________________
298
VIVEKACŪDĀMAŅI
not at all that 'I'. This is explained by saying: How can the belief 'I know everything' be true of the momentary ego etc. The eye does not know taste; the ear does not know form. Thus by the śruti: 'gandhāya ghrāņam,' etc., though they are capable of being modified as form etc., they cannot acquire the significance of 'I' (the ātman). Nor can the mind know its own modification as it is jada and as the same thing cannot be both the agent of activity and the activity itself.
295 Therefore, the ātmā is different. That is made clear. अहंपदार्थस्त्वहमादिसाक्षी
नित्यं सुषुप्तावपि भावदर्शनात् । ब्रूते ह्यजो नित्य इति श्रुतिस्स्वयं ।
तत्प्रत्यगात्मा सदसद्विलक्षणः ॥२९५ ॥ ahampadārthastvahamadisäkşi
nityam suşuptāvapi bhāvadarśanāti brūte hyajo nitya iti śrutissvayam
tatpratyagātmā sadasadvilaksanah 11
That which is signified by the 'l' (the atman), is the witness of the ego etc. For, it is found to exist for ever even in sleep. The śruti itself says: it is unborn and eternal. That internal ātman is different from the gross and the subtle.
To the question if the ego etc., which are perceived are not to be understood by the word 'I' then what is the 'I'? it is replied: aham padārthastvahamādisākṣi.
ahampadārthastu: what is signified by the word aham 'I'. tu in this expression is to distinguish it from all that are seen.
ahamādisākşi: witness of all that is seen beginning with the ego including ajñāna.
säkşi: the witness of all; the eternal Being.
suşuptāvapi bhāvadarśanāt: as it is found to exist even in sleep where the modification of the ego has attained laya, i.e., has disappeared, as seen in the statement: 'I slept happily.' If this is contested as a debatable experience, śruti says so. By the words ajo nityaḥ śāśvato'yam purānah, na hanyate hanyamāne sarire (Katha.): "This ātman which is unborn, eternal, permanent, efficient, is not killed when the body is killed," the śruti declares it is eternal.
