Advaitasiddhi 3.183

3.183

yattu- `tadevānuprāviśad brahmavidāpnoti para'mityādiśrutisiddhaṃ sarvagatasya brahmaṇaḥ praveṣṭṛtvaṃ gamyatvaṃ ca vigrahaṃ vinā na yujyate iti, tanna; svasṛṣṭakāryābhivyaktatvasyaivānupraveśaśabdārthatayā vyāpakasya mukhyapraveśāsaṃbhavāt, svataḥ prāptasyāpi avidyātirodhānanivṛttyapekṣayā prāpyatvopacāreṇa vigrahānākṣepakatvāt. yattu `tamevaṃ vidvānamṛta iha bhavati yadā paśya ityādiśrutau sarvanāmnā savigrahasyaiva parāmarśāt tajjñānasyaiva mocakatve savigrahatvamiti, tanna; saguṇavidyāyāḥ kramamuktyarthatvenānyathāsiddheḥ, sākṣānmuktijanakatvapakṣe tadupalakṣitātmajñānasyaiva mocakatvāt. ata eva - devā apyasya rupasya nityaṃ darśanakāṅkṣiṇaḥ' - ityādismṛtirapi vyākhyātā. kiṃ ca vigrahaḥ kiṃ bhautikaḥ ? abhautiko vā ? abhautiko'pi māyikaḥ ? amāyiko vā ? amāyiko'pi brahmabhainna ? abhinno vā ? bhautikamāyikāvapi karmārjitau ? parakarmarjitau vā ? ādye saṃsāritvāpattiḥ, dvitīye iṣṭāpattiḥ. brahmabhinnatve tavāpasiddhāntaḥ neti netītitrutivirodhaḥ, `apāṇipāda' ityādi śrutivirodhaśca. abhautikāmāyikabrahmābhinnadehāṅgīkāre uktaśrutivirodhaḥ, cārvākamatapraveśaśca, pramāṇābhāvaśca, pramāṇābhāvaśca. na ca `nābhyā āsīdantarikṣa'miti bhūtakāraṇatvoktyā abhautikatvāsiddhiḥ, agnirmūrddhe'tyādiśrutiparyālocanayāntarikṣādīnāṃ nābhitvādiparikalpanayā virāḍ‌dehapratipādakatayā śarīrasya bhūtakāraṇatvāpratipādakatvāt, tamasaḥ parastādityādeśca virāḍdehopalakṣitabrahmaparatayā vigrahasya tamasaḥ paratvāpratipādakatvāt. na ca `eko nārāyaṇa āsīt na brahmā na ca śaṅkara' iti śrutyā mahāpralaye nārāyaṇasthityukyā nityavigrahasiddhiḥ nārāyaṇaśabdasya `sadeva somyemagra āsī'diti śrutyanusāreṇa māyopahitabrahmaparatvena vigrahaparatvābhāvāt. na caitāvatā cetanāntarasādhāraṇyam; akhaṇḍamāyopahitatvasyaiva vyāvartakatvāt. na ca `nityonityānāṃ cetanaścetanānā'miti vigrahanityatvābhāve viśeṣoktivirodhaḥ, vigrahānaṅgīkāre'pi svarūpacaitanyamādāyopapatteḥ. nāpi `purākalpāpāye svakṛtamudarīkṛtya vikṛta'mityādau mahāpralaye dehasya sākṣātsthityuktyā nityavigrahasiddhiḥ, sarvavikāramūlakāraṇāvidyāyāḥ saṃskārātmanāvasthānasya udarīkaraṇaśabdārthatvāt. na ca mukhyārthatyāgaḥ, tvayāpyasyārthasyaiva vaktavyatvād, anyathā sakalasya brahmāṇḍasya tadanupraveśamātreṇa pralayāsiddheḥ. yattu-

As for the argument that entering and being attained by the all-pervading Brahman, established in śruti texts like 'Having created that, he entered into it' and 'The knower of Brahman attains the supreme', are not possible without an embodied form—that is not so. The word 'entering' means merely becoming manifest in the effect created by oneself, because primary entering is impossible for what is all-pervading; and since being attained is a metaphorical usage based on the cessation of the concealment by ignorance, even of what is already inherently attained, it does not imply an embodied form. As for the claim that since the pronoun in śruti texts such as 'Knowing him thus, one becomes immortal here' and 'When the seer sees...' refers only to one possessing an embodied form, it possesses an embodied form if its knowledge alone produces liberation—that is not so. For the knowledge of [Brahman] with attributes is accounted for otherwise, as being for gradual liberation; and on the view that it directly produces liberation, only the knowledge of the Self indicated by that [form] produces liberation. By this very principle, the smṛti text 'Even the gods constantly desire the sight of this form' is also explained. Moreover, is the embodied form material, or immaterial? If immaterial, is it made of illusion, or not made of illusion? If not made of illusion, is it different from Brahman, or non-different? If it is material or made of illusion, are these earned by karma, or earned by the karma of others? On the first alternative, it would follow that it is a transmigrating soul; on the second, it is an accepted conclusion. If it is different from Brahman, you face a departure from your own doctrine, contradiction with the śruti 'Not this, not this', and contradiction with śrutis such as 'Without hands and feet'. If an immaterial, non-illusory body non-different from Brahman is accepted, there is contradiction with the aforementioned śrutis, acceptance of the Cārvāka view, and a lack of valid means of knowledge. Nor is immateriality unproved because it is stated to be the cause of the elements in 'From his navel came the intermediate space'; for, considering śrutis such as 'Fire is his head', it teaches the cosmic body by superimposing the navel and so on upon the intermediate space and the rest, and does not teach that the body is the cause of the elements; and texts such as 'Beyond darkness' refer to Brahman indicated by the cosmic body, and do not teach that the embodied form is beyond darkness. Nor is an eternal embodied form proved because the existence of Nārāyaṇa during the great dissolution is stated in the śruti 'There was only Nārāyaṇa, neither Brahmā nor Śaṅkara'; for in accordance with the śruti 'Being alone, dear one, was this in the beginning', the word 'Nārāyaṇa' refers to Brahman conditioned by illusion, not to an embodied form. Nor does this involve commonality with other conscious beings, for only being conditioned by undivided illusion serves as the differentiator. Nor is there a contradiction with the specific statement 'The eternal among the non-eternal, the conscious among the conscious' if an embodied form lacks eternity; for even without accepting an embodied form, it is accounted for by taking it as essential consciousness. Nor is an eternal embodied form proved because the direct existence of the body in the great dissolution is stated in texts such as 'At the end of the previous eon, having taken into the belly what was transformed by his own making...'; for taking into the belly means the abiding of ignorance, the root cause of all transformations, in the form of latent impressions. Nor is this an abandonment of the primary meaning, because even you must state this very meaning; otherwise, the dissolution of the entire cosmic egg would not be established merely by its entering into that. As for the claim that—