यद्वै तन्न विजानाति विजानन्वै तन्न विजानाति, न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान्; न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यद्विजानीयात् ॥ ३० ॥
yadvai tanna vijānāti vijānanvai tanna vijānāti, na hi vijñāturvijñāterviparilopo vidyate’vināśitvān; na tu taddvitīyamasti tato’nyadvibhaktaṃ yadvijānīyāt || 30 ||
30. That it does not know in that state is because, although knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can know.
The rest is to be similarly explained: That it does not smell, That it does not taste, That it does not speak, That it does not hear, That it does not think, That it does not touch, That it does not know, etc. Though thinking and knowing are aided by vision etc., yet they have activities concerning objects past, present and future that do not depend on the eyes etc. Hence they are separately mentioned.
Now the question is, are the vision and so forth attributes different from the self and from one another, like the heat, light, combustion, etc. of fire, or are they different phases of an attribute identical with the self, the difference being caused only by extraneous limiting adjuncts? On this some say: The self is an entity that by itself has both unity and difference, just as a cow is one as a substance, but its features, the dewlap etc., are different from one another. As gross substances have both unity and difference, so we can infer that formless substances without parts also have both unity and difference. Since this is observed to be the universal rule, the vision and so forth belonging to the self are different from one another, but as the self they are one. To this we reply: No, for the passage in question has a different meaning. The passage, ‘That it does not see in that state,’ etc. does not mean to show that the vision and so forth are attributes different from the self, but is introduced in order to answer the following objection: If the Ātman is self-luminous intelligence, how is it that it does not know in the state of profound sleep? Surely then it must be otherwise. This is how it is being answered: Its natural self-luminous intelligence manifests itself in the waiting and dream states through many limiting adjuncts such as the eyes, and comes to be designated as vision etc. But in the state of profound sleep, owing to the cessation of the different activities of the mind and organs, these latter do not appear, and therefore the nature of the self cannot be perceivd as differentiated by them. Yet it is spoken of as being present in a way that is a mere recapitulation of normal experience. Hence the view that the passage in question presents the attributes such as vision as different from the self, is based on an ignorance of its true meaning.
Moreover, it would be in conflict with the Śruti text that speaks of the self as homogeneous Pure Intelligence, like a lump of salt, and also with texts like the following: ‘Knowledge, Bliss’ (III. ix. 28), ‘Truth, Knowledge’ (Tai. II. i. 1), and ‘Intelligence is Brahman’ (Ai. V. 3). From the common use of words also we know this. We often use such expressions as, ‘One knows colour through the eyes,’ ‘One knows sound through the ears,’ ‘One knows the taste of food through the tongue,’ etc., which show that the objects denoted by the words ‘vision’ etc. can be designated as knowledge alone. And the use of words is a means of knowledge. Examples also corroborate this view. Just as in the world a crystal is naturally transparent, and only for that reason assumes different colours by coming in contact with different limiting adjuncts such as green, blue, or red colour, and no one can imagine that crystal has any other attribute but its natural transparency, such as green, blue, or red colour, similarly the different powers of vision etc. are observed in the light called the self, which is naturally Pure Intelligence, simply owing to its contact with the limiting adjuncts such as the eyes, because Pure Intelligence, like the crystal, is naturally transparent. The self-luminosity of the Ātman is another reason. Just as the light of the sun, coming in contact with things to be illumined, appears as green, blue, yellow, red, etc., although in reality it cannot be so divided, so does the light called the self, revealing the whole universe as well as the eyes etc., assume their form. This has been stated in the passage, ‘It is through the light of the self that he sits,’ etc. (IV. iii. 6).
Besides, substances that have no parts cannot be conceived as multiple, for there is no such example. Although the ether is conceived as possessing diverse attributes such as all-pervasiveness, and atoms as possessing various qualities such as odour and savour, yet, when discriminated, these prove to be due only to extraneous limiting adjuncts. The ether, for instance, has no attribute of its own called all-pervasiveness: it is through its association with all as limiting adjuncts that it is designated as all-pervading, when as a matter of fact it is present everywhere in its natural form. The quesion of going or not going does not arise with regard to the ether in itself, for going is an action that connects something existing at a particular place with some other place, and this action is impossible in a thing that admits of no differentiation. Similarly different attributes can never be in the ether. The same is also true of atoms etc. An atom, say of earth, which consists only of odour, is the minutest particle of it, and is itself odour; one cannot conceive that it again has a property called odour. It may be urged that an atom can have savour etc. But that is due to its contact with water and so on. Therefore there is no example to prove that a substance which has no parts can possess many attributes. This also refutes the view that the powers of vision and so forth of the Supreme Self can have different modifications such as the eyes and colours.