Advaitasiddhi 2.292

2.292

nāpyanumānam. tathā hi- ahamartho, mokṣānvayī, tatsādhanakṛtyāśrayatvāt, sammatavad- ityatra viśeṣavyāptau dṛṣṭāntābhāvaḥ. na hi kṛtyāśraye mokṣānvayitvaṃ kvacit sampratipannamasti. sāmānyavyāpteḥ svargasādhanakṛtyāśraye ṛtviji svargānanvayena vyabhicārāt. ahamarthaḥ, anarthanivṛttyāśrayaḥ, anarthāśrayatvāt, sammatavadityatra śarīre vyabhicāraḥ. na ca tatrānarthāśrayatvamasiddham, `ahamajña' iti pratītyā ahamīva `sthūlo'hamajña' iti pratītyā śarīre'pi tatsattvād, anyathā asiddhiprasaṅgāt. anātmatvaṃ, nāhamarthavṛtti, anātmamātravṛttitvād, ghaṭatvavadityatra kṛtyāśrayāvṛttitvamupādhiḥ,. nāpi `kasminnvahamutkrānte utkrānto bhaviṣyāmi kasminvā pratiṣṭhite pratiṣṭhāsyāmi' `sa prāṇamasṛjata hantāhamimāstisro devatā' ityādau jagatkāraṇe sati prāṇamanaḥsṛṣṭeḥ pūrvamahaṃtvokteḥ, `tadātmānamevāved ahaṃ brahmāsmītyavadhāraṇena śuddhātmano'hantvokteḥ, anavadyasya brahmaṇo'hamullekhokteḥ, `ahamityeva yo vedyaḥ sa jīva iti kīrtitaḥ. sa duḥkhī sa sukhī caiva sa pātraṃ bandhamokṣayoḥ..' ityādau mokṣānvayokteścaitāḥ śrutayaḥ pramāṇam, viśiṣṭavācakasyaivāhampadasya lakṣaṇayā niṣkṛṣṭāhaṅkāracaitanye prayogāt. lakṣaṇābījabhūtā'nupapattiruktā. etena- `māmeva ye prapadyante' ityādismṛtayo'pi- vyākhyātāḥ. ata eva `tadyo'haṃ so'sā' vityādāvapi lakṣaṇā''śrayaṇīyā, viśiṣṭavācakatvena klṛptasya viśeṣye lakṣaṇāyā āvaśyakatvāt.

Nor is inference [a means of knowledge]. To explain: In the inference, 'The referent of the "I" is connected with liberation, because it is the locus of effort that is the means thereto, like an agreed instance,' there is an absence of an example for the specific invariable concomitance. For being connected with liberation is nowhere agreed upon in the locus of effort; and the general invariable concomitance deviates in the case of the officiating priest who is the locus of effort that is the means to heaven, through his lack of connection with heaven. In the inference, 'The referent of the "I" is the locus of the cessation of evil, because it is the locus of evil, like an agreed instance,' there is deviation in the body. And it cannot be said that being the locus of evil is unestablished there [in the body], because, just as in the case of the 'I' through the cognition 'I am ignorant', its presence is also in the body through the cognition 'I, who am stout, am ignorant'; otherwise, the fault of being unestablished would result [for you too]. In the inference, 'Non-Selfhood does not reside in the referent of the "I", because it resides only in the non-Self, like potness,' not residing in the locus of effort is an adjunct. Nor are those Vedic texts a means of knowledge—such as, 'Upon whose departure shall I depart, or upon whose remaining firm shall I remain firm?' 'He created the breath; come, let me enter these three deities,' where I-hood is stated regarding the cause of the world prior to the creation of the breath and the mind; 'It knew itself alone, thinking "I am Brahman,"' where I-hood is stated of the pure Self through the determination; the mention of 'I' regarding faultless Brahman; and 'He alone who is known as "I" is proclaimed as the individual soul; he is miserable, and he is happy, and he is the recipient of bondage and liberation,' where connection with liberation is stated—because the word 'I', which primarily denotes what is qualified, is applied through secondary figurative indication to consciousness extracted from the ego-sense. The inconsistency which is the root cause of figurative indication has already been stated. By this, traditional texts such as 'Those who take refuge in Me alone' are also explained. For this very reason, secondary figurative indication must be resorted to even in passages such as 'That which is I, he is that,' because secondary figurative indication towards the qualificand is necessary for that which is established as denoting the qualified.