________________
132 Notes on Gaudapada-Rorika The answer is: – Karikā 58 makes it quite clear that the # is मायोपम, so जीव is not born and माया does not exist. So whatever is taken to exist on account of the कल्पित अविद्या, does not exist in reality (न चायं व्यवहाराभावोऽवस्थाविशेषनिबद्धोऽभिधीयत इति युक्त वक्तुम् 'तत्त्वमसि' इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्थानवस्थाविशेषनिबन्धनत्वात् । तस्कर दृष्टान्तेन चानृताभिसंघस्य बन्धनं सत्याभिसंधस्य च मोक्षं दर्शयन्नेकत्वमेकं पारमार्थिकं दर्शयति । मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं च नानात्वम् | उझ्यसत्यतायां हि कथं व्यवहारगोचरोऽपि जन्तुरन्ताभिसंध इत्युच्येत | Sankarabháşya on Vedantasūtra II, 1-14). The objector says - The Buddhists admit संवृति as सत्य; so what is accepted by संवृति should be true, The answer is:- The Buddhists have their own terminology and may endow their favourite संवृति with any characteristics they like, but in reality the thing admitted in संवृति cannot be real. (cf. Mammata silencing an objector who complains that परमाणु etc, are regarded by the वैशेषिकाs as गुणs, while Mammata would class them as जाति, परमाण्वादिनां गुणमध्यपाठात् पारिभाषिकं गुणत्वम् Kavyaprakasa II ). अभिसंवृति seems to mean अभिमता or अभिनिष्पन्ना ( evolved, perfected ) संवृति. K. bhāşya's explanation of परतन्त्र ... as मोक्षशास्त्रव्यवहारेण is farfetched. (74) The objector says that it is not fair to condemn संवृति outright. If संवृति says जीव: अज्ञ, are we going to discard that teaching simply because संवृति is कल्पित? The answer is:- Certainly' (this is made clear in the next Karika ). We stick to our proposition that the कल्पितसंवृति cannot be associated with any reality. Again, संवृति which bears the Buddhist brand does admit even an अज thing or the idea about it as being born, परतन्त्रात् अभिनिष्पत्ति: यस्या: तया, that is, how we take the expression परतन्त्राभिनिष्पत्त्या (K. bhasya says, परशास्त्रसिद्धिमपेक्ष्य योज्य इत्युक्त :, that is, आत्मन् is called अज-really we cannot call the आत्मन् or जीव even अज, as be is A निर्विशेष--only with a view to give validity to the मोक्षशास्त्र etc, prior to आत्मबोध; this is obviously far. fetched ). Gaudapāda says that ideas about संवृति differ according to different philosophers. But they involve कार्यकारणभाव which has been declared to be baseless. So, even if the संवृति blunders into the right,
