Advaitasiddhi 2.11

2.11

nanu- cākṣuṣavṛttyupārūḍhacitaḥ kathaṃ rūpamātraprakāśakatvam? na ca prabhāvanniyamaḥ, vaiṣamyāt. tathā hi- prabhāyāṃ tamovirodhitvaṃ rūpaṃ pratīva gandhādīn pratyapi samam. na hi sā gandhadeśasthaṃ tamo na nivartayati. na ca ajñānavirodhitvalakṣaṇaṃ prakāśakatvaṃ rūpaṃ pratyeva, na tu rasādīn pratīti vācyam. ajñānanivartakatvasya vṛttibhinne'naṅgīkārāt. prabhāyā rūpagrāhakacakṣuḥsahakāritvavat gandhādigrāhighrāṇādisahakāritvābhāve'pi cito grāhakāntarāsadṛkāritvena tadvatsahakārivilambena vilambasya vaktumaśakyatvāt. tathā ca citaḥ sarvagatatvena sarvasambandhādrūpādivad gurutvāderapyāśrayadvārā sākṣādvā sambandhitvāt prakāśāpattiḥ, vṛttyuparaktacitsambandhasyaiva prakāśakatvāt. `asaṅgo hyayaṃ puruṣaḥ' iti śrutistu (īśvarasya) tatkṛtalepābhāvaparā, na tu sambandhaniṣedhikā. `sa yattatra yatkiñcitpaśyatyananvāgatastena bhavati' iti pūrvavākyāt, `yathākāśasthito nityaṃ vāyuḥ sarvatrago mahān' ityādismṛteśceti cenna. prabhāyā rūparasādideśagatatamonāśakatvaṃ tatsambandhādyujyate, caitanyasya tu svabhāvato'sambaddhatvāt tadākāravṛttyā tadekasambandhasyopādānāt kathamanyāvabhāsakatvaprasaṅgaḥ? svabhāvato hyasaṅgatve `asaṅgo hyayaṃ puruṣaḥ' iti śrutiḥ pramāṇam. na caiṣā lepābhāvaparā. akartṛtvapratipādanāya sambandhābhāvaparatvāt. yathā caitattathā vyaktamākare.

[Objection:] How does pure consciousness mounted upon a visual mental state illumine color alone? Nor is this restriction analogous to light, because of disparity. To explain: in light, opposition to darkness is equal with respect to smell and the like just as it is with respect to color; for it does not fail to remove darkness located in the place of smell. And one cannot say that illumination, characterized as opposition to ignorance, exists toward color alone and not toward taste and the like; for being a remover of ignorance is not accepted in anything other than a mental state. Even though light does not assist the nose and other senses that grasp smell and the like—as it assists the eye that grasps color—pure consciousness does not assist another grasper, and therefore one cannot assert a delay due to a delay of an auxiliary cause as in that case. And thus, since pure consciousness is omnipresent and related to everything, it would undesirably illumine heaviness and the like as well as color and the like, being related to them either directly or through a locus; for the relation with consciousness colored by a mental state is alone what illumines. The Vedic text, "For this person is unattached," is intended to state the absence of taint caused by that [for the Lord], but does not negate relation, because of the preceding sentence: "Whatever he sees there, he is not followed by it," and because of the traditional text: "Just as the great wind, moving everywhere, constantly abides in space," etc.
[Reply:] No. The destruction of darkness located in the place of color, taste, and the like by light is tenable because of its connection [with that place]; but since consciousness is naturally unrelated, how could there be the consequence of its illumining another, when it takes on a connection with that alone by means of a mental state in the form of that? For with respect to its being naturally unattached, the Vedic text "For this person is unattached" is the authority. Nor does this [text] intend the absence of taint; for it intends an absence of relation in order to demonstrate non-agent-hood. And this has been explained in the basic work.