतत्पश्यन्नृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्च इति ब्रह्मदर्शनसर्वात्मभावयोर्मध्ये कर्तव्यान्तरवारणायोदाहार्यम् यथा तिष्ठन्गायति इति तिष्ठतिगायत्योर्मध्ये तत्कर्तृकं कार्यान्तरं नास्तीति गम्यते।
Therefore, it is not proper to preach the Brahman as the remainder of the duty. Moreover, the Brahman knows that Brahman is Brahman and his actions are destroyed. The learned man is not afraid of the joy of Brahman in that seen Paravara. You have attained safety from anywhere. Thus, seeing this, the sage Vamadeva replied, “I am Manu and I am the sun.
त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसि श्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयतु तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान्सनात्कुमारः इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्षप्रतिबन्धनिवृत्तिमात्रमेवात्मज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति। तथा च आचार्यप्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम् दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायादपवर्गः इति। मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानाद्भवति। न चेदं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं संपद्रूपम् यथा अनन्तं वै मनोऽनन्ता विश्वेदेवा अनन्तमेव स तेन लोकं जयति इति।
For You are our Father who saves us from the other side of ignorance. I have heard that the Lord crosses sorrow from the sights of the Self-knowing. Similarly, the formula compiled by the Acharya, expanded by the law, is that in the gradual elimination of the evils of false knowledge of the instinct of suffering, birth, liberation from the subsequent elimination. And the elimination of false knowledge comes from the knowledge of the oneness of the Brahman-self. If this knowledge of the oneness of the Brahman and the Self is not the form of wealth, as the mind is infinite, the Visvedevas are infinite, he conquers the world by it.
न चाध्यासरूपम् यथा मनो ब्रह्मेत्युपासीत आदित्यो ब्रह्मेत्यादेशः इति च मनआदित्यादिषु ब्रह्मदृष्ट्यध्यासः। नापि विशिष्टक्रियायोगनिमित्तम् वायुर्वाव संवर्गः प्राणो वाव संवर्गः इतिवत्। नाप्याज्यावेक्षणादिकर्मवत्कर्माङ्गसंस्काररूपम्। संपदादिरूपे हि ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानेऽभ्युपगम्यमाने तत्त्वमसि अहं ब्रह्मास्मि अयमात्मा ब्रह्म इत्येवमादीनां वाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मैकत्ववस्तुप्रतिपादनपरः पदसमन्वयः पीड्येत। भिद्यते हृदयग्रन्थिश्छिद्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः इति चैवमादीन्यविद्यानिवृत्तिफलश्रवणान्युपरुध्येरन्। ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति इति चैवमादीनि तद्भावापत्तिवचनानि संपदादिरूपत्वे न सामञ्जस्येनोपपद्येरन्। तस्मान्न संपदादिरूपं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानम्। अतो न पुरुषव्यापारतन्त्रा ब्रह्मविद्या।
Nor is it in the form of meditation, as the mind is worshiped as Brahman, and the sun is commanded to be Brahman. Nor is it the cause of the combination of specific actions, as in the case of the air and the life-force. nor in the form of rituals of the limbs of action, like the acts of observing the sacrifice. For when the knowledge of the oneness of the Brahman-self in the form of wealth and other things is attained, the conjunction of terms other than the representation of the object of the oneness of the Brahman-self would suffer. The knot of the heart is broken and all doubts are cut off. The statements of the attribution of that being, such as that Brahman knows Brahman and becomes Brahman, cannot be harmoniously applied to the form of wealth and other things. Therefore, knowledge of the oneness of the Self-Brahman in the form of wealth and other things is not. Therefore, Brahma-vidya is not a system of male transactions.
किं तर्हि प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविषयवस्तुज्ञानवद्वस्तुतन्त्रैव। एवंभूतस्य ब्रह्मणस्तज्ज्ञानस्य च न कयाचिद्युक्त्या शक्यः कार्यानुप्रवेशः कल्पयितुम्। न च विदिक्रियाकर्मत्वेन कार्यानुप्रवेशो ब्रह्मणः अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि इति विदिक्रियाकर्मत्वप्रतिषेधात् येनेदं सर्वं
विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात् इति च। तथोपास्तिक्रियाकर्मत्वप्रतिषेधोऽपि भवति यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते इत्यविषयत्वं ब्रह्मण उपन्यस्य तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते इति। अविषयत्वे ब्रह्मणः शास्त्रयोनित्वानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् न अविद्याकल्पितभेदनिवृत्तिपरत्वाच्छास्त्रस्य। न हि शास्त्रमिदंतया विषयभूतं ब्रह्म प्रतिपिपादयिषति।
What, then, is the object system itself, like knowledge of the objects of direct evidence and other evidence? It is not possible by any logic to imagine the entry into action of such a Brahman and of that knowledge. Nor is the entry of the Brahman into action as the action of the Vedic action, since the prohibition of being the action of the Vedic action is other than that which is known and unknown. Similarly, the prohibition of worship as action and action is also made by presenting the objectivity of Brahman as the object of what is raised by speech, saying, Know that Brahman, not this which they worship. If it is said that the assumption that Brahman is the source of the scriptures in its non-objectivity is not because the scriptures are devoted to the renunciation of the differences imagined by ignorance. For the scripture will not represent the Brahman which is the object by this end.
किं तर्हि प्रत्यगात्मत्वेनाविषयतया प्रतिपादयत् अविद्याकल्पितं वेद्यवेदितृवेदनादिभेदमपनयति। तथा च शास्त्रम् यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः। अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येर्न श्रुतेः श्रोतारं श्रृणुया न मतेर्मन्तारं मन्वीथा न विज्ञातेर्विज्ञातारं विजानीयाः इति चैवमादि। अतोऽविद्याकल्पितसंसारित्वनिवर्तनेन नित्यमुक्तात्मस्वरूपसमर्पणान्न मोक्षस्यानित्यत्वदोषः। यस्य तूत्पाद्यो मोक्षः तस्य मानसं वाचिकं कायिकं वा कार्यमपेक्षत इति युक्तम्। तथा विकार्यत्वे च। तयोः पक्षयोर्मोक्षस्य ध्रुवमनित्यत्वम्।
What, then, does it remove the difference between the knower and the knower, pain and so on, which is imagined by ignorance? and the opinion of him whose opinion is the opinion of the scripture, and the opinion of him who does not know it. Those who know the unknown, the known and the unknown, do not see the seer of sight, nor hear the hearer of hearing, nor accept the mantra of opinion, nor know the knower of knowledge, and so on. Therefore, by refraining from the worldliness imagined by ignorance and surrendering to the form of the eternally liberated Self, there is no error in the impermanence of liberation. But it is reasonable that the liberation to be produced requires mental, verbal or physical action. and in the transformation. The certain impermanence of liberation in both aspects.
न हि दध्यादि विकार्यम् उत्पाद्यं वा घटादि नित्यं दृष्टं लोके। न च आप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा स्वात्मस्वरूपत्वे सत्यनाप्यत्वात् स्वरूपव्यतिरिक्तत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वम्0 0सर्वगतत्वेन0 0नित्याप्तस्वरूपत्वात्सर्वेण ब्रह्मण आकाशस्येव। नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः येन व्यापारमपेक्षेत। संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुणाधानेन वा स्यात् दोषापनयनेन वा। न तावद्गुणाधानेन संभवति अनाधेयातिशयब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य। नापि दोषापनयनेन नित्यशुद्धब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वान्मोक्षस्य।
For milk and other things are not changeable or productive, and pots and other things are not always seen in the world. Nor is there any need for action even by being watery, since Brahman is truly inexhaustible in his own Self-form, even though he is separate from form, just as the sky is in all Brahman, since it is omnipresent and eternally perfect. Nor is there a ritualistic liberation by which trade is required. For ritual is either by imparting the virtues of the ritual or by removing the defects. It is not so much possible by the infusion of virtues, since liberation is the form of the Brahman without infusion. nor of liberation by the removal of faults, since it is the eternally pure form of the Brahman.
स्वात्मधर्म एव सन् तिरोभूतो मोक्षः क्रिययात्मनि संस्क्रियमाणेऽभिव्यज्यते यथा आदर्शे निघर्षणक्रियया संस्क्रियमाणे भास्वरत्वं धर्म इति चेत् न क्रियाश्रयत्वानुपपत्तेरात्मनः। यदाश्रया क्रिया तमविकुर्वती नैवात्मानं लभते। यद्यात्मा स्वाश्रयक्रियया विक्रियेत अनित्यत्वमात्मनः प्रसज्येत। अविकार्योऽयमुच्यते इति चैवमादीनि वाक्यानि बाध्येरन्। तच्चानिष्टम्। तस्मान्न स्वाश्रया क्रिया आत्मनः संभवति। अन्याश्रयायास्तु क्रियाया अविषयत्वान्न तयात्मा संस्क्रियते। ननु देहाश्रयया स्नानाचमनयज्ञोपवीतधारणादिकया क्रियया देही संस्क्रियमाणो दृष्टः न देहादिसंहतस्यैवाविद्यागृहीतस्यात्मनः संस्क्रियमाणत्वात्।
Being the self-dharma itself, the disappeared liberation is expressed when it is cultivated in the action-self, just as in the ideal, when it is cultivated by the action of friction, if it is said that luminosity is dharma, then the self is not dependent on action. The action under which it depends does not attain itself by transforming it. If the self were sold by the action of self-dependence, the impermanence of the self would apply. The statements that it is said to be incorruptible and so on would be bound. That is also undesirable. Therefore, self-dependent action is not possible for the self. But since the action of another dependence is not object, the self is not cultivated by it. Indeed, the embodied is seen to be purified by the actions of bathing, washing, sacrifice, wearing the sacred thread, etc., under the auspices of the body, since the self, which is composed of the body and others, is purified by the grasp of ignorance.
प्रत्यक्षं हि स्नानाचमनादेर्देहसमवायित्वम्। तया देहाश्रयया तत्संहत एव कश्चिदविद्ययात्मत्वेन परिगृहीतः संस्क्रियत इति युक्तम्। यथा देहाश्रयचिकित्सानिमित्तेन धातुसाम्येन तत्संहतस्य तदभिमानिन आरोग्यफलम् अहमरोगः इति यत्र बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते एवं स्नानाचमनयज्ञोपवीतधारणादिकया अहं शुद्धः संस्कृतः इति यत्र बुद्धिरुत्पद्यते स संस्क्रियते। स च देहेन संहत एव। तेनैव अहंकर्त्रा अहंप्रत्ययविषयेण प्रत्ययिना सर्वाः क्रिया निर्वर्त्यन्ते।
For it is direct that bathing, washing, etc., are composed of the body. It is logical that by that body-dependence, one is cultivated, taken as the Self of ignorance, only associated with it. Just as the intellect arises where the body-dependent healing is caused by the equality of metals and the fruit of health of the proud of it, so the intellect arises that I am pure and cleansed by bathing, washing, sacrifice, wearing the veil, etc., is cleansed. And he is already composed of the body. By that same ego-doer, all actions are performed by the belief in the subject of ego-belief.
तत्फलं च स एवाश्नाति तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति इति मन्त्रवर्णात् आत्मेन्द्रियमनोयुक्तं भोक्तेत्याहुर्मनीषिणः इति च। तथा एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा। कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च इति स पर्यागाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम् इति च एतौ मन्त्रावनाधेयातिशयतां नित्यशुद्धतां च ब्रह्मणो दर्शयतः। ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः। तस्मान्न संस्कार्योऽपि मोक्षः।
And he alone eats the fruit of it, and the other of them tastes the fig tree, and the other who does not eat it eats it, and the sages say that he enjoys what is composed of the self, the senses and the mind. Thus the one God is hidden in all beings, omnipresent and within all beings. These two mantras, “He is the master of action, the abode of all beings, the witness, the mind, the only and the transcendental,” show the excessiveness of the mantra and the eternal purity of the Brahman. and the feeling of Brahman is liberation. Therefore, even liberation is not ritualistic.
अतोऽन्यन्मोक्षं प्रति क्रियानुप्रवेशद्वारं न शक्यं केनचिद्दर्शयितुम्। तस्माज्ज्ञानमेकं मुक्त्वा क्रियाया गन्धमात्रस्याप्यनुप्रवेश इह नोपपद्यते। ननु ज्ञानं नाम मानसी क्रिया न वैलक्षण्यात्। क्रिया हि नाम सा यत्र वस्तुस्वरूपनिरपेक्षैव चोद्यते पुरुषचित्तव्यापाराधीना च यथा यस्यै देवतायै हविर्गृहीतं स्यात्तां मनसा ध्यायेद्वषट् करिष्यन् इति संध्यां मनसा ध्यायेत् इति चैवमादिषु। ध्यानं चिन्तनं यद्यपि मानसम् तथापि पुरुषेण कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुं शक्यम् पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात्। ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम्। प्रमाणं च यथाभूतवस्तुविषयम्।
Therefore, no one can show any other gateway to action towards liberation. Therefore, by releasing knowledge alone, the penetration of even the mere smell of action does not occur here. Indeed, knowledge is a mental action, not a distinction. For the action is that where it is induced regardless of the nature of the object and is subject to the transaction of the mind of the man, as in meditating with the mind on the deity to whom the oblation is offered, one should meditate on the evening with the mind. Although meditation and contemplation are mental, they can be done or not done by a man or otherwise, since they are man-system. Knowledge, however, is evidence-based. and proof is the subject of the object as it is.
अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुम् न शक्यम्। केवलं वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत् न चोदनातन्त्रम् नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम् तस्मान्मानसत्वेऽपि ज्ञानस्य महद्वैलक्षण्यम्। यथा च पुरुषो वाव गौतमाग्निः योषा वाव गौतमाग्निः इत्यत्र योषित्पुरुषयोरग्निबुद्धिर्मानसी भवति केवलचोदनाजन्यत्वात्तु क्रियैव सा पुरुषतन्त्रा च या तु प्रसिद्धेऽग्नावग्निबुद्धिः न सा चोदनातन्त्रा नापि पुरुषतन्त्रा किं तर्हि प्रत्यक्षविषयवस्तुतन्त्रैवेति ज्ञानमेवैतत् न क्रिया एवं सर्वप्रमाणविषयवस्तुषु वेदितव्यम्। तत्रैवं सति यथाभूतब्रह्मात्मविषयमपि ज्ञानं न चोदनातन्त्रम्।
Therefore knowledge cannot be done or not done or otherwise. It is only the system of objects, neither the system of inducement nor the system of man; therefore there is a great difference between knowledge even in its mental nature. And just as in Purusha Vava Gautama Agni and Yosha Vava Gautama Agni, the fire intelligence of men and women is mental because it is caused only by inducement, but it is the Purusha Tantra. In this case, even knowledge of the Brahman-self as it is is not a system of inducement.
तद्विषये लिङादयः श्रूयमाणा अपि अनियोज्यविषयत्वात्कुण्ठीभवन्ति उपलादिषु प्रयुक्तक्षुरतैक्ष्ण्यादिवत् अहेयानुपादेयवस्तुविषयत्वात्। किमर्थानि तर्हि आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यः इत्यादीनि विधिच्छायानि वचनानि स्वाभाविकप्रवृत्तिविषयविमुखीकरणार्थानीति ब्रूमः। यो हि बहिर्मुखः प्रवर्तते पुरुषः इष्टं मे भूयादनिष्टं मा भूत् इति न च तत्रात्यन्तिकं पुरुषार्थं लभते तमात्यन्तिकपुरुषार्थवाञ्छिनं
स्वाभाविकात्कार्यकरणसंघातप्रवृत्तिगोचराद्विमुखीकृत्य प्रत्यगात्मस्रोतस्तया प्रवर्तयन्ति आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः इत्यादीनि तस्यात्मान्वेषणाय प्रवृत्तस्याहेयमनुपादेयं चात्मतत्त्वमुपदिश्यते इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्||
Even when linga and others are heard about it, they become frustrated because they are unplanned subjects, since they are subjects of objects that cannot be used, like the razor sharpness used in upala and others. What, then, are the meanings of the words of the shadow of law, such as the soul or the hearer, etc., are meant to divert the objects of natural instinct? For he who acts outwardly, saying, “Let it be desirable to me, let it not be desirable,” and does not find there the ultimate purpose of man, is turned away from the naturally visible instinct of the aggregate of actions
.केन कं विजानीयात् विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात् अयमात्मा ब्रह्म इत्यादिभिः। यदप्यकर्तव्यप्रधानमात्मज्ञानं हानायोपादानाय वा न भवतीति तत्तथैवेत्यभ्युपगम्यते। अलंकारो ह्ययमस्माकम् यद्ब्रह्मात्मावगतौ सत्यां सर्वकर्तव्यताहानिः कृतकृत्यता चेति। तथा च श्रुतिः आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः। किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत् इति एतद्बुद्ध्वा बुद्धिमान्स्यात्कृतकृत्यश्च भारत इति च स्मृतिः। तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्तिविधिशेषतया ब्रह्मणः समर्पणम्।।
By whom shall one know the knower, in the dead, by what shall one know this Self, Brahman, etc.? It is understood that even if self-knowledge, which is predominantly duty-oriented, is not for the sake of loss or for the cause of loss, it is so. This is our rhetoric that in the understanding of the Self-Brahman there is the loss of all duties and the accomplishment of truths. Similarly, if the scripture knows itself, the Purusha says, ‘This is I. Knowing this, he will be wise and accomplished, and remember that India is the source of all desires. Therefore, the offering of the Brahman is not the remainder of the method of assumption.
यदपि केचिदाहुः प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिविधितच्छेषव्यतिरेकेण केवलवस्तुवादी वेदभागो नास्तीति तन्न औपनिषदस्य पुरुषस्यानन्यशेषत्वात् योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेवाधिगतः पुरुषोऽसंसारी ब्रह्मस्वरूपः उत्पाद्यादिचतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः स्वप्रकरणस्थोऽनन्यशेषः नासौ नास्तीति नाधिगम्यत इति वा शक्यं वदितुम् स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा इत्यात्मशब्दात् आत्मनश्च प्रत्याख्यातुमशक्यत्वात् य एव निराकर्ता तस्यैवात्मत्वात्। नन्वात्मा अहंप्रत्ययविषयत्वादुपनिषत्स्वेव विज्ञायत इत्यनुपपन्नम् न तत्साक्षित्वेन प्रत्युक्तत्वात्।
Although some say that there is no merely objective part of the Vedas except the remainder prescribed by the renunciation of instinct, it is not so because the Upanishadic Purusha is the exclusive remainder. Now, since the Self is the subject of ego-belief, it is not inferred that it is understood in the Upanishads themselves, since it is not represented as a witness.
न ह्यहंप्रत्ययविषयकर्तृव्यतिरेकेण तत्साक्षी सर्वभूतस्थः सम एकः कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषो विधिकाण्डे तर्कसमये वा केनचिदधिगतः सर्वस्यात्मा। अतः स न केनचित्प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यः विधिशेषत्वं वा नेतुम् आत्मत्वादेव च सर्वेषाम् न हेयो नाप्युपादेयः। सर्वं हि विनश्यद्विकारजातं पुरुषान्तं विनश्यति पुरुषो हि विनाशहेत्वभावादविनाशी विक्रियाहेत्वभावाच्च कूटस्थनित्यः अत एव नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभावः तस्मात् पुरुषान्न परं किंचित्सा काष्ठा सा परा गतिः तं त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषं पृच्छामि इति चौपनिषदत्वविशेषणं पुरुषस्योपनिषत्सु प्राधान्येन प्रकाश्यमानत्वे उपपद्यते। अतो भूतवस्तुपरो वेदभागो नास्तीति वचनं साहसमात्रम्।।
For I am not the Self of all, attained by anyone in the ritual or in the time of reasoning, the equal, the one, the eternal, the unmanifest, the witness of that in all beings, except the doer of the subject of belief. Therefore, He cannot be rejected by anyone or taken to be the remainder of the law, and because He is the Self, He is neither despised nor attributed to all. For everything born of destructive transformation is destroyed at the end of the Purusha. For the Purusha is indestructible because of the cause of destruction and the cause of reaction. Therefore it is only a dare to say that there is no part of the Vedas other than the objects of beings.
यदपि शास्त्रतात्पर्यविदामनुक्रमणम् दृष्टो हि तस्यार्थः कर्मावबोधनम् इत्येवमादि तत् धर्मजिज्ञासाविषयत्वाद्विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्राभिप्रायं द्रष्टव्यम्। अपि च आम्नायस्य क्रियार्थत्वादानर्थक्यमतदर्थानाम् इत्येतदेकान्तेनाभ्युपगच्छतां भूतोपदेशानामानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः। प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिव्यतिरेकेण भूतं चेद्वस्तूपदिशति भव्यार्थत्वेन कूटस्थनित्यं भूतं नोपदिशतीति को हेतुः। न हि भूतमुपदिश्यमानं क्रिया भवति। अक्रियात्वेऽपि भूतस्य क्रियासाधनत्वात्क्रियार्थ एव भूतोपदेश इति चेत् नैष दोषः क्रियार्थत्वेऽपि क्रियानिर्वर्तनशक्तिमद्वस्तूपदिष्टमेव क्रियार्थत्वं तु प्रयोजनं तस्य न चैतावता वस्त्वनुपदिष्टं भवति।
Although the sequence of the scriptural interpreters is seen, for its meaning is the understanding of action, etc., it should be seen as the intention of the scriptures of law and prohibition, since it is the subject of inquiry into religion. Moreover, since the Amnaya is the meaning of action, the meaninglessness of the opinions is the case of the meaninglessness of the precepts of the beings, which are understood alone. If it teaches the object by the distinction of instinct and renunciation, what is the reason that it does not teach the eternal being in the unmanifest as the future meaning? For the past is not the action being taught. If it is said that the instruction of the being is for the purpose of action even in the absence of action, since the being is the means of action, this is not a fault.
यदि नामोपदिष्टं किं तव तेन स्यादिति उच्यते अनवगतात्मवस्तूपदेशश्च तथैव भवितुमर्हति तदवगत्या मिथ्याज्ञानस्य संसारहेतोर्निवृत्तिः प्रयोजनं क्रियत इत्यविशिष्टमर्थवत्त्वं क्रियासाधनवस्तूपदेशेन। अपि च ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः इति चैवमाद्या निवृत्तिरुपदिश्यते। न च सा क्रिया। नापि क्रियासाधनम्। अक्रियार्थानामुपदेशोऽनर्थकश्चेत् ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः इत्यादिनिवृत्त्युपदेशानामानर्थक्यं प्राप्तम्। तच्चानिष्टम्। न च स्वभावप्राप्तहन्त्यर्थानुरागेण नञः शक्यमप्राप्तक्रियार्थत्वं कल्पयितुम् हननक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदासीन्यव्यतिरेकेण। नञश्चैष स्वभावः यत्स्वसंबन्धिनोऽभावं बोधयतीति। अभावबुद्धिश्चौदासीन्ये कारणम्। सा च दग्धेन्धनाग्निवत्स्वयमेवोपशाम्यति। तस्मात्प्रसक्तक्रियानिवृत्त्यौदासीन्यमेव ब्राह्मणो न हन्तव्यः इत्यादिषु प्रतिषेधार्थं मन्यामहे अन्यत्र प्रजापतिव्रतादिभ्यः। तस्मात्पुरुषार्थानुपयोग्युपाख्यानादिभूतार्थवादविषयमानर्थक्याभिधानं द्रष्टव्यम्।।
If it is said that what is taught by the name will be yours by it, and the teaching of the objects of the unconscious Self can be the same, the distinct meaningfulness of the teaching of the objects of the means of action is the purpose of renunciation of false knowledge for the sake of the world. Moreover, the first renunciation is taught that a Brahmin should not be killed. Nor is that action. nor is it a means of action. If the precept of inaction is meaningless, the precepts of renunciation, such as that a Brahmin should not be killed, have become meaningless. That is also undesirable. Nor can the noun be assumed to be the meaning of the unattained action by the passion for the killing meaning attained by nature, except by the indifference of the renunciation of the killing action. And this is the nature of the noun which signifies the absence of its relative. The intellect of absence is the cause of indifference. And it subsides on its own like a burning fuel fire. Therefore, we consider indifference to the renunciation of attached actions as the means of prohibition in the case of a Brahmin not to be killed, etc., elsewhere than in the Prajapati Vrata and the like. Therefore, the statement of meaninglessness concerning the arguments of the meaning of beings, such as narratives, which are not useful for the purpose of man, should be seen.
यदप्युक्तम् कर्तव्यविध्यनुप्रवेशमन्तरेण वस्तुमात्रमुच्यमानमनर्थकं स्यात् सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती इत्यादिवदिति तत्परिहृतम् रज्जुरियम् नायं सर्पः इति वस्तुमात्रकथनेऽपि प्रयोजनस्य दृष्टत्वात् । ननु श्रुतब्रह्मणोऽपि यथापूर्वं संसारित्वदर्शनान्न रज्जुस्वरूपकथनवदर्थवत्त्वमित्युक्तम् अत्रोच्यते नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं शक्यं दर्शयितुम् वेदप्रमाणजनितब्रह्मात्मभावविरोधात्। न हि शरीराद्यात्माभिमानिनो दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं दृष्टमिति तस्यैव वेदप्रमाणजनितब्रह्मात्मावगमे तदभिमाननिवृत्तौ तदेव मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तं दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं भवतीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम्।
Whatever has been said that without the introduction of the method of duty it would be meaningless to say only the object, as in the case of the seven islands, the earth, etc., has been rejected, since the purpose is seen even in saying the object only, that this rope is not a snake. Indeed, it is said that the view of the worldliness of even the heard Brahman as before is not as meaningful as the statement of the form of a rope. For it is not possible to imagine that the self-conceited, such as the body, has seen the existence of suffering, fear and other things, and that the same existence of suffering and fear becomes the cause of false ignorance when that egoism is withdrawn.
न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्य धनाभिमानिनो धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं दृष्टमिति तस्यैव प्रव्रजितस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं भवति। न च कुण्डलिनः कुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुखं दृष्टमिति तस्यैव कुण्डलवियुक्तस्य कुण्डलित्वाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव कुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुखं भवति। तदुक्तं श्रुत्या अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः इति। शरीरे पतितेऽशरीरत्वं स्यात् न जीवत इति चेत् न सशरीरंत्वस्य मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वात्।
For a rich householder who is proud of his wealth has not seen suffering because of the theft of his wealth, but the same exile who is not proud of his wealth suffers because of the theft of his wealth. Nor is happiness seen by the earring-bearer as the cause of the pride of being an earring, but the same happiness is seen as the cause of the pride of being an earring for the same person who is separated from the earring and is without the pride of being an earring. That is said by the Scriptures, that the disembodied Vava Saint is not touched by pleasant or unpleasant things. If it is said that there is disembodiment when the body falls and it does not live, it is not because being with a body is the cause of false knowledge.
न ह्यात्मनः शरीरात्माभिमानलक्षणं मिथ्याज्ञानं मुक्त्वा अन्यतः सशरीरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम्। नित्यमशरीरत्वमकर्मनिमित्तत्वादित्यवोचाम। तत्कृतधर्माधर्मनिमित्तं सशरीरत्वमिति चेत् न शरीरसंबन्धस्यासिद्धत्वात् धर्माधर्मयोरात्मकृतत्वासिद्धेः शरीरसंबन्धस्य धर्माधर्मयोस्तत्कृतत्वस्य चेतरेतराश्रयत्वप्रसङ्गात् अन्धपरम्परैषा अनादित्वकल्पना क्रियासमवायाभावाच्चात्मनः कर्तृत्वानुपपत्तेः। संनिधानमात्रेण राजप्रभृतीनां दृष्टं कर्तृत्वमिति चेत् न धनदानाद्युपार्जितभृत्यसंबन्धित्वात्तेषां कर्तृत्वोपपत्तेः न त्वात्मनो धनदानादिवच्छरीरादिभिः स्वस्वामिभावसंबन्धनिमित्तं किंचिच्छक्यं कल्पयितुम्। मिथ्याभिमानस्तु प्रत्यक्षः संबन्धहेतुः।
For it is not possible to imagine that the Self is embodied elsewhere, having abandoned false ignorance characterized by body-self-ego. We have said that eternal incorporeality is the cause of inaction. If it is said that the cause of the dharma and dharma done by it is embodiedness, it is not because the body relationship is invalid, the self-madeness of dharma and dharma is invalid, the body relationship between dharma and dharma depends on others. If it is said that the doership of kings and others is seen by mere presence, it is not possible to imagine anything as the cause of the relationship of self-ownership with body and others, as in the case of giving wealth and other things, since they are related to servants earned by giving wealth and other things. But false ego is the direct cause of the relationship.
एतेन यजमानत्वमात्मनो व्याख्यातम्। अत्राहुः देहादिव्यतिरिक्तस्यात्मनः आत्मीये देहादावहमभिमानो गौणः न मिथ्येति चेत् न प्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य गौणत्वमुख्यत्वप्रसिद्धेः। यस्य हि प्रसिद्धो वस्तुभेदः यथा केसरादिमानाकृतिविशेषोऽन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां सिंहशब्दप्रत्ययभाङ् मुख्योऽन्यः सिद्धः ततश्चान्यः पुरुषः प्रायिकैः क्रौर्यशौर्यादिभिः सिंहगुणैः संपन्नः सिद्धः तस्य तस्मिन्पुरुषे सिंहशब्दप्रत्ययौ गौणौ भवतः नाप्रसिद्धवस्तुभेदस्य।
This explains the sacrificial nature of the self. Here they say that if it is said that the ego of the body and others in the self of the self other than the body and others is secondary and not false, it is not because the difference of known objects is known to be secondary and important. For in a man whose well-known difference of objects, such as a special shape of saffron and other measures, is proved to be the main other by the distinction of consequences and distinctions, and then another man is proved to be endowed with the qualities of a lion.
तस्य त्वन्यत्रान्यशब्दप्रत्ययौ भ्रान्तिनिमित्तावेव भवतः न गौणौ यथा मन्दान्धकारे स्थाणुरयमित्यगृह्यमाणविशेषे पुरुषशब्दप्रत्ययौ स्थाणुविषयौ यथा वा शुक्तिकायामकस्माद्रजतमिदमिति निश्चितौ शब्दप्रत्ययौ तद्वद्देहादिसंघाते अहम् इति निरुपचारेण शब्दप्रत्ययावात्मानात्माविवेकेनोत्पद्यमानौ कथं गौणौ शक्यौ वदितुम्। आत्मानात्मविवेकिनामपि पण्डितानामजाविपालानामिवाविविक्तौ शब्दप्रत्ययौ भवतः।
But elsewhere in him the suffixes of other words are only causes of delusion and are not secondary. Just as the suffixes of the word purusha are stable subjects in a particular perceived as stable in dim darkness. Even the self-conscious have the same distinct convictions of words as the learned goat-keepers.
तस्माद्देहादिव्यतिरिक्तात्मास्तित्ववादिनां देहादावहंप्रत्ययो मिथ्यैव न गौणः। तस्मान्मिथ्याप्रत्ययनिमित्तत्वात्सशरीरत्वस्य सिद्धं जीवतोऽपि विदुषोऽशरीरत्वम्। तथा च ब्रह्मविद्विषया श्रुतिः तद्यथाहिनिर्ल्वयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीतैवमेवेद्रीरं शेते अथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव इति सचक्षुरचक्षुरिव सकर्णोऽकर्ण इव सवागवागिक समना अमना इव सप्राणोऽप्राण इव इति च। स्मृतिरपि स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा इत्याद्या स्थितप्रज्ञस्य लक्षणान्याचक्षाणा विदुषः सर्वप्रवृत्त्यसंबन्धं दर्शयति। तस्मान्नावगतब्रह्मात्मभावस्य यथापूर्वं संसारित्वम्। यस्य तु यथापूर्वं संसारित्वं नासाववगतब्रह्मात्मभाव इत्यनवद्यम्।।
Therefore, the belief of the self-existenceists of the body and others is false and not secondary. Therefore, since it is the cause of false belief, it is proved that the learned is incorporeal even while living. Similarly, the scripture about the Brahma-vidya says that as a snake lies dead in an anthill, so it lies in the valley, that the body is immortal, the life-force is Brahman, the life-force is Brahman, the eye is the eye, the ear is the ear, the speech is the same. Memory also shows the relationship of all instincts of the learned by looking at other characteristics of the steady intellect, such as what is the language of the steady intellect. Therefore, the unconscious Brahman-self-being is as worldly as before. But it is infallible that he whose worldliness as before is the Self-being of the Brahman, whose nose is not understood.
यत्पुनरुक्तं श्रवणात्पराचीनयोर्मनननिदिध्यासनयोर्दर्शनाद्विधिशेषत्वं ब्रह्मणः न स्वरूपपर्यवसायित्वमिति तन्न श्रवणवदवगत्यर्थत्वान्मनननिदिध्यासनयोः। यदि ह्यवगतं ब्रह्मान्यत्र विनियुज्येत भवेत्तदा विधिशेषत्वम् न तु तदस्ति मनननिदिध्यासनयोरपि श्रवणवदवगत्यर्थत्वात्। तस्मान्न प्रतिपत्तिविधिविषयतया शास्त्रप्रमाणकत्वं ब्रह्मणः संभवतीत्यतः स्वतन्त्रमेव ब्रह्म शास्त्रप्रमाणकं वेदान्तवाक्यसमन्वयादिति सिद्धम्।
What has been repeated, that the remainder of the ritual is not the profession of the form of the Brahman by seeing the two ancient meditations and meditations from hearing, is not true, since the meditations and meditations have the same meaning as hearing. For if the unconscious Brahman were to be applied elsewhere, then there would be a remainder of the method, but that is not the case, since even contemplation and meditation have the same meaning as hearing. Therefore, since it is not possible for Brahman to be scripturally authentic as a matter of the method of assumption, it is proved that Brahman is independently scripturally authentic by the consistency of the Vedanta statement.
एवं च सति अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा इति तद्विषयः पृथक् शास्त्रारम्भ उपपद्यते। प्रतिपत्तिविधिपरत्वे हि अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा इत्येवारब्धत्वान्न पृथक् शास्त्रमारभ्येत् आरभ्यमाणं चैवमारभ्येत अथातः परिशिष्टधर्मजिज्ञासेति अथातः क्रत्वर्थपुरुषार्थयोर्जिज्ञासा इतिवत्। ब्रह्मात्मैक्यावगतिस्त्वप्रतिज्ञातेति तदर्थो युक्तः शास्त्रारम्भः अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा इति। तस्मात् अहं ब्रह्मास्मीत्येतदवसाना एव सर्वे विधयः सर्वाणि चेतराणि प्रमाणानि। न ह्यहेयानुपादेयाद्वैतात्मावगतौ सत्याम् निर्विषयाण्यप्रमातृकाणि च प्रमाणानि भवितुमर्हन्तीति। अपि चाहुः गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात्। सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत्।। अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात्प्राक्प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः। अन्विष्टः स्यात्प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादिवर्जितः।। देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः। लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वात्मनिश्चयात् इति।।
In this case, therefore, the subject of that is the inquiry into the Absolute Truth, a separate beginning of the scriptures arises. For in the case of the method of assumption, since it is the inquiry into religion, it should not begin with a separate scripture, and the one being begun should be started with the inquiry into the additional religion, as inquiry into the purpose of sacrifice and the purpose of man. The understanding of the oneness of the Brahman and the Self is promised, and that means the beginning of the scriptures, and therefore the inquiry into the Brahman. Therefore, all the methods and all the other proofs are the conclusion that I am Brahman. For in the understanding of the Self of Advaita by the inexhaustible, there can be no objective and non-proof evidence for truth. They also said that the secondary false self is non-existent, because of the obstruction of the body of the son and so on. How can there be any work in such understanding that I am the Self of the True Brahman? The pre-proof of the self from the self-knowledge to be sought. He should be sought after by the proof and free from sin, faults and so on. As the belief in the body and the self is supposed to be proof. This is the same as the worldly, but this is the proof of self-determination.
एवं तावद्वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिप्रयोजनाना ब्रह्मात्मनि तात्पर्येण समन्वितानामन्तरेणापि कार्यानुप्रवेशं ब्रह्मणि पर्यवसानमुक्तम्। ब्रह्म च सर्वज्ञं सर्वशक्ति जगदुत्पत्तिस्थितिलयकारणमित्युक्तम्। सांख्यादयस्तु परिनिष्ठितं वस्तु प्रमाणान्तरगम्यमेवेति मन्यमानाः प्रधानादीनि कारणान्तराण्यनुमिमानास्तत्परतयैव वेदान्तवाक्यानि योजयन्ति। सर्वेष्वेव वेदान्तवाक्येषु सृष्टिविषयेष्वनुमानेनैव कार्येण कारणं लिलक्षयिषितम्। प्रधानपुरुषसंयोगा नित्यानुमेया इति सांख्या मन्यन्ते। काणादास्त्वेतेभ्य एव वाक्येभ्य ईश्वरं निमित्तकारणमनुमिमते अणूंश्च समवायिकारणम्। एवमन्येऽपि तार्किका वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासावष्टम्भाः पूर्वपक्षवादिन इहोत्तिष्ठन्ते। तत्र पदवाक्यप्रमाणज्ञेनाचार्येण वेदान्तवाक्यानां ब्रह्मात्मावगतिपरत्वप्रदर्शनाय वाक्याभासयुक्त्याभासप्रतिपत्तयः पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य निराक्रियन्ते।।
Thus, so far, the entry of action into Brahman, even without the difference of the Vedanta statements for the purpose of understanding the Brahman-self, which are synonymous with the Brahman-self, has been said to be the conclusion. And Brahman, the omniscient, omnipotent, is said to be the cause of the creation, existence and annihilation of the universe. But the Sankhyas and others, believing that the established object is accessible to other proofs, infer other causes such as the principal, and then add the Vedanta statements. In all the statements of Vedanta concerning creation, the cause is to be noted by the action of inference alone. The Sankhyas believe that the combinations of the principal person are eternally inferential. From these very statements, Kanada infers God as the cause of occasion and atoms as the cause of compounds. Similarly, other logical phrase-illusion logic-illusion pillars are raised here by the former partisans. There, the teacher, who is knowledgeable in the proof of the phrase, rejects the assumptions of the illusion of the illusion of the phrase, the logic of the illusion of the phrase, in order to show that the statements of Vedanta are beyond the understanding of the Brahman.
तत्र सांख्याः प्रधानं त्रिगुणमचेतनं स्वतन्त्रं जगत्कारणमिति मन्यमाना आहुः यानि वेदान्तवाक्यानि सर्वज्ञस्य सर्वशक्तेर्ब्रह्मणो जगत्कारणत्वं प्रदर्शयन्तीत्यवोचः तानि प्रधानकारणपक्षेऽपि योजयितुं शक्यन्ते। सर्वशक्तित्वं तावत्प्रधानस्यापि स्वविकारविषयमुपपद्यते। एवं सर्वज्ञत्वमप्युपपद्यते कथम् यत्त्वं ज्ञानं मन्यसे स सत्त्वधर्मः सत्त्वात्संजायते ज्ञानम् इति स्मृतेः। तेन च सत्त्वधर्मेण ज्ञानेन कार्यकरणवन्तः पुरुषाः सर्वज्ञा योगिनः प्रसिद्धाः। सत्त्वस्य हि निरतिशयोत्कर्षे सर्वज्ञत्वं प्रसिद्धम्।
There, the Sankhyas, believing the principal, the threefold, the unconscious, to be the independent cause of the universe, say that the statements of Vedanta which they have said show that the omniscient, omnipotent Brahman is the cause of the universe can also be applied to the principal cause. Omnipotence is so much the subject of its own transformation even of the principal. Thus even omniscience is attained, how is it that what you think to be knowledge is the dharma of Sattva, since knowledge arises from Sattva? And by that, by the Dharma of Sattva, men who are able to act by knowledge are known as omniscient yogis. For it is well known that Sattva is omniscient in its infinite exaltation.
न केवलस्य अकार्यकरणस्य पुरुषस्योपलब्धिमात्रस्य सर्वज्ञत्वं किंचिज्ज्ञत्वं वा कल्पयितुं शक्यम्। त्रिगुणत्वात्तु प्रधानस्य सर्वज्ञानकारणभूतं सत्त्वं प्रधानावस्थायामपि विद्यत इति प्रधानस्याचेतनस्यैव सतः सर्वज्ञत्वमुपचर्यते वेदान्तवाक्येषु। अवश्यं च त्वयापि सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मेत्यभ्युपगच्छता सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्। न हि सर्वदा सर्वविषयं ज्ञानं कुर्वदेव ब्रह्म वर्तते। तथाहि ज्ञानस्य नित्यत्वे ज्ञानक्रियां प्रति स्वातन्त्र्यं ब्रह्मणो हीयेत अथानित्यं तदिति ज्ञानक्रियाया उपरमे उपरमेतापि ब्रह्म तदा सर्वज्ञानशक्तिमत्त्वेनैव सर्वज्ञत्वमापतति। अपि च प्रागुत्पत्तेः सर्वकारकशून्यं ब्रह्मेष्यते त्वया। न च ज्ञानसाधनानां शरीरेन्द्रियादीनामभावे ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः कस्यचिदुपपन्ना। अपि च प्रधानस्यानेकात्मकस्य परिणामसंभवात्कारणत्वोपपत्तिर्मृदादिवत् नासंहतस्यैकात्मकस्य ब्रह्मणः इत्येवं प्राप्ते इदं सूत्रमारभ्यते
It is not possible to imagine that the mere perception of a man who is not doing anything is omniscient or knows anything. But since the principal is threefold, the Sattva, which is the cause of all knowledge, exists even in the state of the principal, and the omniscience of the unconscious of the principal is treated in the statements of Vedanta. And surely you too, having attained to the omniscient Brahman, should attain to omniscience by virtue of your omniscience power. For Brahman does not always exist by making knowledge of all things. Thus, in the eternity of knowledge, the independence of the Brahman towards the act of knowledge is lost. Moreover, you will attain Brahman, devoid of all causes, from pre-existence. Nor is the origin of knowledge attained by anyone in the absence of the body, senses, etc., as the means of knowledge. Moreover, since the principal is a plural, the assumption of causality is possible, since it is thus obtained that the unitary Brahman is not composed like clay and others, this formula begins
