उपदेशसाहस्री (आदि शङ्कराचार्य - गद्य व पद्य भाग)

260 A THOUSAND TEACHINGS [CHAP. XVIII say that) there can be distinctness¹ and indistinctness with respect to the other (i.e., the witness) only, but not the agent.² अदृष्टुनैव चान्धस्य स्पष्टीभावो घटस्य तु । कर्त्रादेः स्पष्टतेष्टा चेद्दृष्टनाऽध्यक्षकर्तृता ॥ १४० ॥ 140. There is no distinctness of a jar to a blind man having no power of vision. (It is nothing more than the jar being known.³) If, however, they⁴ want to predicate distinctness about the agent etc., they must admit that Knowingness belongs to the Self.⁵ अनुभूतेः किमन्यस्मिन्स्यात्तवापेक्षया वद । अनुभवितरीष्टा स्यात्सोऽप्यनुभूतिरेव नः ॥ १४१ ॥ 141. Please tell us⁶ what benefit you derive by holding that knowledge depends on other things. If it is contended that dependence (of knowledge) on the knower is desirable (we reply that) the knower also, according to us, is nothing but Knowledge. अभिन्नोऽपि हि बुद्ध्यात्मा विपर्यासितदर्शनैः । ग्राह्यग्राहकसंवित्तिभेदवानिव लक्ष्यते ॥ १४२ ॥ 142. The intellect itself, though indivisible, is looked upon by deluded people as consisting of the divisions of the knower, knowing and the known. ¹ When the Self is reflected in the intellect etc. ² Because the agent, the object, etc. are non-conscious by nature. ³ Therefore substantiation does not mean distinctness. ⁴ The Bhāṭṭas. ⁵ Different from the agent. Here ends the discussion begun in verse 123 of this chapter. ⁶ The Idealists.