Ishvarapratyabhijnakarika 93.3

93.3

ahamityavamarśo dvidhā ---- śuddho māyīyaśca , tatra śuddho yaḥ saṃvinmātre viśvābhinne viśvacchāyācchuritācchātmani vā / aśuddhastu vedyarūpe śarīrādau / tatra śuddhe 'haṃpratyavamarśe pratiyogī na kaścidapohitavyaḥ saṃbhavati ghaṭāderapi prakāśasāratvenāpratiyogitvenānapohyatvāt , ityapohyābhāve kathaṃ tatra vikalparūpatā / aśuddhastu vedyarūpe śarīrādau anyasmād dehāderghaṭādeśca vyavacchedena bhavan vikalpa eva ---- iti vākyārthaḥ / akṣarārthastu ---- cittattvaṃ prakāśamātrarūpaṃ hitvā sadapyapahastanayā apradhānīkṛtya bhinne dehādāvahameva dehādiḥ nīlādau prameye pramātā ---- ityabhimānena yo 'haṃ sthūlaḥ ityādivimarśaḥ sa vikalpa eva , na tu śuddhaṃ pratyavamarśamātram / atra hetuḥ ---- paro dvitīyo dehādirghaṭādiśca yaḥ pratiyogī tulyakakṣyo 'nyonyaparihārācca viruddhastasya yo 'vabhāsaḥ ---- samāropaṇalakṣaṇaḥ , tasmādyato 'sāvatanniṣedhānuprāṇito '; hamityavamarśo jātaḥ ahaṃ sthūlaḥ , na kṛśaḥ , na ghaṭādiḥ iti , śuddhaprakāśarūpasya apahastanaiva dehāderbhedahetuḥ ,
tadapahastane tu parameśvarasya svātmapracchādanecchārūpā 'bhedāprakāśanaṃ bhrāntirūpaṃ prati svātantryarūpā māyāśaktirhetuḥ , cidrūpasya cāpahastanaṃ dehādereva atyaktavedyabhāvasya bhinnasyaiva upapattiśūnyatayaiva pramātṛtvābhimānaḥ / tathā ca dehābhimānabhūmikāyāṃ sthitāścārvākāḥ caitanyaviśiṣṭaḥ kāyaḥ puruṣaḥ iti kāyameva prādhānyenāhuḥ / strībālamūrkhāṇāṃ tathābhimānāt tato 'pi vivekayuktāḥ pākajotpattipariṇāmādibalādasthiraṃ śarīraṃ manvānāḥ prāṇaśaktisamadhiṣṭhānena ca vinā vikāraśatāveśaṃ śarīrasya paśyanto bubhukṣāpipāsāyogayogyaṃ prāṇamevātmānaṃ kecana śrutyantavido manyante / tato 'pi samadhikavivekabhājaḥ prāṇasyāpi anityatvādanusaṃdhānayogyatāmapaśyanto jñānasukhādyāśrayabhūtāṃ buddhimeva kāṇādaprabhṛtaya ātmānamāhuḥ / apare tasyā api yogidśāyāṃ vedyabhāvādaparatvaṃ manyamānāḥ asaṃvedyaparvarūpaṃ yanna kiṃcidrūpaṃ sakalavedyarāśivinirmuktaṃ śūnyatvānnabhastulyaṃ na tu mahābhūtākāśasvabhāvaṃ tat pramātṛtattvaṃ śūnyabrahmavādinaḥ sāṃkhyaprabhṛtaya āhuḥ / tasminnapi vedye śunyāntaraṃ tatrāpi śūnyāntram ---- iti yāvadbhedaḥ tāvatkalpanā na truṭyatīti tadarthamāha kalpite iti / na cānavasthā paramārthaprakāśabalena yataḥ sarvasya prakāśo na tu dehādivaśāt , tayā tvabhimānamātraṃ dehaḥ pramāteti , saṅkocamātrarūpaṃ cittattvaṃ śūnyam , bhūtalaṃ yathā ghaṭābhāvaḥ , saṅkocoparivedyāṃśacchāyācchuritaṃ tu cittattvameva buddhiprāṇadehādi iti / amī eva bhūmikāviśeṣā uttarottaramārohatāṃ yogināṃ jāgradāditayā piṇḍasthāditayā cāgameṣu bhaṇyante , apahastanaṃ ca vyākhyāsyateḥ

The reflective apprehension as ‘I’ is twofold: pure and belonging to cosmic illusion. There, the pure one is in consciousness alone, non-different from the universe, or in the clear self suffused with the reflection of the universe. The impure one, however, is in what has the nature of an object of knowledge, such as the body. There, in the pure reflective apprehension of ‘I’, no counter-correlate capable of being excluded is possible, because even a pot and the like, having luminous manifestation as their essence, are not counter-correlates and thus are not to be excluded; thus, in the absence of anything to be excluded, how could there be the nature of a conceptual construct there? But the impure one, occurring in what has the nature of an object of knowledge, such as the body, through demarcation from other bodies and from pots and the like, is indeed a conceptual construct—this is the sentence-meaning. As for the word-meaning: ‘leaving aside’—that is, pushing aside and subordinating, even though it exists—‘the reality of consciousness’, which consists of luminous manifestation alone, the reflective awareness such as ‘I am stout’, which occurs through the presumption, with respect to the differentiated body and the like, that ‘I myself am the body and so forth, the cognising subject with respect to the object of knowledge such as blue’, is indeed a conceptual construct, and not pure reflective apprehension alone. Here is the reason: another, a second, such as the body and a pot, which is a counter-correlate, on an equal level, and incompatible through mutual exclusion—from the appearance of that, which is characterised by superimposition; since that [impure reflective awareness] is born from that [appearance], animated by the negation of that: ‘I am stout, not thin, not a pot and the like’. The pushing aside of what has the nature of pure luminous manifestation is itself the cause of the differentiation of the body and the like. And in its pushing aside, the cause is the power of cosmic illusion, which consists of sovereign freedom with respect to error consisting in the non-manifestation of non-difference, having the nature of the Supreme Lord’s desire to conceal his own self; and the pushing aside of that which has the nature of consciousness is the presumption of cognising subjectivity—entirely devoid of rational justification—belonging to the body and the like alone, which have not abandoned the state of being an object of knowledge and are distinctly differentiated. And accordingly, the Cārvākas, stationed on the level of identification with the body, state that the body alone is primary, saying: ‘The person is the body qualified by sentience’; because women, children, and the foolish have such an identification. Those endowed with more discernment than they, considering the body to be unstable owing to the force of changes wrought by digestion, birth, transformation, and the like, and seeing the body subjected to hundreds of afflictions without the superintendence of the vital power, some knowers of the Vedānta consider the vital breath alone, capable of association with hunger and thirst, to be the self. Those possessing even greater discernment than they, seeing that the vital breath also, being non-eternal, lacks the fitness for synthesising recollection, the Kaṇādas and others declare the intellect alone, which is the locus of knowledge, pleasure, and the like, to be the self. Others, considering that it too is secondary because of having the nature of an object of knowledge in the state of a yogin, [namely] the proponents of the Void-Brahman, the Sāṅkhyas and others, declare the reality of the cognising subject to be that which has the nature of the stage of non-consciousness, which is of no definite form, free from the entire collection of knowable objects, and resembling the sky because of being empty, but not having the nature of the great element space. In that knowable too there would be another void, and in that yet another void—so long as there is difference, conceptualization does not cease; for that purpose he says, ‘in the conceived’. Nor is there infinite regress, because everything is illuminated by the power of the luminous manifestation of ultimate reality, and not on account of the body and the like; but by it [māyā] there is mere conceit: ‘the body is the cognising subject’. The reality of consciousness consisting in mere contraction is the void, just as the bare ground is the absence of a pot; but the reality of consciousness suffused with the reflection of the objective fraction above contraction is the intellect, vital breath, body, and the like. Precisely these specific levels are declared in the scriptures as waking and the like, or as dwelling in the aggregate and the like, for yogins ascending higher and higher. And the pushing aside will be explained [in the stanza]: