Advaitasiddhi 3.182

3.182

evaṃ nirākāramapi. nanu- `ādityavarṇaṃ tamasaḥ parastād', `yadā paśyaḥ paśyate rukmavarṇam, `ṛtaṃ satyaṃ paraṃ brahma puruṣaṃ kṛṣṇapiṅgalam', `viśvataścakṣuḥ,' sahasraśīrṣā'- ityādiśrutibhiḥ `paśya me pārtha rūpāṇi', `sarvataḥ pāṇipādaṃ tad- ityādismṛtibhiḥ brahma, savigraham, sraṣṭṛtvāt, pālayitṛtvādupadeṣṭṛtvādityādyanumānaiśca vigrahasiddhiriti- cenna, ādityavarṇamityasyāvidyāvilakṣaṇasvaprakāśasvarūpa pratipādanaparatayā upāsyaparatayā copapatteḥ. na ca tamasaḥ paratvokyopāsanāparatvānupapattiḥ, upāsyavigrahopalakṣitasya tamasaḥ paratvokteḥ na tu rūpaviśiṣṭasya. na ca- `eṣo'ntarāditye hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣo dṛśyata' ityatra vartamānatvenāparokṣajñānaviṣayatvokteranāropyatvam, na hi yoṣito'gnitvaṃ dṛśyata ityucyata iti vācyam, pratīkopāsane upāsyasākṣātkāraniyamābhāve'pi saguṇopāsane upāsyasākṣātkārasya tasya syādaddheti śrutisiddhasya niyatatvena tasyaiva darśanaśabdenābhidhānād, viśvataścakṣurityādiśrutismṛtīnāṃ sarvātmakatayā sarvāntaryāmitayā ca niyamyajīvaśarīracakṣuḥ pāṇiśiraḥprabhṛtyanuvāditvopapatteḥ, sarvataḥ pāṇipādatvādestu asaṃbhavāt, tvayāpyevameva vaktavyatvāt. anyathā deśaviśeṣāvacchedena paramamuktipratipādanaṃ gamyatvapraveṣṭṛtvādyupapādanaṃ ca tvadīyamasaṅgataṃ syāt. anumāne'pyevameva siddhasādhanam. `vikaraṇatvānneti cettadukta'miti sūtre avidyāpariṇāmasya karaṇasthānīyasyāṅgīkārādavirodhāt.

Likewise, [Brahman] is also formless (nirākāra). Objection: By such śruti passages as: "sun-colored, beyond darkness," "when the seer beholds the golden-hued," "the true, the real, the supreme Brahman, the person who is dark and reddish-brown," "with eyes on all sides," "thousand-headed"; and by such smṛti passages as: "Behold, O Pārtha, my forms," "with hands and feet everywhere, that..."; Brahman has a body (savigraha); and by inferences such as: "because of being the creator, because of being the protector, because of being the teacher," the body is established. If this is said—no, because "sun-colored" can be explained as intended to set forth the self-luminous essence distinct from ignorance, or as intended for meditation (upāsanā). Nor can it be said that, because of the statement "beyond darkness," it cannot be intended for meditation; for the statement "beyond darkness" applies to what is indicated by the body meant for meditation, not to what is qualified by form. Nor should it be said: in the passage "this golden person who is seen within the sun," because it is stated to be an object of immediate perception by being present, it is not superimposable, for it is not said that "the woman's fire-ness is seen"; because even though there is no rule of direct perception of the object of meditation in symbolic meditation (pratīkopāsana), direct perception of the object of meditation in meditation on [Brahman] with attributes (saguṇopāsana) is regular, as established by the śruti: "it will truly be his," and it is that which is designated by the word "seeing" (darśana); and because passages of śruti and smṛti such as "with eyes on all sides" can be explained as restatements of the eyes, hands, heads, etc., of the bodies of the controlled individual souls, on account of [Brahman] being the self of all and the inner controller of all; for having hands and feet everywhere is impossible [literally], and you too must say the very same thing. Otherwise, your assertion of supreme liberation as limited by a specific realm, and your explanation of [Brahman] as reachable, enterable, etc., would be untenable. In the case of inference as well, there is just this proving of what is already established (siddhasādhana). For in the aphorism, "If it be said [Brahman is not the cause] due to lack of organs, [we say] that has been explained," there is no contradiction because a transformation of ignorance (avidyā) occupying the place of an organ is accepted.