Hastāmalakabhāṣyam

of
Ādi Śaṅkarācārya

Translated for the first time

from the original Sanskrit into English by:
SUDIPTA MUNSI
यिममन्ज्ञाते भवेत्सवं िवञातं परमात्मिन ।

तं वन्ज्दे िनत्यिवञानमानन्ज्दमजमव्ययम् ॥

यदञानादभदू व् तै ं ञाते यिममिन्ज्नवततते ।

रज्जसु पतवदत्यन्ज्तं तं वन्ज्दे परुु षोत्तमम् ॥

यमयोपदेशदीिधत्या िचदात्मा नः प्रकाशते ।

नमः सद्गरु वे तममै मवािवद्याध्वान्ज्तभानवे ॥

इह िह सर्वस्य जन्तोः सख
ु ं मे भयू ाद्ुोःखं मे मा भयू ा्् इि् स्र्रस् एर् सख
ु तपािित्सािोःु खिजहासे

भर््ोः । ्त्र योः किि्् पण्ु याि्शयशाली अर्श्यंभािर्िोःु खािर्नाभ्ू त्र्ाििनत्यत्र्ाच्च िर्षयजं सख
ु ं

िोःु खमेर्ेि् ज्ञात्र्ा यत्नेन ससाधनात्संसारात्त्यक्तासिक्तरत्यन्ं िर्रज्य्े । िर्रक्ति संसारहानौ य््े ।

ससं ारस्य च आत्मस्र्रूपापररज्ञानकृ ्त्र्ा्् आत्मज्ञानािननर्ृििररि् ्ं प्रत्यात्मज्ञानमाचायव उपििशि्

In this world, the desires of producing pleasure and abhorring pain in the form of ‘may I

have pleasure; may I not have pain’ of all people are but natural. Of them, someone,

possessing immense virtue, deeming objective pleasures as painful, on account of their

being non-different from inevitable pain as also ephemerality, makes effort to abstain

from this phenomenal world together with the means (of getting it). (Such a) detached

person makes efforts for eradicating the phenomenal existence. Since the phenomenal

existence is caused by the ignorance of the real nature of the Self, its eradication
proceeds from the knowledge of the Self. It is for this reason that the teacher instructs

such a person (as follows) –

िनिमत्तं मनश्चक्षरु ािदप्रवृत्तौ

िनरमतािखलोपािधराकाशकल्पः ।

रिवलोकचेष्टािनिमत्तं यथा यः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ १ ॥

I am the Self, that is of the nature of awareness; the cause of the activities of the

mind, eye, etc. just like the sun, which is the cause of the activities of earthly

beings; (although in reality) devoid of all limiting adjuncts like the ākāśa.

भाष्यम्

ननु सवतत्र ग्रन्ज्थादौ िशष्टानािमष्टदेवतामतिु तनममकारपिू वतका प्रवृित्तरुपलधधा ; ऄयं च िवना

मतिु तनममकारौ प्रवततमानोऽिशष्टत्वात् ऄनादरणीयवचनः प्रसज्येतेित चेत् —

Objection: Well, everywhere at the beginning of a text it is seen that the enterprise of the

wise (for writing a text) is preceded by hymn and salutation to (one’s) desired deity.

(Thus,) this one (i.e. the author of the present hymn), proceeding (to compose the text)

without (any) hymn and salutation (to his desired deity) would turn out to be someone

whose words are not fit for regard, on account of his being unwise.
न ; मतिु तनममकारयोस्त्रैिवध्यात् ; ित्रिवधौ िह मतिु तनममकारौ — काियकौ वािचकौ मानिसकौ

चेित । तत्र काियकवािचकयोरभावेऽिप परमिशष्टत्वादाचायतमय ग्रन्ज्थमय ऄिवघ्नेन पररसमाप्तेश्च

मानिसकौ मतिु तनममकारावकरोदयमाचायत आत्यवगम्यते ; यित्किचचदेतत् ।

Reply: Not so; because of the three-fold division of hymn and salutation. Threefold are

hymn and salutation – physical, linguistic and mental. Thus, even in the absence of

physical and linguistic hymn and salutation, it is understood that the teacher performed

mental hymn and salutation, on account of the author being supremely wise, as also the

unhindered completion of the text.

प्रकृ तमनसु रामः — मनश्च चक्षश्चु मनश्चक्षषु ी, ते अिदयेषां तािन मनश्चक्षरु ादीिन ; अिदशधदः

प्रत्येकमिभसम्बध्यते ;

(Now,) we come back to the current (text): mind and eye form the beginning whereof.

The word ‘ādi’ has connection with each of them (i.e. mind and eye).

ततश्च ऄयमथो भवित — मनअदीनां मनोऽहङ्कारबिु द्चिचत्तानां चतणु ातमन्ज्तःकरणानाम् , तथा

ु ीिन्ज्ियाणाम् , एवं वाक्श्पािणपादपायपू मथानां

चक्षरु ादीनां चक्षमु त्वक्श्रोत्रिजह्वाघ्राणानां पचचबद्च

पचचकमेिन्ज्ियाणाम् , प्रवृत्तौ मवमवव्यापारे , िनिमत्तं हेतःु यः, सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ।

Therefore, the present meaning emerges – I am the Self that is the cause of the

functioning of the four internal organs – mind (manas), ego (ahaṃkāra), intellect

(buddhi) and heart (citta), of which mind comes first; the five organs of knowledge –
eye, skin, ear, tongue, nose; as also, the five organs of actions – speech, hand, feet, anus,

generative organ – of which eye comes first; such is the (syntactical) relation (of the

word in the verse).

स कीदृश आत्याकाङ्क्षायामाह — िनत्योपलिधधररित । िनत्या च ऄसावपु लिधधश्चेित

िनत्योपलिधधः, सा मवरूपं यमय स तथोक्तः । रिवः अिदत्यः यथा येन प्रकारे ण प्रकाशकत्वेन

लोकानां चेष्टायां मपन्ज्दने िनिमत्तं हेतःु , तथैव ऄिधष्ठातृत्वेन यो िनिमत्तं सोऽहमात्मेत्यथतः — आित आयं

दृिष्टः अत्मञानोपायत्वेन दिशतता । परमाथततमतु िनरमताः िनराकृ ताः ऄिखलाः िनरवशेषाः उपाधयो

बदु ध्् यािदलक्षणाः यमय स तथोक्तः । िनरमतािखलोपािधत्वादेव ऄयमाकाशकल्पः अकाशविवशद्च

ु

आत्यथतः ॥

In response to the desire as to how it (i.e., the Self) is, (the teacher) says –

nityopalabdhiriti. He, who is of the nature of eternal awareness, is so described. Just as

the sun is the cause of the activities, i.e., vibrations of all earthly beings on account of its

being the agent of illumination, likewise that which is the cause (of all and sundry) on

account of its being the substratum, is I, who am the Self. Such a vision is presented on

account of its being the instrument of the knowledge of the Self. In reality, he, all the

limiting adjuncts, characterised by intellect, etc. whereof are negated, is so described. It

is but on account of the negation of all limiting adjuncts that he is comparable to the

ākāśa, i.e. pure as the ākāśa.

ननु मनिक्षरु ाििप्रर्ृिौ िकमर्वमिधष्ठा्ा इष्य्े ? स्र्यमेर् कस्मानन प्रर््वन्े ? कर्ं च

िनत्यतपलिधधस्र्रूपत्र्म् अिधष्ठा्रु रष्य्े ? इत्य् आह —

(Lest it be thought by someone as to) what is the need for the substratum in regard to the

activities of the mind, eye, etc.; why cannot they act on their own; why is the nature of

the substratum thought to be as being eternal awareness; it is said –

यमग्नन्ज्यष्ु णविन्ज्नत्यबोधमवरूपं

मनश्चक्षरु ादीन्ज्यबोधात्मकािन ।

प्रवततन्ज्त अिरत्य िनष्कम्पमेकं

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ २ ॥

That which is of the nature of eternal awareness like heat in regard to fire,

depending upon which, the mind, eye, etc. that are not of the nature of awareness,

function, I am that Self of the nature of eternal awareness.

भाष्यम्

यं िनत्यबोधमवरूपमात्मानम् अिरत्य मनश्चक्षरु ादीिन प्रवततन्ज्ते, सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ।

I am the Self of the nature of eternal awareness, which is resorted to by the mind, eye,

for (their respective) functioning – such is the (syntactical) relation (of the word in the

verse).

ननु कथं बोधमय िनत्यत्वम् ? बोधो िह नाम ञानम् ; तच्च आिन्ज्ियाथतसिं नकषातिदना जायते समत्ु पद्यते

; उत्पन्ज्नं च ञानं मवकायेण संमकारे ण िवरोिधना ञानान्ज्तरे ण वा िवनश्यित ; ऄतः

उत्पित्तनाशधमतवत्त्वात् न िनत्यं भिवतमु हतित ; नािप बोधमवरूपत्वमात्मन उपपद्यते, िनत्यत्वादात्मनः,

ऄिनत्यत्वाच्च बोधमय ; न िह िनत्यािनत्ययोरे कमवभावत्वम् , िवरोधात् आित ॥

Objection: Well, how come awareness is eternal? Awareness means knowledge; that is

generated by the contact of the sense organs with the (respective) objects; the knowledge

(thus) generated is destructed by its effect in the form of knowledge-trace (saṃskāra) or

by a different knowledge; therefore, on account of its possessing the properties of origin

and destruction, it cannot be eternal; nor can logically the Self be of the nature of

awareness, since the Self is eternal and awareness is non-eternal. On account of

contradiction, eternality and non-eternality cannot be the nature of a single entity.

ऄत्रोच्यते — बोधो िह नाम चैतन्ज्यमिभप्रेतम् ; न च ञानं चैतन्ज्यम् , जन्ज्यञानमय ञेयत्वेन

घटािदवज्जडत्वात् । ञेयं िह ञानम् , घटञानं मे जातं पटञानं मे जातिमित साक्षादनभु यू मानत्वात् ।

ऄतः तमय ऄिनत्यत्वेन ऄनात्ममवरूपत्वेऽिप, िनत्यबोधमवरूपत्वम् अत्मन उपपद्यते ।

Reply: Here it is said that – by awareness, consciousness is intended; knowledge cannot

be consciousness, since the knowledge that has an origin is insentient like jar, etc. on
account of its having the property of being a knowable. Knowledge is knowable, since it

is so experienced directly as in ‘my knowledge of the jar is generated’, ‘my knowledge

of the cloth is generated’, etc. Therefore, in spite of its being of the nature of non-Self

due to its non-eternality, the nature of the Self as eternal awareness is logical.

ननु अत्मनः चेतनत्वे िकं प्रमाणिमित चेत् , जगत्प्रकाश आित ब्रमू ः । जगत् प्रकाशत आित

सवतजनिसद्चम् ; तत्र ञानादीनां ञेयत्वेन जडत्वात् , अत्मप्रकाशेनैव जगत् प्रकाशत आित िनिश्चतं

भवित । अत्मा च मवपरप्रकाशवान् सिवतृप्रकाशवत् — यथा सिवता मवयं प्रकाशमानो जगदिप

प्रकाशयित, तथा अत्मापीित ।

Well, if it be asked as to what is the proof for the conscious nature of the Self, we say

that it is the manifestation of the world. That the world manifests is unanimous; since

there knowledge, etc. are insentient on account of their having the property of being

knowable, it is certain that the world manifests through the illumination of the Self. And

the Self is the illuminator of itself as well as others like the sun – just as the sun, while

illuminating itself, illumines the world too, likewise the Self also.

ऄमतु तिहत िचद्चमात परुु षः, कथमयं िचत्मवभाव आित ।

Let then the Self be that which has consciousness as its property; how come is it of the

nature of consciousness?

न, धमतधिमतभावमय ऄनपु पत्तेः ॥

It cannot be so, on account of the illogicality of the sense of property and property-

possessor (in consciousness).

तथा िह — अत्मनश्चैतन्ज्यं िभन्ज्नम् , ऄिभन्ज्नं वा, िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नं वा ।

That is to say – is consciousness different from the Self, or non-different, or both

different and non-different?

तत्र न तावििन्ज्नम् ; िभन्ज्नं चेत् , घटवदात्मधमतत्वानपु पत्तेः ।

Of those alternatives, it is not something different. For, if it be different, then it cannot

the property of the Self, just a jar.

ननु घटः ऄसम्बन्ज्धात् अत्मधमो न भवित, चैतन्ज्यं तु अत्मसम्बन्ज्धीित यक्त

ु मात्मधमतत्वम् आत्यिप न

सम्बन्ज्धानपु पत्तेः ।

Well, it cannot be said that a jar, being unrelated, is not a property of the Self, but since

consciousness is a relatum of the Self, its being a property of the Self is logical. This is

because a relation (between consciousness and the Self) does not stand the test of reason.

सम्बन्ज्धो िह तावत् संयोगो वा समवायो वा मयात् , सम्बन्ज्धान्ज्तरमय ऄत्र ऄसम्भवात् ।

The relation can either be that of contact or inherence, since anything else is here

impossible.

न तावत्सयं ोगः, तमय िव्यमात्रधमतत्वात् , ऄिव्यत्वाच्चैतन्ज्यमय ।

It is not (the relation of) contact, since it occurs only between two (or more) substances,

and since consciousness is not something having the property of being a substance.

नािप समवायः, ऄनवमथापातात् ।

Nor even inherence, since it would result in a regress ad infinitum.

समवायो िह सम्बद्चः समवाियनौ सम्बध्नाित, ऄसम्बद्चो वा ?

Does inherence connect the two inherents (i.e. the two relata connected by the relation of

inhernce) while itself being connected, or unconnected?

न तावदसम्बद्चः, घटािदवदिकिचचत्करत्वात् ।

It cannot remain unconnected (while connecting the two relata), since in that case it will

be unable of doing anything like a jar, etc.

सम्बद्चश्चेत् , संयोगादेरभावेन समवायमयािप समवायान्ज्तरमभ्यपु गन्ज्तव्यम् । एवं परम्परापेक्षायाम्

ऄनवमथापात आित यित्किचचदेतत् । तममाििन्ज्नत्वपक्षे धमतधिमतभावः सवतथा नोपपद्यते ।

If it is connected, then in the absence of (the relation of) contact, etc. another inherence is

to be accepted. In this way, with the want of a series (of inherences, connecting each

other), it will lead to an infinite regress. Whatever little may that be. Therefore, the

sense of property and property-possessor is altogether impossible in regard to the

standpoint of difference (of consciousness from the Self).

ऄिभन्ज्नत्वपक्षे तु बोधमय अत्मरूपत्वेन सतु रां धमतधिमतभावो नामत्येव । न िह तमय तदेव धमो भवित

; न िह शक्श्ु लं शक्श्ु लमय धमो भवतीित ।

As regards the standpoint of non-difference, the sense of property and property-

possessor is even more impossible because of awareness being the nature of the Self. It

is not that X becomes the property of itself; whiteness is not the property of whiteness.

तममात् िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नत्वपक्ष एव ऄविशष्यते । स च िवरोधान्ज्न यज्ु यते — न ह्येकमेवैकममात्

िभन्ज्नमिभन्ज्नं च भिवतमु हतित, िवरोधात् ।

Therefore, only the standpoint of difference-cum-non-difference remains. And that is

not possible due to contradiction – since something cannot be both different and non-

different from another thing, on account of contradiction.

ऄथोच्यते — प्रत्यक्षिसद्चत्वात् भेदाभेदौ ऄिवरुद्चौ । तथा िह — गौररयिमित िपण्डाव्यितरे केण

गोत्वं प्रतीयते ; तदेव िपण्डान्ज्तरे प्रत्यिभञायमानत्वात् भेदने ावगम्यते ; ऄतः प्रत्यक्षेणैव भेदाभेदयोः

प्रतीयमानत्वात् ऄिवरोध आित ।

Objection: Now it is being said that – difference-cum-non-difference are not

contradictory because of their being perceptibly evident. That is to say – in such cases as

‘this is a cow’, the property of being a cow is visible non-differently from the individual;

and that only being recognised in a different individual is understood differently;

therefore because of its comprehension through perception itself, there is no

contradiction of difference and non-difference.

नैतत्साधु मन्ज्यामहे, प्रत्यक्षमय ऄन्ज्यथािसद्चत्वात् — िभन्ज्नमिप िह वमतु प्रत्यक्षेण

ऄत्यन्ज्तसंिनधानािददोषात् ऄिभन्ज्नवत्प्रतीयते — यथा दीपज्वाला िभन्ज्नािप

कुतिश्चत्कारणादिभन्ज्नवत्प्रितभासन्ज्ते, तथा ऄिभन्ज्नमिप वमतु िभन्ज्निमव प्रितभासते — यथा

एकममाच्चन्ज्िािवतीयश्चन्ज्ि आित — ऄतः प्रत्यक्षमय ऄन्ज्यथािसद्चत्वात् न तेन प्रत्यक्षेण प्रमाणिसद्चमय

भेदाभेदिवरोधमय प्रितक्षेपो यक्त

ु आित ।

Reply: We don’t consider it to be correct, since (the evidence of) perception is otherwise.

For, different things appear to be non-different through perception because of the defects

of immense proximity, etc. – as lamp-flames despite being different appear to be non-

different for some reason;, and a non-different entity too appears to be different, as it

were – such as a second moon (different) from the single moon. Therefore, (the validity

of) perception being otherwise, the repudiation of the valid contradiction of difference

and non-difference with the help of perception is not logical.

ऄथैवमच्ु यते — चैतन्ज्यमय वे रूपे मतः, अत्ममवरूपता चैतन्ज्यमवरूपता चेित । तत्र

अत्ममवरूपतया अत्मनो न िभद्यते ; िभद्यते च चैतन्ज्यमवरूपतया । ऄतः उभयरूपाभ्यां

िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नत्वमिवरुद्चिमित ।
ObjectionL Now it is being said that – there are two aspects of consciousness; they are of

the aspect of the Self and the aspect of consciousness. There, (consciousness) does not

differ from the Self in respect of the aspect of the Self, but differs because of the aspect

of consciousness. Therefore, on account of the two aspects, difference and non-

difference are not contradictory.

तदिप न, धमतधिमतत्वाभावात् । तथा िह — येन रूपेण तदिभन्ज्नं न तेन रूपेण धमतत्वम्

ऄिभन्ज्नत्वादवोचाम । येन रूपेण िभन्ज्नम् , तेनािप न धमतः, िभन्ज्नत्वाद्घटािदविदत्यक्त

ु म् ।

Reply: Not even that, because of the absence of the notions of property and property-

possessor. That is to say –we have said that due to the aspect (viz. aspect of the Self), in

terms of which it (i.e. consciousness) is non-different (from the Self), it (i.e.

consciousness) cannot be the property (of the Self), because of non-difference. (And) the

aspect (i.e. the aspect of consciousness) in terms whereof it is different, cannot also be

the reason for its being the property, on account of difference, just like jar, etc.

यच्चोक्तम् उभयरूपाभ्यां िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नत्विमित, तदिप िवचारं न सहते । ते रूपे िकं चैतन्ज्याििन्ज्ने,

ऄिभन्ज्ने, िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्ने वा । तत्र न तावििन्ज्ने, िभन्ज्नत्वे घटािदवदिकिचचत्करणत्वात् ; ऄिभन्ज्नत्वे

चैतन्ज्यमात्रमेवेित न ताभ्यां िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नत्वम् । िभन्ज्नािभन्ज्नत्वं च िवरोधादेव न यक्त

ु म् । तयोरिप

रूपान्ज्तराभ्यां िभन्ज्निभन्ज्नत्वाभ्यपु गमे ऄनवमथापात आत्यलमितिवमतरे ण । तममान्ज्नात्मा सवतथा िचद्चमात

; िकं तिहत ? िचत्मवरूप एवेित । एतेन सदानन्ज्दयोरिप अत्ममवरूपत्वं व्याख्यातम् ।

Nor even does the difference-cum-non-difference, spoken of, due to the two aspects,

stand the test of reason. Are those two aspects different from consciousness, or non-

different, or different-cum-non-different. Of them, they are certainly not different, for if

they were different, they would be unable of doing anything like a jar, etc; had they been

non-different, then there would be only be mere consciousness, and no difference-cum-

non-difference on account of them. And difference-cum-non-non-difference is not

logical because of being contradictory. If with the help of different aspects of even them

(i.e. the aspect of the Self and aspect of consciousness) their difference-cum-non-

difference (from consciousness) is conjectured, it would lead to an infinite regress.

Enough of too much elaboration! Therefore, the Self is never something that has

consciousness as its property. What is it then? It is certainly of the nature of

consciousness. By this, even existence and bliss are explained as the nature of the Self.

िनत्यश्च अत्मा, सदकारणवत्त्वात् परमाणवु त् ; सन् अत्मा, ऄहमममीित प्रतीतेः । ऄकारणवांश्च ; न

िह ऄमय कारणं वमतु प्रत्यक्षािदिभरुपलभ्यते, नािप रयू ते ; िकं तु त्रैलोक्श्यैककारणता िह अत्मनः

रयू ते ‘तममावा एतममादात्मन अकाशः सम्भतू ः’ आत्यािदरिु तभ्यः । न त्वात्मनोऽिप कारणान्ज्तरम् ।

ऄतः सदकारणवत्त्वात् िनत्य अत्मेित िसद्चम् । तममात् साधक्त

ू ं िनत्यबोधमवरूपिमित ।

The Self is eternal, because of being existent and lacking any cause, like the atom;

because of the comprehension in the form of ‘I am’, the Self is existent. And it is

without a cause; for no causal entity for it is obtained by means of perception, etc., nor is

it available in the Veda-s. On the contrary, the causality of the Self in regard to the three

worlds is spoken of in theVeda-s as in the Vedic statements like ‘From that very Self that
is this, the ākāśa originated’, etc. The Self is not caused by something else. Therefore, it

is established that the Self is eternal, on account of being existent and without any cause.

Thus it is well said that (it is) of the nature of eternal awareness.

तत्रैव दृष्टान्ज्तमाह — ऄग्नन्ज्यष्ु णविदित । यथा उष्णत्वमग्ननेनत व्यितररच्यते । व्यितरे के िह

कदािचदग्ननेरन्ज्यत्राप्यपु लभ्येत — यथा परुु षाद्ङण्डािद ; न चैवमिमत ; तममादिग्ननमवरूपमेव

ऄग्ननेरुष्णत्वम् । एवमात्मनोऽिप चैतन्ज्यं मवरूपमेवेत्यथतः । तथा च उक्तम् — ‘िनरंशत्वािवभत्ु वाच्च

तथानश्वरभावतः । ब्रह्मव्योम्नोनत भेदोऽिमत चैतन्ज्यं ब्रह्मणोऽिधकम’् आित ।

An illustration is being offered therein – agnyuṣṇavaditi. Just as hotness does not stay

apart from fire. Had it been different from fire, then sometime it could be obtained

elsewhere as well – as in case of a stick, etc. that is different from a man (possessing it);

but it is not so; the very nature of fire is the hotness of fire. In this way, consciousness is

verily the nature of the Self too. Thus it has been said that – ‘Because of the absence of

parts, as also expansiveness, and the imperishability, there is no difference between

Brahman and the ākāśa; (only) consciousness is (something that is there) in Brahman in

extra.

यच्चोक्तं मनश्चक्षरु ादीनां प्रवृत्तौ िकमथतमिधष्ठाता आष्यते, मवयमेव कममान्ज्न प्रवततन्ज्ते आित, तत्राह —

ऄबोधात्मकानीित । हेतगु भतिमदं िवशेषणम् ; ऄतश्च ऄयमथतः सेत्मयित — ऄबोधात्मकत्वात्

ऄचेतनत्वाच्च घटािदवच्चेतनमिधष्ठातारमािरत्यैव प्रवततन्ज्त आित । तदचेतनत्वं चैषां तज्ञेयत्वात्

घटािदविदित । रिु तरिप ‘नान्ज्योऽतोऽिमत िष्टा’ आत्यािदना अत्मव्यितररक्तमय चेतनत्वं प्रितषेधित ।

ऄतो यक्त
ु मक्त
ु ं चेतनमात्मानमािरत्य प्रवततन्ज्त आित । िनष्कम्पं िनमतरङ्गं िनःसश
ं यिमत्यथतः । तथा च

रिु तः ‘िभद्यते रृदयग्रिन्ज्थिश्च्छद्यन्ज्ते सवतसंशयाः क्षीयन्ज्ते चामय कमातिण तिममन्ज्दृष्टे परावरे ’ आित ।

एकम् ऄिवतीयं देवितयतङ्मनष्ु यािदशरीरे षु एकम् , न तु साङ्ख्यािदपररकिल्पतवत् नानाभतू िमत्यथतः ॥

With regard to question as to why a substratum is required for the activities of the mind,

eye, etc., (as also) why cannot they act on their own, it is said – abodhātmakānīti ‘of not

the nature of awareness’. This adjective (of the word manaścakṣurādīni – ‘the mind, eye

and others’) is pregnant with the reason. Therefore, such a meaning is established – on

account of not being the nature of awareness, as also consciousness and like just jar, etc.

(they) engage into activity upon resorting to the conscious Self. The meaning of

‘niṣkampam’ is not undulating, doubtless. And to this effect is a Vedic statement: “The

knot of the heart is pierced, all doubts are torn asunder, and all his deeds wither away

upon knowing that Supreme and the Lower (Brahman)’. Ekam means non-dual – one in

the bodies of the deities, the lower creatures, human beings, etc., (and) not multifarious

as imagined by the Sāṅkhya and others.

ु िोःु खाििव्यर्स्र्ा न स्या्् । ्र्ा िह — सर्वशरीरे षु यिि एक आत्मा भर्े््

ननु आत्मन एकत्र्े सख

्िा एकिस्मन् सिु खिन सर्व एर् सिु खनोः प्रसज्येरन् , सर्वस्य अिर्शेषा्् ; एकमेकिस्मन् िोःु िखिन सर्व

एर् िोःु िखनत भर्ेयोःु ; एर्मेकिस्मञ्जानि् सर्व एर् जानीयोःु ; ्र्ैर् एकिस्मञ्जायमाने िियमाणे र्ा
सर्व एर् जायेरन् िियेरन् ; एर्मेकिस्मनबद्धे मक्त
ु े र्ा सर्व एर् बि्् येरन् मच्ु येरन् इि् । न चैर्मिस्् ।

्स्मािेकत्र्मात्मनत न भिर््मु हवि् इत्य् आह —

मख
ु ाभासको दपतणे दृश्यमानो

मख
ु त्वात्पृथक्श्त्वेन नैवािमत वमतु ।

िचदाभासको धीषु जीवोऽिप तव —

त्स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ३ ॥

भाष्यम्

मख
ु ाभासकः मख
ु प्रितिबम्बः दपतणादौ नानाकारे षु दपतणेषु आित यावत् दृश्यमानः मख
ु त्वात् परमाथततः

मख ु ाभासको नाम वमतु नामत्येव, तथािप

ु मवरूपत्वात् पृथक्श्त्वेन भेदने न िवद्यते । यद्यिप मख

उपािधभेदात् परमाथतसतो मख
ु ात् परमपरं च ते मख
ु ाभासका िभन्ज्नाः प्रतीयन्ज्ते । तथा च

उपािधगतमिलनत्वािदधममः मिलनत्वािदधमतकाः प्रतीयन्ज्ते । तवत् मख

ु ाभासकवत् िचदाभासकः

अत्मनः प्रितिबम्बो धीषु बिु द्चषु दृश्यमानो जीव आत्यच्ु यते यः, सोऽहमात्मा जीवामते उपािधभेदात्

िभन्ज्नाः प्रितभासन्ज्ते । उपािधगतसख

ु दःु खािदिभश्च सख
ु दःु खािदमन्ज्तश्च प्रितभासन्ज्ते । उपाधयश्च
व्यविमथतरूपा एवेित सख
ु दःु खादीनामैकात्म्यपक्षे व्यवमथा यक्त
ु ै वेित नायमात्मभेदः शक्श्यो

व्यवमथापियतमु ् । रिु तश्चैकात्म्यमेव प्रितपादयित — ‘एकमेवािवतीयं ब्रह्म’ आित ।

The reflection of the face visible on mirrors of various shapes does not exist differently

in reality on account of being the nature of the face. Although there is no such entity

called the reflection of the face, still those reflections of the face appear to be mutually

different due to the limiting adjunct (in the form of the mirror) from the absolutely real

face. By that the reflections appear to be endowed with the properties of being dirty, etc.

due to the properties of being dirty pertaining to the limiting adjunct. In the same way as

that of the reflection of the face, the reflection of consciousness, i.e. the reflection of the

Self, that is visible in the intellects, (and that) is called the jīva. I am that Self. Those

jīva-s appear as different on account of the difference pertaining to the limiting adjunct.

And they appear to be endowed with pleasure, pain, etc. owing to the pleasure, pain, etc.

of the limiting adjunct. The limiting adjuncts are but well-established, and as such this

difference of the Self cannot be established. The Veda exposes the unity of the Self only

(through such statements as –) ‘Brahman is one without a second.’

ु दःु खािदव्यवमथा नोपपद्यते । तथा िह — प्रितशरीरम् अत्मानो िभन्ज्नाः ते च

अत्मभेदपक्षे तु आयं सख

सवे प्रत्येकं सवतगता आित अत्मभेदवािदनो मन्ज्यन्ज्ते । तत्र सवेषां सवतगतत्वात् सवतसिं नधौ

सख ु ािदकम् , न सवेषाम् आत्यवधारियतंु

ु ािदकमत्ु पद्यमानं िवशेषहेतोरभावात् कथमेकमयैव तत् सख

शक्श्यते ।
Such a scheme of pleasure, pain etc. does not befit the system of the plurality of the self.

That is to say – those who propound the plurality of the self, think that in every body the

self is different and that they all are omnipresent. How can it be understood as to why

pleasure, etc., that are being produced in the proximity of every self, because of the

omnipresence of all the selves, are, in the absence of any special reason, experience as

the pleasure, etc. of only one and not all.?

ु ािदकं जन्ज्यते, तमयैव तिदत्यिभधीयते आित ;

ऄथ यत्सम्बिन्ज्धना कायतकरणसङ्घातेन सख

Objection: Now, [to this, we reply that] it (i.e. the pleasure, etc.) pertains to that

(particular self), as a result of connection of the complex of the effect (i.e. the body) and

the instruments (i.e. the external organs as well as the inner organ) with which (i.e. the

particular self), pleasure, etc. are generated.

तन्ज्न, कायतकरणसङ्घातमयािप सवातत्मसिं नधावत्ु पद्यमानमय िवशेषहेतोरभावादेव

कथमेकात्मसम्बिन्ज्धत्विमित ।

Reply: Not so. It cannot be ascertained as to why, in the absence of any special reason,

even the complex of the effect and instruments, having genesis in the proximity of all the

selves, should have connection with a particular self.

ऄथ यत्कमतवशात्कायतकरणसङ्घातमयोत्पित्तः, तमयैव ऄसौ कायतकरणसङ्घात आित िवशेषहेतरु रित

चेत् ;
Objection: Now [to this, we reply that] the special reason is that it is the complex of the

effect and the instruments of that (particular self), due to the actions whereof (i.e. the

particular self) the genesis of the complex of the effect and the instruments (has taken

place).

न, कमतणोऽिप सवातत्मसंिनधावत्ु पद्यमानमय सवातत्मसम्बिन्ज्धत्वेन तज्जिनतकायतकरणसङ्घातमयािप

सवातत्मसम्बिन्ज्धत्वात् तज्जिनतमय सख
ु दःु खादेरिप सवातत्मसम्बिन्ज्धत्विमित सख
ु ािदकमय नानात्मपक्ष

एव न व्यविमथितः । पवू तपवु तकायतकरणसङ्घातमय कमातपेक्षायां च ऄनवमथादोषः । ऄनािदत्वेन

ऄनवमथादोषपररहारश्च ऄन्ज्धपरम्परे ित । रिु तरिप नानात्मपक्षं प्रितषेधित — ‘नेह नानािमत िकचचन’

आित । ऄतः साधक्त

ू म् एकिमित ॥

Reply: No. Since actions too having their genesis in the proximity of all (selves) have

connection with all, the complex of the effect and the instruments, originating therefrom,

has connection with all, as a result whereof, pleasure, pain, etc. accruing from them, have

their connection with all, and thus pleasure, etc. cannot indeed fit with the system of the

plurality of the self.

ु िोःु खाििसम्बनधाभार्ा्् बनधत नािस्् ; बनधाभार्ाच्च मतक्षाभार्ोः ; बद्धत

ननर्ेर्ं सि् आत्मनोः सख

िह मच्ु य्े नाबद्ध इि् ; ्र्ा िचिाभासस्यािप बनधमतक्षौ न िर्द्ये्े, अर्स््त्ु र्ा्् ; ्स्य बद्ध
ु ेरिप

िर्नािशत्र्ा्् बनधमतक्षयतरभार्ोः ; ््ि मतक्षशास्त्रमनर्वकमापननम् इत्य् आह —

Objection: Well, it being so, there is no bondage of the Self in the absence of (its)

connection with pleasure, pain, etc; and in the absence of bondage, there is absence of

liberation; for, it is verily someone who has bondage that is liberated. In that way there

are no bondage and liberation of the reflection of consciousness (cidābhāsa), because of

its not being a real entity; (if it be said that bondage and liberation pertain to its intellect,

then it is observed that) its intellect being also ephemeral, there is absence of bondage

and liberation with regard to it (i.e. the intellect). Thence crops up the futility of the

scripture dealing with liberation. (Keeping this in view the teacher) says:

यथा दपतणाभाव अभासहानौ

मख
ु ं िवद्यते कल्पनाहीनमेकम् ।

तथा धीिवयोगे िनराभासको यः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ४ ॥

भाष्यम्

यथा दपतणाभावे सित अभासमय मख

ु प्रितिबम्बमय हानौ सत्यां मख
ु ं परमाथतसत् कल्पनाहीनं

िमथ्याञानरिहतम् एकमेव परं नापरं िवद्यते, तथा तेनैव प्रकारे ण धीिवयोगे बद्च
ु ेरभावे िनराभासको

ऄप्रितिबम्बः परमाथततः सन् एक एव यः, सोऽहमात्मेित योजना । ऄयमिभप्रायः अत्माञानकृ तोऽयं

बदु ध्् यािदप्रपचचः । तत्र बदु ध्् यादौ प्रितिबम्बरूपेण अत्मानमध्यमय तद्गतसख
ु दःु खािदकम्
अत्मन्ज्यध्यमयित । सोऽयमध्यासो बन्ज्धः । अत्मञानेन ऄञानिनवृत्त्या बदु ध्् यािदप्रपचचिनवृत्तौ

ऄध्यासिनवृित्तमोक्षः । न पनु ः पारमािथतकौ बन्ज्धमोक्षौ ऄमय िवद्येते आित सवं समचजसिमित ॥

As in the destruction of the unreal i.e. the reflection of the face, upon the absence of mirror, the

face, the absolute reality, which is unimagined, devoid of false knowledge, which is only one, the

ultimate, i.e. not the other, remains; in a like manner, that which is there as the only one

ultimately, which is not a reflection, not unreal, upon the destruction, i.e. absence of intellect; I

am that Self. This is the intention – the phenomenon of the nature of the intellect etc. is caused by

the ignorance of the Self. Superimposing the Self by way of reflection there, i.e., on the intellect

etc. one superimposes the pleasure, pain, etc. pertaining to them (i.e. the intellect etc.) on the

Self. That superimposition, which is such, is bondage. Liberation is the cessation of

superimposition that occurs on the cessation of the phenomenon of the nature of the intellect etc.

consequent upon the destruction of ignorance on account of the knowledge of the Self. Again,

ultimately real bondage and liberation do not pertain to it (i.e the Self). Thus, everything is

consistent.

के िच्् बिु ्् यािीनामात्मत्र्ं मनयन्े ; ्ानप्रत्याह —

Some accept the intellect etc. to be the self; to them, the author says –

मनश्चक्षरु ादेिवतयक्त
ु ः मवयं यो

मनश्चक्षरु ादेमतनश्चक्षरु ािदः ।

मनश्चक्षरु ादेरगम्यमवरूपः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ५ ॥
भाष्यम्

मनश्चक्षरु ादेः मनअदेः चक्षरु ादेश्च िवयक्त

ु ः पृथग्नभतू ः यः सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः । मनश्चक्षरु ाद्यपु ादानेन

ु आित लक्ष्यते । तथा च गरुु ः —

तदन्ज्तगततत्वात् शरीरमिप उपात्तं िष्टव्यम् । एतेन शरीरादिप िवयक्त

‘बद्च
ु ीिन्ज्ियशरीरे भ्यो िभन्ज्न अत्मा िवभर्ध्ु तवु ः । नानारूपः प्रितक्षेत्रमात्मा वृित्तषु भासते’ आित कथं

मनश्चक्षरु ािदकमय प्रकाशकमय उपरर ऄयमात्मा प्रकाशकः, मनअदेः चक्षरु ादेः कथं िवयक्त
ु ः आत्यत

अह — मवयिमित । मवयं य अत्मा मनश्चक्षरु ादेः मनश्चक्षरु ािदः मनश्चक्षरु ािदकमय प्रकाशकमय

मनश्चक्षरु ािदः प्रकाशकः, प्रकाशकत्वगणु योगात् ; ऄयमथतः — यथा बाह्यमय घटादेः प्रकाशको

मनश्चक्षरु ािदः ततो व्यितररच्यते, तथा, अन्ज्तरमयािप मनश्चक्षरु ादेः प्रकाशकः अत्मा ततो व्यितररच्यत

आित िनश्चीयते । ऄत एव मनश्चक्षरु ादीनाम् ऄनात्मत्विमित िसद्चं ञेयादन्ज्यो ञाता भवित । ननु

अत्मनोऽिप ञेयत्वात् ऄनात्मत्वं प्रसज्यते आत्यत अह — मनश्चक्षरु ादेरगम्यमवरूपः

प्रकाशमवभावः । तथा च रिु तः — ‘यतो वाचो िनवततन्ज्ते ऄप्राप्य मनसा सह’ आित ॥

From mind, eye, etc. i.e. from the mind, etc. and from the eye, etc. that which is different

or dissociated is the Self that I am. By calling the mind, eye, etc. the constituent factors,

it is to be understood that the body, which belongs to them, is also accepted. By this, the

dissociation from the body too is secondarily spoken of. Thus says the Guru

(Prabhākara): “The self that is different from the intellect, sense-organs and the body is

certainly all-pervasive. It appears to be multi-form in the mental modifications of every

individual soul.” As to how is this Self illuminator of the mind, eye, etc. that are the

illuminators (of the objects of cognition); how is it different from the mind, etc. and the

eye, etc., it is said – svayam. The Self is itself the mind, eye etc. of the mind, eye, etc.

i.e. the mind, eye, etc. or illuminator of the mind, eye, etc. or illuminators (of the objects

of cognition), because of its connection with the quality of being the illuminator. This is

the meaning – Just as the mind, eye, etc. that are the illuminators of the external objects

like the pot, etc. are different from them (i.e. the external objects), likewise, that the Self,

which is the illuminator of the internal (objects in the form of) the mind, eye, etc. is

different from them, is being ascertained. Thus is established the non-Self character of

the mind, eye, etc.. The knower is different from the knowable. In reply to the objection

that the non-Self nature of the Self would follow owing to the knowability of the Self, it

is said – manaścakṣurāderagamyasvarūpaḥ prakāśasvabhāvaḥ (the Self, who real

nature is unknowable by the mind, eye, etc. is of the nature of illumination). To this

effect is the following Vedic text – “That from which, the speech returns, along with the

mind, without any attainment…”

ननु यद्यात्मा मनिक्षरु ािेरगम्योः कर्ं ्िहव अस्य िसिद्धोः ? घटपटाियत िह मनिक्षरु ाद्यधीनिसद्धयत

दृष्ाोः । ््ोः आत्मनतऽिप ्िधीनिसिद्धयवक्त

ु ा । यिा ्स्य ्िधीना िसिद्धनव भर्ि्, ्िा अस्य िसिद्धरे र्

न स्या्् शशिर्षाणर््् इत्य् आह —

Objection: Well, if the Self is beyond the reach of the mind, the eyes, etc., then how is its

existence established? It is seen that the establishment of (entities) like a jar, a piece of

cloth, etc. are dependent upon the mind, the eyes, etc. Therefore, the establishment of
the Self should also be dependent upon them. When its establishment is not thus

dependent upon them, then there can certainly be no establishment of it just like the horn

of the hare. In reply, it is said –

य एको िवभाित मवतः शद्च

ु चेताः

प्रकाशमवरूपोऽिप नानेव धीषु ।

शरावोदकमथो यथा भानरु े कः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ६ ॥

भाष्यम्

य आित मवतःिसद्चतामाह । एकः ऄिवतीयः िवभाित िवशेषेण प्रकाशते मवतः मवयमेव न परतः शद्च
ु ं

ु चेताः ; शद्च
िनमतलं चेतो मनो यमय सः मवतःशद्च ु िचत्तमय िह अत्मा मवयमेव मफुरतीत्यथतः । ऄत एव

सत्त्वशदु ध्् यथं वेदऽे िप वेदानवु चनादयो िविहताः — ‘तमेतं वेदानवु चनेन ब्राह्मणा िविविदषिन्ज्त यञेन

दानेन तपसानाशके न’ आित । घटपटादयश्च जडत्वात् प्रकाशान्ज्तरापेक्षत्वाच्च न प्रकाशन्ज्त आित यक्त

ु म् ।

अत्मा तु प्रकाशमवरूपत्वात् प्रकाशान्ज्तरानपेक्षः प्रकाशते सिवतृवत् — यथा सिवता मवप्रकाशः

प्रकाशान्ज्तरं नापेक्षते ऄथ च प्रकाशते, तवदात्मापीित भावः । एवमत्ु पन्ज्नात्मञानो ऄवयो जीवन्ज्मक्त

ु ः

मवयं प्रकाशरूपोऽिप परमाथततो नानािवधासु धीषु उपािधषु नानेव भाित यः, सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ।
शरावोदके षु उपािधषु ऄविमथतो भानःु अिदत्यः प्रकाशमवरूपोऽिप एक एव सन् नानेव

भाित, तवदात्मापीित भावः ।

By the word ‘ya’, the self-effulgence (of the Self) is being spoken of. ‘Ekaḥ’ means

without a second, ‘vibhāti’ means shines forth in a special manner, ‘svataḥ’, i.e. on its

own, not owing to something else; he, whose ‘cetaḥ’ or mind is ‘śuddha’, i.e. untainted,

is ‘svataḥ śuddhacetāḥ’ or the person whose mind is pure naturally. For a person with a

pure mind, the Self shines forth on its own. So, for the sake of the purification of the

mind, the study of the Vedas is prescribed in the Vedas thus – “The Brāhmaṇas seek to

know that (Self) through the study of the Vedas, sacrifice, gifts, and abstention from the

objects of desire.” It is logical that entities like a jar, a piece of cloth, etc. do not

manifest (on their own) on account of being inert (jaḍatva) and dependent upon another

source of illumination. The Self being of the nature of manifestation is not dependent

upon another source of illumination like the sun – just as the self-manifesting sun

requires no other illumination, but manifests (on its own), similar is the case with the

Self. In this way, I am that Self, who is the person, in whom the knowledge of the Self

has dawned; who, despite being one without a second, and liberated while living, (as

also) essentially of the nature of self-manifestation, appears to be many in various

intellects that are the delimiting adjuncts. The intention is this that, just as the self-

revealing sun, despite being one, appears to be many in the waters of many containers

that are the delimiting adjuncts, similar is the Self.

ु ः ? देहवांमतावत् जीविन्ज्नत्यच्ु यते ; तमय जीवतोऽिप यिद देहाभावो

ननु कथं जीवन्ज्मक्त

मिु क्तरिभप्रेयते, नासावपु पद्यते, िवरोधात् । न िह जीवतो देहाभावः सम्भवित । ऄथ सत्यिप देहे
भोगिवच्छे दो मिु क्तररित, तदिप च चतरु रम् । सकलभोगकारणेिन्ज्ियसम्पत्तौ भोगिवच्छे दमय

ऄसम्भािवतत्वात् । िमथ्याञानिनबन्ज्धनो िह भोगः ; तमय च संयग्नञानेन िनवृत्तत्वात् भोगिवच्छे द आित

चेत् ; न, बािधतमयािप िमथ्याञानमय िवचन्ज्िािदञानवत् ऄनवु त्त्ृ यभ्यपु गमात् । ऄन्ज्यथा देहवानेव न

मयात् ऄत एव िवदषु ां जनकादीनां राज्यािदकं रयू ते । रिु तरिप देहवतो भोगिवच्छे दं प्रितषेधित —

‘न ह वै सशरीरमय सतः िप्रयािप्रययोरपहितरिमत’ आित । तममादयक्त

ु ा जीवन्ज्मिु क्तररित ।

Well, how can one be liberated while living? It is he, who has a body, that is said to be

living; if the liberation of the form of the absence of the body of him, who is living, is

intended, it cannot be logically possible, due to contradiction. The absence of body is

not possible in case of someone, who is living. Now, if liberation consists of the

cessation of enjoyment even while the body is there, that too is not appealing, due to the

impossibility of the cessation of enjoyment during the presence of the sense organs that

are the instruments of all kinds of enjoyment. It cannot be said that since enjoyment is

due to false cognition, the cessation of enjoyment is possible due to the cessation of it

(i.e. false cognition) on account of right cognition, for, the continuation of the false

cognition that has been sublated, just like the cognition of the two moons, is

accepted. Otherwise, (a jīva) cannot be an embodied entity. That is why, the kingdom,

etc. has been spoken of in the Vedas in regard to men of wisdom like Janaka. Even the

Vedas have blocked the (prospect of) cessation of enjoyment in case of an embodied

entity thus – “The connection of the embodied self with things pleasant and unpleasant

never ceases.” Therefore, liberation while living is not logical.

ऄत्रोच्यते — जीवतमतावत् तत्त्वञानमत्ु पद्यते न तु मृतमय ; शमदमादेः रवणमननादेश्च ञानहेतोः

मृतमयासम्भवात् । ऄत एव िह िवदषु ां याञवल्क्श्यादीनां संन्ज्यासः रयू ते । न च मृतमय संन्ज्यासः रयू ते

सम्भवित वा । तममात् जीवतमतत्त्वञानमत्ु पद्यत आित िसद्चम् । अत्मञानादेव मिु क्तररित िसद्चा

जीवन्ज्मिु क्तः ‘स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवित’ ‘ब्रह्मिवदाप्नोित परम्’ आत्यािदरिु तभ्यः ।

Here it is being said – the knowledge of reality dawns verily in someone who is living,

and not one who is dead; the factors of knowledge (of the Self) like restraining of the

external sense-organs, restraining of the mind, etc. and hearing, reflection etc. are but

impossible in case of someone, who is dead. It is, therefore, that the renunciation of the

men of wisdom like Yājñavalkya is spoken of in the Vedas. Neither is renunciation of

someone who is dead is spoken of in the Vedas, nor is it possible. Therefore it is

established that the knowledge of reality is generated in case of someone who is

living. From such Vedic texts such as ‘He who knows that supreme Brahman, becomes

verily Brahman’, ‘The knower of Brahman achieves the supreme’, it is seen that

liberations ensues from the knowledge of the Self and thus liberation while living is

established.

ननु ञानमय मोक्षफलकत्वे रिु तषु सहकायतन्ज्तरं प्रतीयते आित चेत् , न, ञानमात्रमय रवणात् —

‘िभद्यते रृदयग्रिन्ज्थः’ आित ; ‘नान्ज्यः पन्ज्था िवद्यतेऽयनाय’ आित सहकायतन्ज्तरप्रितषेधाच्च । ननु रिु तरे व

मरणसहकाररणो ञानान्ज्मोक्षं दशतयित ‘तमय तावदेव िचरं यावन्ज्न िवमोक्ष्ये ऄथ

सम्पत्मये’ आित ; न, पवू ोत्पन्ज्नमय ञानमय िचरप्रवृत्तत्वात् मरणकाले तमय संिनधापियतमु शक्तेः ।
तत्कालमेवोत्पन्ज्नात् ञानान्ज्तरान्ज्मिु क्तररित चेत् , न, ‘यदेव भगवान्ज्वेद तदेव मे

ब्रिू ह’ आित‘अचायतवान्ज्परुु षो वेद’ आत्यािदरिु तपयातलोचनया प्रथमञानादेव मक्त

ु े ः रयू माणत्वात् । एतेन

वचनान्ज्तरमनगु हृ ीतं भवित — जीवन्ज्नेव िह िववान् हषतमषातभ्यां िवमच्ु यते आित । न च ‘न ह वै

सशरीरमय सतः िप्रयािप्रययोरपहितरिमत’ आित रत्ु यन्ज्तरिवरोधो वाच्यः, रत्ु यन्ज्तरमय

सामान्ज्यिवषयत्वात् , ऄत्र ‘िववान’् आित िवशेषिनदेशात् । ‘तमय तावदेव िचरम’् आित रिु तमत्यक्ता

मयािदित चेत् , न, व्यवमथया उपपत्तेः ।

It cannot be said that there are auxiliary causes that come to the aid of knowledge in

generating the result in the form of liberation, for knowledge alone is spoken of and in

such Vedic texts as ‘the knot of the heart is pierced’, ‘there is no other way for the

attainment’, auxiliary causes are blocked. It cannot be said that the Vedic text of the

form of ‘The attainment of liberation by such a man of wisdom is delayed until there is

the completion of actions that have already started fruition’ shows that liberation occurs

from knowledge which is aided by death, for, the knowledge that has issued earlier is

immediately at work and cannot be made to be present in proximity at the time of

death. (Nor) can it be said that liberation is due to a separate knowledge that is generated

at that time, for the issuance of liberation from the first knowledge is spoken of by such

Vedic texts as ‘O Lord, tell me only what you know’, ‘A person, who has been instructed

by a teacher (who is a knower of Brahman) attains (the Brhaman)’. Hereby is supported

other statements such as ‘The man of wisdom is freed from pleasure and pain verily

during lifetime’. It cannot be said that this is contradictory to other Vedic texts such as
‘The connection of the embodied self with things pleasant and unpleasant never ceases’,

for the subject-matter of the other Vedic text is a common man (who is still in the state

of bondage), and here it is the man, endowed with the knowledge (of reality, while

living, who is spoken of). It cannot be said that the Vedic text of the form of ‘The man

of wisdom delays so long’ should be given up, for it is supported by the system.

तथा िह — मिु क्तः खलु मवाभािवकी सवेषाम् , न सा ञानेन जन्ज्यते । िकं

तिहत ? ऄिवद्याितिमरितरोिहताया मक्त

ु े ः ितिमरमात्रं िनरािियते । तच्च प्रथमञानेनैव िनराकृ तम् ।

तथािप ऄिवद्याकायतमय देहमय ऄिवनाशात् पनु ःपनु ः महान्ज्धकारवदत्ु साररतमिप ितरमकरोित । तमय

ितरमकारप्रितभासमय देहिवच्छे दािवच्छे दो भवित । एवं च सित प्राचीनमेव महान्ज्धकारोत्सारणं

ञानमात्रिनबन्ज्धनमवितष्ठते — यथा सयू ोदयेन महाितिमरोत्सारणे कृ तेऽिप छत्रािदकृ तमय

ितिमराभासमय छत्रािदिवगमे िवगमः । ततश्च प्राचीनमेव महाितिमरोत्सारणं

सयू ोदयमात्रिनबन्ज्धनमवितष्ठत आित । तममात् न ञानान्ज्तरान्ज्मिु क्तः । ऄिप तु पवू ोत्पन्ज्नञानादेव मिु क्तररित

िसद्चम् ।

To explain – Liberation is but natural to everyone, it is not generated by

knowledge. What then? On account of liberation of the form of the removal of the veil

that is ignorance, the veil alone is removed. It is removed by the first knowledge

alone. Still, due to the non-destruction of the body, that is the effect of ignorance, it

covers up again and again like the great darkness. The cessation of that pseudo-cover

takes place upon the cessation of the body. It being so, it is well-established that the
removal of the previous great darkness is due only to knowledge, just as, in spite of the

removal of the great darkness occurring as a result of sunrise, the removal of a pseudo-

darkness caused by an umbrella takes place upon the removal of the

umbrella. Therefore, the removal of the former great darkness is established to be due to

sunrise alone. Therefore, liberation is not due to any other knowledge. On the contrary,

it is established that liberation is due to the knowledge that has been generated

earlier.

ननु यिद पारमािथतकम् ऄवैतं िमथ्याञानिवजृिम्भतश्च प्रपचच आित रत्ु यथो ऄवधाररतः, तत्कथं सत्यिप

बाधके प्रपचचानवु िृ त्तः ; न िह सत्येव शिु क्तकाञाने रजतािदप्रपचचो ऄनतु तते ; उच्यते — ‘नेित नेित

न ह्येतममािदित नेत्यन्ज्यत्परमिमत’ ‘नेह नानािमत िकचचन’ आत्यािदवाक्श्यसिहतात्

तत्त्वममयािदवाक्श्यात् प्रपचचिवलयवारे ण ऄसिन्ज्दग्नधमबािधतं च ऄवैतञानं तावदत्ु पद्यते । न च तत्

ु म् , तत्प्रिवलयेनैव उत्पत्तेः ।
प्रपचचप्रत्ययेन बाध्यत आित यक्त

Well, if the meaning of the Vedic texts is firmly construed that non-duality is the

ultimate reality, and the phenomenon is due to false cognition, then, despite the existence

of a sublator, how can the continuation of the phenomenon take place? For, during the

existence of the cognition of the nacre, the phenomenon of silver etc. cannot

continue. (In reply it is being) said – a knowledge of non-duality, free from doubt and

blockage, is generated through the annihilation of the phenomenon from the great Vedic

dictum ‘You are that’, aided by such Vedic texts as ‘Not this, not this, nothing higher

than this exists’, ‘Not a wink of multiplicity exists here’, etc. It is reasonable that it (i.e.
the knowledge of non-duality) is not blocked by the (pseudo-)cognition of the

phenomenon, since it arises only through the annihilation of it (i.e. the

phenomenon).

यत्पनु रुक्तं कथं प्रपचचप्रत्ययानवु िृ त्तररित, ऄत्रोच्यते — िविवधं िह बाधकं भवित — यथा सत्येव

िमथ्याञानहेतभु तू े िपत्तादौ जाग्रत्येव पीतः शङ्खः आित ञाने िनिमत्तान्ज्तरात् नायं पीत आित

िमथ्याञानकारणापगमे, वा यथा मन्ज्दालोकप्रभवमय शिु क्तकारजतञानमय महत्यालोके नेदं रजतिमित

ञानम् , तविदहािप पीतः शङ्ख आित ञानबाधकवत् सत्येव िमथ्याञाने हेतभु तू े शरीरे प्रपचचप्रत्ययमय

बाधकमवैतञानमत्ु पद्यते । ऄत एव मवकारणाद्बािधतमिप प्रपचचञानं पीतशङ्खञानवत् पनु ः पनु ः

जायत आित । ननु देहमयािप प्रपचचान्ज्तगततत्वात् उिच्छित्तरे व प्रसज्यते आित चेत् ; न, प्रारधधकमतवशात्

ऄनवु त्तृ ेः । कमतणश्च कुलालचिभ्रमणवत्संमकारादनवु िृ त्तररित िसद्चा जीवन्ज्मिु क्तररित ।

कमतसमं कारक्षयश्च देहपाते सित सवतमयैव प्रपचचप्रत्ययमयािप प्रिवलयः । कमातन्ज्तराणां च ञानेन

क्षिपतत्वात् देहान्ज्तरानत्ु पित्तररित परममिु क्तः ।

In reply to the question as to how is the continuation of the cognition of the phenomenon

possible, it is being said – there are two kinds of sublators. As, in the presence of

phlegm, etc. that are the factors responsible for the generation of the cognition of the

form of ‘the yellow conch-shell’, the cognition of the form of ‘this is not yellow’ leads to

the removal of the factors causing false cognition; or as in the presence of sufficient light

the cognition of the form of ‘this is not silver’ occurs in place of the cognition of the
nacre-silver owing to insufficient light, in a similar manner as the sublator of cognition

in the form of ‘the yellow conch-shell’, here also, the knowledge of non-duality that

sublates the cognition of the phenomenon arises, even in the presence of the body, which

is the cause of the false cognition. Therefore, in spite of being sublated, the cognition of

the phenomenon arises again and again from its own cause, just like the cognition of the

yellow conch-shell. It cannot be said that the body, on account of its belonging to the

phenomenon, should also come to an end; for, its continuation occurs due to the actions

that have already started fruition. And the continuation of actions is due to the

subliminal impression, just as it is in the case of the rotation of the potter’s wheel. On

this score, liberation while living is established. On the fall of the body as a result of the

withering away of the impressions of the actions, already begun, the cessation of all

cognitions of the phenomenon also takes place. Other actions having been destroyed by

knowledge, there is no generation of another body. This is the ultimate liberation.

एवं च सित ञानमात्रान्ज्मिु क्तररित प्रितपादनादेव कमतणो मिु क्तहेतत्ु वमपामतं वेिदतव्यम् । तथा िह — न

तावत्के वलात्कमतणो मिु क्तरवणात् । नािप तत एव ञानसिहतात् , ऄरतु ेरेव । ननु ‘तं िवद्याकमतणी

समन्ज्वारभेते पवू तप्रञा च’ आित िवद्याकमतणोः सहभावः रयू ते ; सत्यम् , ससं ारिवषयं तच्रवणं न

मिु क्तिवषयम् आित । ‘यावज्जीवमिग्ननहोत्रं जहु ोित’ आत्यािदचोदनाप्राप्तानां िनत्यनैिमित्तककमतणां ञानमय

च ऄथातत्समच्ु चय आित चेत् ; न, िविनयोजकप्रमाणाभावात् । ‘तमेतं वेदानवु चनेन ब्राह्मणा

िविविदषिन्ज्त यञेन दानेन तपसानाशके न’ आत्यत्र तृतीयारिु तः िविनयोिजका आित

चेत् ; न, िविविदषासम्बन्ज्धात् कमतणां ञानाथतत्वप्रतीतेः मोक्षाथतत्वं नावगम्यते आित । िकं च, न िह

ञानम् ऄञानिनवृत्तौ उपकारकमपेक्षते, उत्पन्ज्नादेव तममात् ऄञानिनवृत्तेरवश्यम्भावात् । तथा च

रिु तः — ‘तमेव िविदत्वाितमृत्यमु ेित नान्ज्यः पन्ज्था िवद्यतेऽयनाय’ आित । ऄिप च यिद कमतफलं

मोक्षो भवेत् , तदा ऄिनत्यत्वं प्रसज्यते घटािदवत्मवगातिदवच्चेित । ऄममु ेवाथं रिु तरप्याह —

तद्यथेह कमतिचतो लोकः क्षीयते एवमेवामत्रु पण्ु यिचतो लोकः क्षीयते’ आित । ‘ऄिग्ननहोत्रािद तु

तत्कायातयैव’ आित सत्रू कारे ण परम्परया कमतणां मिु क्तहेतत्ु वमिभिहतं प्रयाजािदवत् । ऄतः ञानाथतत्वेन

कमतणामपु योगोऽमत्येव । ञानोत्पत्तेमतु परं कमतणामपु योगाभावेऽिप लोकसङ्ग्रहाथतमनष्ठु ानं कततव्यमेवेित

सवं समचजसम् ॥

And it being so, action as the causal factor of liberation is to be understood as being

refuted through the establishment of liberation, ensuing from knowledge alone. To

explain – Liberation is not heard of as ensuing only from action. Nor is it from action,

aided by knowledge, since there is no Vedic text to this effect. Well, from such Vedic

text as ‘(At the time of death), worldly worships and actions follow the (deceased)

person’, the combination of worship and action is being heard of. True; but it has

transmigratory existence as its object, and not liberation. It cannot be said, on account of

the absence of a proof of application, that a combination of knowledge and non-

occasional and occasional actions prescribed by the Vedas is spoken of in such Vedic

texts as ‘So long as one is alive, one should perform the agnihotra sacrifice’. It cannot

be said that the Vedic text having the third case-ending as in ‘The Brāhmaṇas intend to
know him (the Self) through the study of the Vedas, sacrifice, gifts, and abstention from

objects of desire’ is the applicator; for, due to the cognition of the purpose of actions for

the sake of knowledge on account of the existence of a connection of actions with the

desire to know, the purpose of it (i.e. action) is not realised in connection with

liberation. Besides, knowledge does not await any kind of aid in the task of the annulling

ignorance; this is because of the certainty of the cessation of ignorance upon the

generation of it (i.e. knowledge). To this effect, is the following Vedic text – “Knowing

this, one crosses death, there is no other way for (its) attainment.” Moreover, had the

fruit of action been liberation, then it would have been non-eternal, just as in case of a

jar, etc. and the heaven (svarga), etc. That very meaning is said by the Vedas also –

“Just as in this world, things obtained through action wither away, likewise in the other

world, the things obtained through virtue also wither away.” Through such a statement

as ‘(Actions like) the agnihotra, etc. is for the sake of producing that (i.e. liberation)

only’, the author of the aphorism has spoken of the sequential causality of actions for

liberation, just like the auxiliary sacrifice. Thus, there is certainly the utility of actions

for the sake of knowledge. Even in the absence of the utility of actions after the

generation of knowledge, the (occasional and non-occasional) actions have to be

performed for the sake of maintaining the world-order. Thus, everything is consistent.

ननु कर्म् एक एर् आत्मा यगु प्् अनेकां बिु द्धम् अिधि्ष्ठि् ? न ह्येक एर् अश्वसािी

ु म् । ्च्चेह नािस्् ; यगु पिेर् सर्वबद्ध

यगु पिनेकानश्वानिधि्ष्ठननपु लभ्य्े । क्रमेण त्र्िधष्ठानं यक्त ु ीनां

स्र्व्यापारे प्रर्ृिििशवना्् । अनिधिष्ठ्ानां च प्रर्ृत्त्यसम्भर्ाच्च । अ्ोः नैक आत्मा इत्य् आह —

Objection: How does a single Self control many intellects at a time? For, a single horse-

rider is not found to control many horses at a time. Controlling in a sequence is but

logical. And that is not here; since the all the intellects are found to be engaged in their

own activity at the same time and also since it is impossible for uncontrolled ones to

engage into activity. Therefore, there is no single Self. In this regard, (the teacher) says:

यथानेकचक्षःु प्रकाशो रिवनत

िमेण प्रकाशीकरोित प्रकाश्यम् ।

ऄनेका िधयो यमतथैकप्रबोधः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ७ ॥

भाष्यम्

यथा येन प्रकाशकत्वप्रकारे ण रिवः अिदत्यः एक एव ऄनेकेषां चक्षषु ां प्रकाशको यगु पदेव ऄनेकािन

चक्षिंू ष ऄिधितष्ठित न च िमेण एकै कममै चक्षषु े प्रकाश्यं प्रकाशीकरोित, तथा तेनैव प्रकारे ण

एकश्चासौ प्रबोधश्च एकप्रबोधः सः ऄिधष्ठाता ऄनेका िधयो बद्च

ु ीः यगु पदिधितष्ठित न िमेणैकैकमयै

िधयै प्रकाश्यं प्रकाशीकरोित यः सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ॥

Just as a single Sun, by virtue of the property of being an illuminator, is the illuminator

of many eyes, controls many eyes simultaneously, and does not illumine the things, fit

for illumination, for each eye sequentially, likewise I am that Self, that single supreme
awareness, which being the controller, controls many intellects at the same time and does

not illumine the objects fit for illumination for each intellect in a sequence.

ु ीनां प्रेरकोः अिधष्ठा्ा, िकमात्माभ्यपु गमेन ? ्र्ा च श्रिु ्ोः — ‘िधयत यत

ननर्स््ु ्िहव रिर्रे र् बद्ध

नोः प्रचतिया्’् इि्, अ् आह —

Objection: Well, then let the Sun alone be the impeller of the intellect, what is the need

for accepting the Self? And there is a Vedic statement to that effect – ‘Who may impel

our intellects’. Therefore, (the teacher) says –

िववमवत्प्रभातं यथारूपपक्षं

प्रगृष्डाित नाभातमेवं िववमवान् ।

यदाभात अभासयत्यक्षमेकः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ८ ॥

भाष्यम्

िववमवता सयू ेण प्रभातं प्रकािशतं रूपं यथा येन प्रकारे ण ऄक्षं चक्षःु प्रगृष्डाित प्रकषेण जानाित, नाभातं

न ऄप्रकािशतम् , ऄन्ज्धकारे घटाद्यनपु लम्भात् एवं िववमवानिप एकः तथा तेनैव प्रकारे ण यदाभातः

येनािधितिष्ठतः सन् अभासयित ऄिधितष्ठित ऄक्षं यथा िववमवान् ऄिधष्ठाता, तथा

िववमवतोऽप्यिधष्ठाता यः, सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ।

Just as the eye knows the form on being illumined by the sun, (and) not the unrevealed

one, because of the impossibility of the knowledge of jar, etc. kept in darkness.

Likewise, the one Sun, being illumined, i.e. controlled by which, in a like manner,

illumines, i.e. controls the eye. Just as the Sun is the controller, likewise that which is the

controller of even the Sun, that verily I am – such is the relation (of the words in the

verse).

ु ीनामिधष्ठाता ; रत्ु या तु चक्षरु िधष्ठातृत्वमिभप्रेत्य िववमवतो बिु द्चप्रेरकत्वमिभिहतम् ।

स चाहम्बद्च

यममािववमवदिधिष्ठतं चक्षःु बिु द्चवृिद्चमत्ु पादयित ; ऄिधष्ठातरु ात्मनो वा मवरूपमिभप्रेत्योक्तः ; तथा च

'सयू त अत्मा जगतमतमथषु श्च’ आित ।

And that I am the controller of the intellects. By the Vedic statement (quoted above) the

state of being the impeller of the intellect of the Sun is spoken of, intending the state of

being the controller of the eye. Since, on being controlled by the Sun, the eye produces

the modification of the intellect. Or, it (i.e. the Sun) is so said with the intention of the

real nature of the Self, the controller. Thus (occurs the following Vedic statement in this

regard) – ‘The Sun is the Self of the moving and the non-moving (objects.)’

नन्ज्विप तिहत प्रकाशान्ज्तरे णैव ऄिधष्ठातव्यम् ,

Objection: Well, then, (the Self too) must be controlled by some other illuminator.

न, तमय मवप्रकाशत्वात् । ‘नान्ज्यदतोऽिमत िष्टा’ आित च रत्ु या तिदतरप्रितषेधाच्च ॥

Reply: No, because of its being self-revealing. And since a different (illuminator) is

negated by the Vedic statement of the form of ‘No witness other than this exists.’

िकं च —

Moreover –

यथा सयू त एकोऽप्मवनेकश्चलासु

िमथरामवप्यनन्ज्विग्नवभाव्यमवरूपः ।

चलासु प्रिभन्ज्नासु धीष्वेवमेकः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ९ ॥

भाष्यम्

यथा येन प्रकारे ण अिदत्यः एकः ऄप्सु वाररषु चलासु िमथरासु च ऄनेकोऽिप नानािप एकः सन्

प्रितभासते ऄनन्ज्विग्नवभाव्यमवरूपः । ऄनु पश्चात् ऄचचित गच्छतीित ऄन्ज्वक् न ऄन्ज्वक् ऄनन्ज्वक्

ऄननगु त आित यावत् ।

Just as the one Sun, the nature of which is non-moving and fit to be deliberated upon,

appears to be many despite being single, in waters, moving or still. That, which goes

after (something,) is anvak, and that which does not is ananvak.

यवा ऄनन्ज्वक्श्त्वेन िवभाव्यं मवरूपं यमय स तथोक्तः । एवं बहुव्रीिहसमासं कृ त्वा पश्चात् नचसमासः ।

ततश्चायमथो भवित — न वाररषु रिवरनगु तो भवित । िकं तिहत? तथैव नभिस देदीप्यमानो भ्रान्ज्त्या

वाररषु दृश्यत आत्यथतः । एवं एक अत्मा चलासु प्रिभन्ज्नासु नानाभतू ासु धीषु बिु द्चषु ऄनेकः सन्

ु ीरनगु तो भवित । िकं तिहत, पृथगेव देदीप्यते यः सोऽहमात्मेत्यथतः ॥

ऄनन्ज्विग्नवभाव्यमवरूपो न बद्च

Or, that, the nature of which is to be understood as non-moving, is so said. In this way,

after doing a bahuvrīhi compound, a negative (nañ) compound (is to be understood).

Thence, such a meaning emerges – the Sun does not move (i.e. reside) in the waters.

What then? In a like manner, (the sun, in spite of) shining on the firmament, is illusively

seen in the waters – this is the meaning. In this way, the one Self, (appearing as) many,

in different, moving intellects, does not reside in the intellect. What then, that which

shines forth separately (from the changing and multifarious intellects) is the Self that I

am – this is the meaning.

िकं च —

Besides,

घनच्छन्ज्नदृिष्टघतनच्छन्ज्नमकं

यथा िनष्प्रभं मन्ज्यते चाितमूढः ।

तथा बद्चविाित यो मढू दृष्टेः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ १० ॥
 भाष्यम्

घनेन मेघेन छन्ज्ना ितरोिहता दृिष्टः दशतनं यमय सः घनच्छन्ज्नदृिष्टः परुु षः घनच्छन्ज्नम् ऄकत म् अिदत्यं

यथा येन घनच्छन्ज्नत्वप्रकारे ण मन्ज्यते जानाित िनष्प्रभं प्रभारिहतम् ऄप्रकाशमवभाविमित यावत् । मढू ो

मन्ज्यते घनच्छन्ज्नदृिष्टत्वात् प्रकाशमवभावमिप रिवम् ऄप्रकाशं पश्यतीत्याह — ऄितमढू आित ।

ऄितमख
ू तत्वात् मवात्मनो दृिष्टिवघातमगणयन् सयू तमेव ऄप्रकाशं मन्ज्यते । पादपरू णे चकारः । तथा तेन

प्रकारे ण ऄिवद्याच्छन्ज्नदृिष्टः बिु द्चमात्मत्वेन गृहीत्वा तद्गतदःु खािदकम् अत्मन्ज्यध्यारोप्य बद्च आव

अभाित यः मढू दृष्टेः सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ॥

Just as a person, whose vision has been blocked by the clouds, considers the Sun,

enveloped by the clouds, on account of being enveloped by the clouds, as being devoid

of illumination, i.e. of the nature of non-luminous. That an ignorant one, because of (his)

vision being hindered by the clouds, considers even the Sun, which is of the nature of

illumination, to be non-luminous, is said (by the teacher in the following words) –

atimūḍha iti. Due to extreme ignorance, he considers the Sun only to be non-luminous,

(without) considering himself as one whose vision has been obstructed. The particle ca

is here for filling the foot (of the meter). In that way, he, whose vision has been

enveloped by ignorance, (and he who) taking the intellect for the Self, superimposes the

pain, etc. of it (i.e. the intellect) on the Self, I am that Self, which appears to be fettered

as it were, for one whose vision is deluded.

िकं च —

In addition to this –

सममतेषु वमतष्ु वनमु यतू मेकं

सममतािन वमतिू न यं न मपृशिन्ज्त ।

िवयवत्सदा शद्च
ु मच्छमवरूपः

स िनत्योपलिधधमवरूपोऽहमात्मा ॥ ११ ॥

भाष्यम्

सममतेषु िनरवशेषेषु प्रपचचात्मके षु सदात्मना ऄनमु यतू म् ऄनगु तं व्याप्तम् एवं िह नाना सममतािन

वमतिू न प्रपचचात्मकािन यं सिूपं न मपृशिन्ज्त । कुतः ? िवयवत् अकाशिमव सदा सवतदा शद्च
ु ं िनमतलं

रागािददोषरिहतम् ऄच्छमवरूपम् ऄमृतरूपं यत् परं ब्रह्म सोऽहमात्मेित सम्बन्ज्धः ॥

That which underlies, i.e. closely pervades by virtue of its nature of existence, all the

phenomenal objects without exception, and in this way, all the different objects of

phenomenal nature cannot touch that, i.e. the nature of which is existence. Why? (For,)

like the ākāśa, that supreme Brahman, which is always pure, untainted, devoid of defects
like desire, etc., of immortal nature, I am that Self – such is the (syntactical) relation (of

the words occurring in the verse).

व्यत्ु पािि्मर्वमपु संहरि् —

(The teacher) concludes the meaning that is (thus) established (with the help of the

proofs) –

उपाधौ यथा भेदता सन्ज्मणीनां

तथा भेदता बिु द्चभेदषे ु तेऽिप ।

यथा चिन्ज्िकाणां जले चचचलत्वं

तथा चचचलत्वं तवापीह िवष्णो ॥ १२ ॥

भाष्यम्

उपाधौ सित उपािधभेदसम्बन्ज्धे सित यथा भेदता भेद एव भेदता, मवाथे तल् , सन्ज्मणीनां

िवशद्च
ु मणीनां मफिटकादीनां लोिहतकृ ष्णािदभेदने भेदता भेदः । तथा बिु द्चभेदषे ु नानाबिु द्चषु ते तवािप

नानात्वं हे िवष्णो परमाथततमतु तव भेदो नामत्येव बदु ध्् यपु ािधकृ तमतु िवद्यत आत्यथतः । यथा चिन्ज्िकाणां

चन्ज्िा एव चिन्ज्िकाः, मवाथे कप्रत्ययः, िनमतिलतानां जले प्रितिबिम्बतमवरूपेण दृश्यमानानां जलमय

चचचलत्वात् चचचलत्वम् औपािधकं न पारमािथतकम् , तथा बद्च
ु ीनां चचचलत्वात् तवािप

चचचलत्वमौपािधकं न पारमािथतकिमत्यथतः । आह बिु द्चषु हे िवष्णो व्यापनशील ॥

Just as in the presence of a limiting adjunct, i.e. on account of being connected with the

difference proceeding from a limiting adjunct, there is difference, there occurs a

difference of gems like a pure crystal, etc. due to the difference of (limiting adjuncts

like) red, black, etc. Bhedatā means bheda only; the suffix tal (in bhedatā) is self-

denotative (svārtha, i.e. it denotes the meaning of bheda or difference itself). Similar is

the multifariousness of yours, O Viṣṇu, in the multifarious intellects. In reality, there is

certainly no difference of yours, (but such a difference) exists, being caused by the

limiting adjunct in the form of the intellect. Just as the tremble of the moons due to the

tremble of the water, seen as a result of reflection (of the moon) in dirtless waters, is

condition, but not real, likewise due to the tremble of the intellects, is the tremble of

yours conditional, but not real. Candrikā means candra only, the suffix ka (in candrikā)

is self-denotative (i.e. it denotes the meaning of candra or moon itself). (The word)

‘here’ (iha) means ‘in the intellects’, O Viṣṇu, i.e. (O the one), whose nature is

pervasion.