Establishment of Brahman 3.280

3.280

nanu saṃskārakāryaśeṣāvavidyaiva /
tatra kathaṃ sarvāvidyāpravilayaḥ, kathaṃ vā na cchedyamavaśiṣyate? ucyate ---
viśuddhaikātmyadarśanapratipakṣagrastau vilīnāveva tāvaduditau, akiñcitkaratvādabandhatvāt, tannivṛttaye hetvantarasyānapekṣaṇāt /
viśuddhaṃ khalvātmānaṃ sākṣādanubhavato vipākābhāsastamaspṛśannakiñcitkaro bandhātmā pralīna eva /
yathā citrādau citrāditattvamanubhavataḥ stryādyābhāso rāgādīnāmanimittatvāt, tathāvadātamātmānaṃ jānato viparītaṃ vā khaḍgādiṣu śyāmādyābhāsa utpanno 'pi tattvadarśanādavakāśamalabhamānaḥ pravilīna eva /
tathā ca na tannibandhanena malinatvena śocatyātmānam, na tejasvitayābhinandati /
avabhāsamānayorapi tayorātmani tattvadarśanapratihatāvabhāsatvāt /
evaṃ ca yaducyate ---
karmaṇo vā śarīrasthitiḥ syātsaṃskārādvā, ko viśeṣaḥ? kaśca karmaṇaḥ kṣayaḥ kāryānuvṛttau? tannivṛttyā hi tatkṣayo gamyate /
tasmāt ‘bhogena tvitare kṣapayitvā saṃpadyate'; ityeva yuktam /
tadapyapāstam /
karmavipāko hyātmasaṃsparśī śokābhinandanavānaviduṣaḥ, viduṣastu tadasaṃsparśādābhāsamātraṃ maṇikṛpāṇadarpaṇādinibandhanaviśeṣavat /
na vipākaḥ, anabhinandyamānatvādadviṣyamāṇatvācca /
tathā ca ‘tattatprāpya śubhāśubham /
nābhinandati na dveṣṭi'; iti darśitam /
tathā ---
‘yasyāṃ jāgrati bhūtāni sā niśā paśyato muneḥ'; /
paśyata eva śarīrādiprapañco niśā, tadasaṃsparśādadṛśyamānasamatvāt /

[Objection:] But the latent impression and the remnant of the effect are nescience itself. / In that case, how is there the dissolution of all nescience, or how is there nothing left to be cut off? [Reply:] It is answered: / Having been seized by the antidote that is the vision of pure oneness of the Self, they have already dissolved even as they arise, because they are ineffective, because they do not constitute bondage, and because they do not require another cause for their cessation. / Indeed, for one directly experiencing the pure Self, the appearance of fruition, not touching It, ineffective, and devoid of the nature of bondage, is already dissolved. / Just as for one who experiences the reality of a picture or the like, the appearance of a woman or the like in a picture or the like is not a cause for attachment and the like; similarly, for one knowing the immaculate Self, an appearance—or conversely, an appearance of blackness and the like on a sword or the like—even when arisen, is already dissolved, finding no room because of the vision of reality. / And thus, on account of the impurity caused by that, he does not grieve for the Self, nor does he rejoice because of brightness; / because, even though both appear, their appearance in the Self has been nullified by the vision of reality. / And in this way, what is said: / ‘Whether the endurance of the body is due to action or due to latent impression, what is the difference? And what is the depletion of action when the effect continues? For its depletion is known from its cessation. / Therefore, it is correct [to say] only that “having exhausted the other two through enjoyment, he attains [Brahman]”’— / that too is refuted. / For the fruition of action affects the Self and involves grief and rejoicing for the ignorant person; but for the knower, because it does not touch It, it is a mere appearance, like the distinction caused by a gem, a sword, a mirror, and the like. / It is not fruition, because it is neither rejoiced in nor hated. / And thus it is shown: / ‘Having encountered this or that, good or bad, / he neither rejoices nor hates.’ / Likewise: / ‘That which is night for all beings, in that the disciplined sage is awake’; / even for one who sees, the manifold world of body and the like is night, because, by virtue of not touching It, it is equal to what is unseen.