Page 177 - PWK

220. (Doubt): If such arguments are taken up for understanding the nature of Jiva and Ishvara, and

are means to understand the nature of Brahman then we reply, alright, but do not get drowned in

them so helplessly.

As¼iciÖÉujIRv> sa<Oyae´Sta†gIñr>,

yaegae´StÅvmaerwaER zuÏaE taivit ceCD&[u. 221.

asaìgacidvibhurjévaù säìkhyoktastädågéçvaraù |
yogoktastatvamorarthau çuddhau täviti cecchåëu || 221||
As¼ict!-ivÉu>-jIv> = Jiva is associationless and all pervading; sa<Oy-%´> = Sankhya philosophy

says; ta†kœ = similar; $ñr> = Ishvara; yaeg-%´> = Yoga philosophy says; tt!-Tvmae> = of That and

Thou; AwaER = meanings; zuÏaE = pure; taE = those two; #it cet! = if so then; z&[u = listen.

221. (Doubt): Sankhya philosophy says that Jiva is associationless and all pervading. Yoga
philosophy says that Ishvara is also associationless and all pervading. As per the Vedic dictum

"That thou art", the meanings of those two, Ishvara and Jiva, are 'That' and 'thou' respectively, and

they both are of pure nature. If so, then listen.

n tÅvmaeéÉavwaRvSmiTsÏaNtta< gtaE,

AÖEtbaexnayEv sa k]a kaicid:yte. 222.

na tattvamorubhävarthävasmatsiddhäntatäà gatau |
advaitabodhanäyaiva sä kakñä käcidiñyate || 222||
n = not; tt!-Tvmae> = of That and thou; %ÉaE = both; AwaER = meanings; ASmt! = our; isÏaNttam! =
philosophy; gtaE = accepted; AÖEt = non-duality; baexnay = to understand; @v = only; sa = that;

k]a = step; kaict! = some; #:yte = is.

222. (Reply): These meanings of 'That' and 'thou' do not agree with our Advaita philosophy.
Statements appearing to make such a distinction is only a step towards understanding of non-

duality.

Anaidmayya æaNta jIvezaE suivl][aE,

Sandeepany Sadhanalaya 89