।।2.16।।
न असतः अविद्यमानस्य शीतोष्णादेः सकारणस्य न विद्यते नास्ति भावो भवनम् अस्तिता ॥
न हि शीतोष्णादि सकारणं प्रमाणैर्निरूप्यमाणं वस्तुसद्भवति ।
विकारो हि सः, विकारश्च व्यभिचरति ।
na asataḥ avidyamānasya śītoṣṇādeḥ sakāraṇasya bhāvaḥ bhavanam astitā na vidyate nāsti ||
śītoṣṇādi sakāraṇaṃ pramāṇaiḥ nirūpyamāṇaṃ(when tested by means of proof) na hi sad vastu(real thing) bhavati [sambhavati] |
vikāraḥ hi saḥ(for they are changeful), vikāraḥ ca vyabhicarati(modification is inconstant) |
Asatah, of the unreal, of cold, heat, etc. together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being, existence, reality; because heat, cold, etc. together with their causes are not substantially real when tested by means of proof.
For they are changeful, and whatever is changeful is inconstant.
शीतोष्णादेः
१) शीतं च उष्णं च, शीत-उष्णे - द्वन्द्वः
२) शितोष्णे आदिनी यस्य तत् [असत्], शीत-उष्ण-आदि, तस्य - बहुव्रीहिः
सकारणस्य - कारणेन सहितं यत् वर्तते, तस्य [असत्] - सहबहुव्रीहिः
यथा घटादिसंस्थानं चक्षुषा निरूप्यमाणं मृद्व्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत् , तथा सर्वो विकारः कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसन् ।
yathā ghaṭa-ādi-saṃsthānaṃ(as combination like pot etc.) cakṣuṣā nirūpyamāṇaṃ(analized with eyes) mṛd-vyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ(because it is not found anything different beside clay) asat , tathā sarvaḥ vikāraḥ(all changeful things) kāraṇa-vyatirekeṇa(apart from their cause) anupalabdheḥ(because it is not obtained) (therefore they are)asan|
As configurations like pot etc. are unreal since they are not perceived to be different from earth when tested by the eyes, so also are all changeful things unreal because they are not perceived to be different from their (material) causes,
घट-आदि-संस्थानम्
१) घटः आदिः यस्य [वस्तुनः] तत् , घट-आदि - बहुव्रीहिः
२) घट-आदेः संस्थानम् - षष्ठी
मृद्-व्यतिरेकेण - मृदः व्यतिरेकः, तेन - पञ्चमी
कारण-व्यतिरेकेण - कारणात् व्यतिरेकः, तेन - पञ्चमी
असत् , असन् - अस् + शतृँ
व्यतिरेकः - वि + अति + रिचिँर् (विरेचने) + घञ् (रुधादिः, सकर्मकः, रिणक्ति, to separate, to abort, to purify the body, to sweep, to cleanse the body https://ashtadhyayi.com/dhatu/07.0004?tab=ting) [विकारः कारणात् उपलब्धिं न व्यतिरिणक्ति]
जन्मप्रध्वंसाभ्यां प्रागूर्ध्वं च अनुपलब्धेः कार्यस्य घटादेः मृदादिकारणस्य च तत्कारणव्यतिरेकेणानुपलब्धेरसत्त्वम् ॥
anvayaḥ
ghaṭa-ādeḥ kāryasya janma-pradhvaṃsābhyāṃ prāg-ūrdhvaṃ ca anupalabdheḥ, mṛd-ādi-kāraṇasya ca tat-kāraṇa-vyatirekeṇa anupalabdheḥ asattvam||
(...) and also because they are not perceived before (their) origination and after destruction.
tātparyam One (English follows Sanskrit):
[Because] ghaṭa-ādeḥ kāryasya(products like pot etc.) janma-pradhvaṃsābhyāṃ prāg-ūrdhvaṃ(before their birth and after destruction) ca anupalabdheḥ(are not experienced), [tasmāt tasya (ghatādeḥ kāryasya) asattvam - such products like pot etc. des not exist],
mṛd-ādi-kāraṇasya(of the clay etc, whcih is itself the cause [for pots etc], of this clay-cause) ca tat-kāraṇa(cause of the clay)-vyatirekeṇa(apart from) [mṛdaḥ kāraṇāt, pṛthivī-vyatirekeṇa] anupalabdheḥ(because of the non-availibility) [kāryasya] asattvam||
tātparyam Two (Sanskrit follows English):
[Because of the reason that] Products(kāryasya) such as pot etc(ghaṭādeḥ) are not experienced(anupalabdheḥ) before creation/birth(janmanaḥ prāg) and after destruction/death(pradhvaṃsasya ūrdhvaṃ ca),
[therefore kāryasya asatvam - such products do not exist in reality, i.e. they are dependently existent - मिथ्या].
Because of the non-availibility(anupalabdheḥ) of cause-clay etc(mṛd-ādi-kāraṇsya) apart from their cause(tatkāraṇa-vyatirekeṇa [mṛdaḥ kāraṇāt, pṛthivī-vyatirekeṇa]) [as well as its cause, such as water for earth, fire for water etc. until primeval cause Maya; by this reason] these products really do not exist([sarvakāryasya] asatvam).
Full English translation (as previous Gambhiranandaji's translation was short, here is an extension):
Because of the reason that such products as pot etc. are not experienced before creation/birth and after destruction/death, [and therefore such products do not exist in reality, i.e. they are dependently existent - mithyā],
[moreover] because clay (which is the cause of the pot etc.) does not exist without its cause (earth) [and earth, in turn, does not exist without water, water without fire, and so on up to primary Maya], therefore all these products (derived from their causes) are unreal (asat, mithyā).
जन्म-प्रध्वंसाभ्यां - जन्म च प्रध्वंसः च, जन्म-प्रध्वंसौ, ताभ्याम् - इतरेतर-द्वन्द्वः
प्राग्-ऊर्ध्वम् - प्राग् च ऊर्ध्वं च, प्राग्-ऊर्ध्वम् - समहार-द्वन्द्वः
मृद्-आदि-कारणस्य
१) मृद् आदिः यस्य [कारणम्] तत्, मृद्-आदि - बहुव्रीहिः
२) मृद्-आदि कारणम्, मृद्-आदि-कारणम्, तस्य - कर्मधारयः
तत्-कारण-व्यतिरेकेण
१) तस्य [मृदः] कारणं, तत्-कारणम् - षष्ठी
२) तत्-कारणात् व्यतिरेकः, तेन - पञ्चमी
घट-आदेः - घताः आदिः यस्य [कार्यस्य] तत्, घटादिः, तस्य - बहुव्रीहिः
तदसत्त्वे सर्वाभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् ,
(Objection-1) tad-asattve(if everything is asat) sarva-abhāva(of non-existence of everything)-prasaṅgaḥ(occasion) iti cet , [nihilism view]
Objection: If it be that [Here Ast. has the additional words 'karyasya ghatadeh, the effect, viz pot etc. (and)'.-Tr.] such (material) causes as earth etc. as also their causes are unreal since they are not perceived differently from their causes, in that case, may it not be urged that owing to the nonexistence of those (causes) there will arise the contingency of everything becoming unreal
[An entity cannot be said to be unreal merely because it is non-different from its cause. Were it to be asserted as being unreal, then the cause also should be unreal, because there is no entity which is not subject to the law of cuase and effect.]?
तद्-असत्त्वे - तस्य [कार्यस्य] असत्त्वम्, तस्मिन् - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
सर्व-अभाव-प्रसङ्गः
१) सर्वस्य अभावः, सर्व-अभावः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
२) सर्व-अभावस्य प्रसङ्गः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
6.1 न ; सर्वत्र बुद्धिद्वयोपलब्धेः, सद्बुद्धिरसद्बुद्धिरिति ।
(Answer-1) na (i.e. no occasion of nihlism); sarvatra buddhi-dvaya-upalabdheḥ(there is the experience of two cognitions), sad-buddhiḥ asad-buddhiḥ iti|
Vedantin: No, for in all cases there is the experience of two awarenesses, viz the awareness of reality, and the awareness of unreality.
[In all cases of perception two awarenesses are involved: one is invariable, and the other is variable. Since the variable is imagined on the invariable, therefore it is proved that there is something which is the substratum of all imagination, and which is neither a cause nor an effect.]
Notes from Swami Sadatmanandaji's:
No (i.e. no occasion of nihlism). Because of the availability of two-fold cognitions (in every experience) - existence cognition, unreal object cognition.
प्रतिज्ञावाक्यम् = No (कार्य-कारणासत्त्वे सर्वाभावः प्रसङ्गः न) । हेतुः/संग्रहवाक्यम् = Because of the availability of two-fold cognitions in every experience – सद्बुद्धिः (existence cognition), असद्बुद्धिः (unreal object cognition) च। (Therefore, शून्यवादः will not occur.).
[In the sentence 'ghataH asti', ghataH is upadhi (asadbuddhi - cognition of an unreal object), 'asti' - the reality (sadbuddhi - cognition of reality)]
बुद्धि-द्वय-उपलब्धेः -
१) बुद्ध्योः द्वयम्, बुद्धि-द्वयम् - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
२) बुद्धि-द्वयस्य उपलब्धिः, तस्य - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
सद्-बुद्धिः - सतः बुद्धिः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
असद्-बुद्धिः - असतः बुद्धिः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
6.2 यद्विषया बुद्धिर्न व्यभिचरति, तत् सत् ; यद्विषया व्यभिचरति, तदसत् ; इति सदसद्विभागे बुद्धितन्त्रे स्थिते, सर्वत्र द्वे बुद्धी सर्वैरुपलभ्येते समानाधिकरणे न नीलोत्पलवत् , सन् घटः, सन् पटः, सन् हस्ती इति । एवं सर्वत्र ।
yad-viṣayā buddhiḥ na vyabhicarati, tat sat(That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real);
yad-viṣayā vyabhicarati, tad asat(that in relation to which it changes is unreal);
iti sad-asad-vibhāge(Thus, since the distinction between the real and the unreal is) buddhi-tantre sthite(dependent on cognition), sarvaiḥ samāna-adhikaraṇe(the same substratum) sarvatra dve buddhī upalabhyete(everyone has two kinds of awarenesses), na nīla-utpalavat(not like "blue lily" because it is visheshana-visheshya-bhavaH; but it is like), san ghaṭaḥ, san paṭaḥ, san hastī iti | evaṃ sarvatra(This is how it happens everywhere) |
That in relation to which the awareness does not change is real; that in relation to which it changes is unreal.
Thus, since the distinction between the real and the unreal is dependent on awareness, therefore in all cases (of empirical experiences) everyone has two kinds of awarenesses with regard to the same substratum: (As for instance, the experiences) 'The pot is real', 'The cloth is real', 'The elephant is real' (which experiences) are not like (that of) 'A blue lotus'.
[In the empirical experience, 'A blue lotus', there are two awarenesses concerned with two entities, viz the substance (lotus) and the ality (blueness). In the case of the experience, 'The pot is real', etc. the awarenesses are not concerned with substratum and alities, but the awareness of pot,of cloth, etc. are superimposed on the awareness of 'reality', like that of 'water' in a mirage.] This is how it happens everywhere. [The coexistence of 'reality' and 'pot' etc. are valid only empirically according to the non-dualists; whereas the coexistence of 'blueness' and 'lotus' is real according to the dualists.]
यद्-विषया [बुद्धिः] - यत् [वसु] विषयः यस्याः [बुद्धेः] सा - बहुव्रीहिः
सद्-असद्-विभागे
१) सत् च असदत् च, सद्-असती - द्वन्द्वः
२) सद्-असतोः विभागः, तस्मिन् - षष्ठी
बुद्धि-तन्त्रे (dependent on cognition) - बुद्धौ तन्त्रः, तस्मिन् - सप्तमी (षष्ठी)
समान-अधिकरणे - समानम् अधिकरणम्, तस्मिन् - कर्मधारयः
नील-उत्पलवत् - नीलः उत्पलः, निलोत्पलः - कर्मधारयः, वति प्रत्ययः च
Notes from Swami Sadatmanandaji's:
The cognition regarding which object does not deviate is called सत् and
the cognition regarding which object deviates is called असत् ।
In this manner, depending on cognition there is division of सत् (that which really exists) and असत् (that which does not really exist) – “In every experience two cognitions are found in apposition (समानाधिकरणेन/सामानाधिकरण्येन – प्रकारवाचीतृतीया) by all like existent pot, existent cloth and existent elephant just as blue lotus/lily (उत्पल-विषयबुद्धि and नील-गुणबुद्धि)”।
samānādhikaraṇena nīlotpalavaditi pāṭhe yathā nīlābhinnamutpalamiti śābdabodhaḥ bhavati tathā sadabhinno ghaṭaḥ iti śābdabodhaḥ| na nīlotpalavaditi pāṭhe nīlotpalayorubhayoḥ viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyayoḥ jātivyaktyorvā samānavyāvahārikasattākatvāt na nīlotpalavadityuktam|
Notes about समानाधिकरणम् ।
There are four समानाधिकरणम् –
१. अध्यास (अतस्मिन् तद्बुद्धिः अध्यासः),
२. विशेषण-विशेष्य,
३. बाध (पूर्वोत्पन्नमिथ्याप्रत्ययस्य उत्तरेण यथार्थप्रत्ययेन विषयापहारो बाधः, यथा चोरोऽयं स्थाणुः)
४. ऐक्य (प्रकृष्टप्रकाशः चन्द्रः, सोऽयम् देवदत्तः) ।
१. अध्यास-सामानाधिकरण्यम् is of two types –
1. दोषज (भ्रान्तिरूपः) - Where one does not understand the difference and mistakes one thing to be another is दोषज-सामानाधिकरण्यम्। यथा – चोरोऽयं स्थाणुः।
2. आहार्यः (भेदादिग्रहणेऽपि इच्छया क्रियमाणत्वात् मानसक्रियारूपः) - Where the difference is understood but one thing is superimposed on another that सामानाधिकरण्यम् is called आहार्य-सामानाधिकरण्यम्।
आहार्य-सामानाधिकरण्यम् is of three types – शास्त्रकृत्, साङ्केतिक, गौणः
1. शास्त्रकृत्-सामानाधिकरण्यम् is of two types –
a. संपदोपास्तिः (आरोपाधिकरणे बुद्ध्या स्वेनरूपेण तिरोभूय आरोपणीया आत्मना एव सम्पाद्या अनुसंधानलक्षणा । यथा गुरौ मनुष्यबुद्धि परित्यागेन देवताबुद्धिः। (यथा वा ....),
b. प्रतीकोपास्तिः (आरोपविशेषितस्य आरोपाधिकरणस्य प्राधान्येन उपास्तिः। यथा “य एव असौ मुख्यः प्राणः तम् उद्गीयम् उपासचिक्रिरे”, “य एव असौ तपति तम् उद्गीथ-अवयवस्य ओङ्कारस्य एव उपास्यत्वेन उपक्रमात् प्रतीकस्य प्राधान्यम् इति।
2. साङ्केतिक-सामानाधिकरण्यम् – “लिप्यादौ अयं ककारः” इत्यादिबुद्धिसङ्केतकृतत्वात् साङ्केतिकः।
3. गौण-सामानाधिकरण्यम् - “सिंहो माणवकः” इत्यादौ मुख्यार्थगुणयोगनिमित्तत्वाद् गौणः।
Here, in the first reading, similarity is based on विशेषण-विशेष्य-समानाधिकरणम् and in the second reading, dissimilarity is based on बाध-समानाधिकरणम् |
Based on the first reading, नीलत्वं च उत्पलत्वं च नीलोपले वर्तेते। Similarly, for every object विषयत्व and सत्ता have the same अधिकरण। Thus, there are two cognitions for every object.
Based on the second reading, since नीलत्वं is found in other objects and colors other than नील are found in उत्पल, they are मिथः व्यभिचारी, (mutual disloyalty) that is, they can exist without each other. But there is no मिथः व्यभिचारः between घट and सत्। घट cannot exist without सत्। (सत् can exist without घट)। Therefore, there is a difference in the two comparisons.
Based on the cognition, BB decides the status of the object. When we see a movie, we experience the screen. But we do not see it separately. What remains constant is not noticed but what changes (comes and goes) is noticed.
Notes from https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/samanadhikaranya
Sāmānādhikaraṇya (सामानाधिकरण्य) in Hindu philosophy refers to a “common reference of two words in an expression each by itself applying to a different object”.—Sāmānādhikaraṇya is of four kinds according to Candraśekhara’s commentary on the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi:
(i) bādhāyam sāmānādhikaraṇyam, which relates to bhrānti or delusion arising from error of perception; it refers to the state of mind after the delusion has been removed,
(ii) adhyāse sāmānādhikaraṇyam, which applies to the common reference of the super-imposed (āropita) and the substratum (adhisthāna); Adhyasa is the idea of a thing in what is not that thing that may arise in some places from external defects and in others from one’s own supposition; it refers to the state of the mind during the pendency of the delusion,
(iii) viśesane sāmānādhikaraṇyam, which arises when an object designated by a common noun is particularised by qualifying the noun by an adjective as between (a) the quality and the bearer of the quality, (b) the genus and the species, and (c) the qualification and the qualified, and (d) the part and the whole, and
(iv) aikye sāmānādhikaraṇyam relates to the removal of the apparent contradiction between two individuals or things identified by two or more words used in juxtaposition indicating an identity between their references.
6.3 तयोर्बुद्ध्योः घटादिबुद्धिः व्यभिचरति । तथा च दर्शितम् । न तु सद्बुद्धिः । तस्मात् घटादिबुद्धिविषयः असन् , व्यभिचारात् ; न तु सद्बुद्धिविषयः, अव्यभिचारात् ॥
tayoḥ buddhyoḥ ghaṭa-ādi-buddhiḥ vyabhicarati(the cognition of pot etc. is inconstant) | tathā ca darśitam |
na tu sad-buddhiḥ(But the cognition of reality is not (inconstant)) | tasmāt ghaṭa-ādi-buddhi-viṣayaḥ(the object of the cognition of pot etc.) asan, vyabhicārāt; na tu sad-buddhi-viṣayaḥ(but not so the object of the cognition of reality), avyabhicārāt ||
Of these two awareness, the awareness of pot etc. is inconstant; and thus has it been shown above. But the awareness of reality is not (inconstant). Therefore the object of the awareness of pot etc. is unreal because of inconstancy; but not so the object of the awareness of reality, because of its constancy.
घट-आदि-बुद्धिः
१) घटः आदिः येषां [विषयाणाम्] ते, घटादयः - बहुव्रीहिः
२) घटादीनां बुद्धिः, घट-आदि-बुद्धिः – षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
सद्-बुद्धिः - सतः बुद्धिः – षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
घट-आदि-बुद्धि-विषयः
१) घटः आदिः येषां [विषयाणाम्] ते, घटादयः - बहुव्रीहिः
२) घटादीनां बुद्धिः, घट-आदि-बुद्धिः – षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
३) घट-आदि-बुद्धेः विषयः, घट-आदि-बुद्धि-विषयः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
सद्-बुद्धि-विषयः
१) सतः बुद्धिः, सत्-बुद्धिः – षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
२) सत्-बुद्धेः विषयः, सत्-बुद्धि-विषयः - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
घटे विनष्टे घटबुद्दौ व्यभिचरन्त्यां सद्बुद्धिरपि व्यभिचरतीति चेत् , न ; पटादावपि सद्बुद्धिदर्शनात् । विशेषणविषयैव सा सद्बुद्धिः ॥ (अतः अपि न विनश्यति। )
(Objection-2) ghaṭe vinaṣṭe(when the pot is destroyed) ghaṭa-buddhau vyabhicarantyāṃ(the ghata-buddhi is being changeful) sadbuddhiḥ api vyabhicarati iti cet(the cognition of the pot's reality is also changeful?),
(Answer-2) na ; paṭa-ādāu api(No, because in cloth etc) sad-buddhi-darśanāt(the awareness of reality is seen to persist) | sā sad-buddhiḥ(That awareness) viśeṣaṇa-viṣayā(relates to the adjective (and not to the noun 'pot')) eva || ataḥ api na vinaśyati|
Objection: If it be argued that, since the awareness of pot also changes when the pot is destroyed, therefore the awareness of the pot's reality is also changeful?
Vedantin: No, because in cloth etc. the awareness of reality is seen to persist. That awareness relates to the adjective (and not to the noun 'pot'). For this reason also it is not destroyed. [This last sentence has been cited in the f.n. of A.A.-Tr.]
घट-बुद्धौ - घटस्य बुद्धिः, तस्याम् - षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः
पट-आदौ - पटः आदिः यस्य [वस्तुनः] तत्, पटादि, तस्मिन् - बहुव्रीहिः
सद्-बुद्धि-दर्शनात्
१) सतः बुद्धिः, सद्-बुद्धिः - षष्ठी
२) सद्-बुद्धेः दर्शनम्, सद्-बुद्धि-दर्शनम्, तस्मात् - षष्ठी
विशेषण-विषया [बुद्धिः] - विशेषणं विषयः यस्याः सा [बुद्धिः] - बहुव्रीहिः
सद्बुद्धिवत् घटबुद्धिरपि घटान्तरे दृश्यत इति चेत् , न ; पटादौ अदर्शनात् ॥
(Objection-3) sad-buddhivat(like the awareness of reality) ghaṭa-buddhiḥ api(the awareness of a pot) ghaṭa-antare(in other pots) dṛśyate iti cet(persists),
(Answer-3) na ; paṭa-ādau adarśanāt(No, because that (cognition of pot) is not present in (the cognition of) a cloth etc.) ||
Objection: If it be argued that like the awareness of reality, the awareness of a pot also persists in other pots?
Vedantin: No, because that (awareness of pot) is not present in (the awareness of) a cloth etc.
Meaning is:
Objection: What if same like the cognition of isness (persists in other objects), the cognition of a pot persists in other pots? (meaning, Ghata-buddhi is not vyabhicara because it exists in other pots. Here, the view, which purvapakshi tries to establish is that ghata-buddhi is real and unchanging)
Answer: No, because cognition of pot is not present in the cognition of a cloth etc. (thus, ghata-buddhi is vyabhicara, therefore, it is asat)
सद्-बुद्धिवत् - सतः बुद्धिः, सत्बुद्धिः - षष्ठी, वति प्रत्ययः च
घट-बुद्धिः - घटस्य बुद्धिः - षष्ठी
घट-अन्तरे - अन्यः घटः, घट-अन्तरम्, तस्मिन् - मयूरव्यंसकादिः
पट-आदौ - पटः आदिः यस्य [वस्तुनः] तत्, पट-आदि, तस्मिन्
सद्बुद्धिरपि नष्टे घटे न दृश्यत इति चेत् ,
न ; विशेष्याभावात् सद्बुद्धिः विशेषणविषया सती विशेष्याभावे विशेषणानुपपत्तौ किंविषया स्यात् ?
न तु पुनः सद्बुद्धेः विषयाभावात् ॥
(Objection-4) sad-buddhiḥ(the awareness of reality) api naṣṭe ghaṭe na dṛśyate iti cet(is not present in the destroyed pot),
(Answer-4) na ; viśeṣya-abhāvāt[ghaṭābhāvāt iti](no, because the noun(ghaṭaH) is absent (there)),
sad-buddhiḥ(cognition of existence) viśeṣaṇa-viṣayā satī[san ghaṭaḥ](corresponds to the adjective[sat] (i.e. it is used adjectivelly)) viśeṣya-abhāve[ghaṭābhāve](when nama/object(ghataH) is not there) viśeṣaṇa-anupapattau[san-anupapattau](adjective is also not obtainable there) [sā sad-buddhiḥ] kiṃ-viṣayā syāt(what would [sat-buddhiH] adjectify)?
na tu punaḥ sad-buddheḥ(But, again, the awareness of reality (does not cease)) viṣaya-abhāvāt (with the absence of an object/vastu) || [Existence 'is' even if existence-cognition 'is not']
Objection: May it not be that even the awareness of reality is not present in relation to a pot that has been destroyed?
Vedantin: No, because the noun[ghaṭaH] is absent (there).
Since the awareness of reality corresponds to the adjective[san] (i.e. it is used adjectivelly), therefore, when the noun is missing there is no possibility of its (that awareness) being an adjective. So, to what should it relate?
But, again, the awareness of reality (does not cease) with the absence of an object.
[Even when a pot is absent and the awareness of reality does not arise with regare to it, the awareness of reality persists in the region where the pot had existed. Some read nanu in place of na tu ('But, again'). In that case, the first portion (No, since adjective.. so, relate) is a statement of the Vedantin, and the Objection starts from nanu punah sadbuddheh, etc. so, the next Objection will run thus: 'May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, the awareness of existence has no noun to alify, and therefore it becomes impossible for it (the awareness of existence) to exist in the same substratum?'-Tr.]
विशेष्य-अभावात् - विषयस्य अभावः, विषय-अभावः, तस्मात् - षष्ठी
विशेषण-विषया - विशेषणं विषयः यस्याः सा [बुद्धिः] - बहुव्रीहिः
विशेषण-अनुपपत्तौ - विशेषणस्य अनुपपत्तिः, तस्याम् - षष्ठी
किं-विषया - कः विषयः यस्याः सा [बुद्धिः], किं-विषया - बहुव्रीहिः
विषय-अभावात् - विषेष्यस्य अभावः, विषेष्य-अभावः, तस्मात् - षष्ठी
Some points regarding the bhashyam so far that may be useful to note. Corrollaries –
1. Existence is associated with object but it is not a part of it.
2. Existence is not a property/quality of object – like yellow color.
3. Existence manifests through objects.
4. When objects are not, Existence is the अधिष्ठानम् of अभावः।
5. अभाव can only be established by चैतन्य, a भावपदार्थ – such as a person.
एकाधिकरणत्वं घटादिविशेष्याभावे न युक्तमिति चेत् , न ; ‘इदमुदकम्’ इति मरीच्यादौ अन्यतराभावेऽपि सामानाधिकरण्यदर्शनात् ॥
(Objection-5) eka-adhikaraṇatvaṃ(in the same substratum) ghaṭa-ādi-viśeṣya-abhāve(when nouns like pot etc. are absent) na yuktam iti cet(it becomes impossible for it to exist), [put it shortly, sat and abhava-ruupa-asat cannot have the same basis]
(Answer-5) na ; ‘idamudakam’ iti(in such experiences as, 'This water exists') marīci-ādau(which arises on seeing a mirage etc. in desert land) anyatara-abhāve(even if there is no water in it) api sāmāna-adhikaraṇya-darśanāt(there is a common basis) ||
Objection: May it not be said that, when nouns like pot etc. are absent, (the awareness of existence has no noun to alify and therefore) it becomes impossible for it to exist in the same substratum?
[The relationship of an adjective and a noun is seen between two real entities. Therefore, if the relationship between 'pot' and 'reality' be the same as between a noun and an adjective, then both of them will be real entities. So, the coexistence of reality with a non-pot does not stand to reason.]
Vedantin: No, because in such experiences as, 'This water exists', (which arises on seeing a mirage etc.) it is observed that there is a coexistence of two objects though one of them is non-existent.
एक-अधिकरणत्वम् - एकम् अधिकरणम्, एक-अधिकरणम् - कर्मधारयः, तस्य भावः त्व-प्रत्ययः च
घट-आदि-विशेष्य-अभावे -
१) घटः आदिः यस्य तानि [विशेष्यानि], घटा-आदिनी - बहुव्रीहिः
२) घटा-आदीनि विशेष्यानि, घटा-आदि-विशेष्यानि - कर्मधारयः
३) घटा-आदि-विशेष्याणाम् अभावः, घट-आदि-विशेष्य-अभावः, तस्मिन् - षष्ठी
मरीचि-आदौ - मरीचिः आदिः यस्य तत् [अधिष्ठानम्], मरीचि-आदि, तस्मिन् - बहुव्रीहिः
अन्यतर-अभावे - अन्यतरस्य अभावः, तस्मिन् - षष्ठी
सामान-अधिकरण्य-दर्शनात् -
१) सामानम् अधिकरणम्, सामान-अधिकरणम् - कर्मधारयः, तस्य भावः ष्यञ्-प्रत्ययः च, सामान-अधिकरण्यम्
or सामानम् अधिकरणम् ययोः ते [वस्तुनी], सामान-अधिकरणे
२) सामान-अधिकरण्यस्य दर्शनम्, तस्मात् - षष्ठी
Notes:
In the 'snake and rope' example we have samanya-amshaH which are shared by snake and rope: size, shape, color and also the part "this is".
Vishesha-amsha - sarpatva and rajjutva. Rajjutva of rajju is covered by sarpatva of sarpa.
When BB says 'idam udakam', here the samanya-amsha (for mirage water and desert land) is 'radiance' and also the part "this is".
Vishesha-amsha - udakatvam is imposed on marIcitvam.
तस्माद्देहादेः द्वन्द्वस्य च सकारणस्य असतो न विद्यते भाव इति ।
तथा सतश्च आत्मनः अभावः अविद्यमानता न विद्यते, सर्वत्र अव्यभिचारात् इति अवोचाम ॥
tasmāt deha-ādeḥ dvandvasya ca(body etc. and the dualities (heat, cold, etc.)) sakāraṇasya(together with their causes) asataḥ(of the unreal) bhāvaḥ na vidyate iti | tathā ca sataḥ ātmanaḥ abhāvaḥ, avidyamānatā na vidyate, sarvatra avyabhicārāt iti avocāma ||
Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities (heat, cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is no; bhavah, being. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self; na vidyate, there is no; abhavah, nonexistence, because It is constant everywhere. This is what we have said.
देह-आदेः - देहः आदिः यस्य सः [पदार्थः], तस्य - बहुव्रीहिः
सकारणस्य - कारणेन सह वर्तते यः सः [देह-आदिः पदार्थः], सकारणः, तस्य - सह बहुव्रीहिः
एवम् आत्मानात्मनोः सदसतोः उभयोरपि दृष्टः उपलब्धः अन्तो निर्णयः सत् सदेव असत् असदेवेति, तु अनयोः यथोक्तयोः तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ।
evam ātma-anātmanoḥ sad-asatoḥ ubhayoḥ api dṛṣṭaḥ upalabdhaḥ antaḥ nirṇayaḥ sat, sad eva, asat asat eva iti, tu anayoḥ yathā uktayoḥ tattva-darśibhiḥ |
Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature of the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained above; drstah, has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the seers of Truth.
आत्म-अनात्मनोः - आत्मा च अनात्मा च, आत्म-अनात्मानौ, तयोः - द्वन्द्वः
सद्-असतोः - सन् च असन् च, सत्-असन्तौ, तयोः - द्वन्द्वः
तत्त्वदर्शिभिः - तत्त्वं पश्यन्ति तच्छीलाः इति तत्त्वदर्शिनः, तैः ताच्छीलिके कर्तरि णिनिः उपपदसमासश्च । तत्त्व + दृश् + इनि (ताच्छीलिके कर्तरि) तैः ।
तदिति सर्वनाम, सर्वं च ब्रह्म, तस्य नाम तदिति, तद्भावः तत्त्वम् , ब्रह्मणो याथात्म्यम् । तत् द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते तत्त्वदर्शिनः, तैः तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ।
tad iti sarvanāma, sarvaṃ ca brahma(sarvam is Brahman), tasya nāma tad iti(name of Brahman is 'tat'), tad-bhāvaḥ tattvam, brahmaṇaḥ yāthātmyam | tat draṣṭuṃ śīlaṃ yeṣāṃ te tattvadarśinaḥ, taiḥ tattvadarśibhiḥ |
Tat is a pronoun (Sarvanama, lit. name of all) which can be used with regard to all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman. Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darsinah, seers of Truth.
सर्वनाम - सर्वेषां नाम - षष्ठी
तद्-भावः - तस्य भावः - षष्ठी
याथात्म्यम् - आत्मानम् [स्वरूपम्] अनतिक्रम्य, यथात्मम् - अव्ययीभावः । ष्यञ् प्रत्ययः च, याथात्म्यम्
त्वमपि तत्त्वदर्शिनां दृष्टिमाश्रित्य शोकं मोहं च हित्वा शीतोष्णादीनि नियतानियतरूपाणि द्वन्द्वानि ‘विकारोऽयमसन्नेव मरीचिजलवन्मिथ्यावभासते’ इति मनसि निश्चित्य तितिक्षस्व इत्यभिप्रायः ॥ १६ ॥
tvam api tattva-darśināṃ dṛṣṭim āśritya, śokaṃ mohaṃ ca hitvā, śītoṣṇa-ādīni niyata-aniyata-rūpāṇi dvandvāni ‘ayam vikāraḥ asan eva marīci-jalavat mithyā avabhāsate’ iti manasi niścitya titikṣasva iti abhiprāyaḥ || 16 ||
Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat, cold, etc. some of which are definite in their nature, and others inconstant , mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world) is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a mirage. This is the idea.
शीतोष्ण-आदीनि
१) शीतं च उष्णं च, शीतोष्णे - द्वन्द्वः
२) शीतोष्णे आदिनी येषां तानि [द्वन्द्वानि] - बहुव्रीहिः
नियत-अनियत-रूपाणि
१) नियतानि च अनियतानि च, नियत-अनियतानि - द्वन्द्वः
२) नियत-अनियतानि रूपाणि येषां तानि [द्वन्द्वानि], नियत-अनियत-रूपाणि - बहुव्रीहिः
मरीचि-जल-वत् - मरीचि-रूपं जलम् [मरीचेः? // मरीचौ जलम्], मरीचिः जलम् इव ? - मरीचि-जलम्, तुल्यार्थे वति प्रत्ययः
किं पुनस्तत् , यत् सदेव सर्वदा [अस्ति] इति ; उच्यते —
yat sarvadā eva [asti](that which always exists), tat sat kiṃ iti(what is that sat) punaḥ ucyate(going to be said again) —
What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and surely for ever? This is being answered in, 'But know That', etc.
Summary of all the objections, given in this verse:
Of the asat (=mithyA vastu which are qualified by coming and going, i.e. they are changing) there is no bhava (paramarthika existence).
Taking in consideration, that their causes are also dependant on other their own causes (and thus, changing) etc, therefore all these products (derived from their causes) are unreal (asat, mithyā).
1. तदसत्त्वे ...
Objection:
In such case, there is non-existence of everything [nihilism view]
Answer:
No, because in each experiense we have two cognitions, one of them is ever real. In the experience "pot is" there is a pot-cognition (changing , asat) and isness-cognition (non-changing, ever sat).
2. घटे विनष्टे घटबुद्दौ ...
Objection:
Then, since the cognition of the pot is changing, then when the pot is destroyed, the cognition of pot's 'isness' is changeful.
Answer:
No, because we see "isness" in other objects such as cloth etc. Isness does not belong to the subject (pot, cloth), but belongs to their adjective (existent pot, existent cloth)
3. सद्बुद्धिवत् ...
Objection:
What if same like the cognition of isness (persists in other objects), the cognition of a pot persists in other pots? (meaning, Ghata-buddhi is not vyabhicara because it exists in other pots. Here, the view, which purvapakshi tries to establish is that ghata-buddhi is real and unchanging)
Answer:
No, because cognition of pot is not present in the cognition of a cloth etc. (thus, ghata-buddhi is vyabhicara, therefore, it is asat)
4. सद्बुद्धिरपि ...
Objection:
Isn't it that the cognition of isness is not there anymore when pot is destroyed?
Answer:
No, because the noun [ghaṭaH] is not there, but the adjective [san] is there. The cognition of isness persists, but there is no object to objectify itself. Existence manifests through objects and when there is no object, there is no manifestation of existence, but existence is ever there. Existence 'is' even if existence-cognition 'is not'
5. एकाधिकरणत्वं ...
Objection:
Isn't it if when noun pot is not there, the adjective 'san' also cannot be there, because we cannot have sat and asat at the same time on samana-adhikaranyam
Answer:
No, because we see water in mirage and we experience "existent water". In this case "water" is not there, but samana-adhikaranyam is there.
