08-03-2022, 10:00 AM
Gatha 30
As the sapphire immersed in milk imparts its blue luster to the whole of milk, in the same way, empirically, sense-independent knowledge – atīndriya jñāna – inheres in the objects-of knowledge (jñeya).
Explanatory Note:
The sapphire immersed in the milk, due to its special characteristic, imparts its blue lustre to the whole of milk, similarly, omniscience (kevalajñāna) – the sense-independent, infinite knowledge – due to its special potency, inheres in the objects-of-knowledge (jñeya). From the transcendental-point-of view (niscayanaya), knowledge inheres only in the soul, but empirically, it inheres in the objects-of-knowledge (jñeya). The mirror, due to its particular characteristic, reflects the objects; empirically, the objects have the power of relection. Similarly, the sense-independent, infinite knowledge has the power to know all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya); empirically, knowledge inheres in all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya).
Gatha-31
If not all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya) inhere in omniscience (kevalajñāna), then omniscience cannot be all-pervasive (sarvagata). If omniscience is all-pervasive why would all
objects-of-knowledge (jñeya) not inhere in it?
Explanatory Note:
If omniscience (kevalajñāna) is not able to reflect all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya), like the mirror, it cannot be all-pervasive (sarvagata). The mirror, due to its inherent nature, becomes the object of reflection; similarly, knowledge, due to its nature of knowing, inheres in the object-of-knowledge (jñeya). Why would then the object-of-knowledge (jñeya) not called, empirically, as having knowledge? This establishes that the knowledge (jñāna) and the object-of-knowledge (jñeya) inhere in each other, empirically.
As the sapphire immersed in milk imparts its blue luster to the whole of milk, in the same way, empirically, sense-independent knowledge – atīndriya jñāna – inheres in the objects-of knowledge (jñeya).
Explanatory Note:
The sapphire immersed in the milk, due to its special characteristic, imparts its blue lustre to the whole of milk, similarly, omniscience (kevalajñāna) – the sense-independent, infinite knowledge – due to its special potency, inheres in the objects-of-knowledge (jñeya). From the transcendental-point-of view (niscayanaya), knowledge inheres only in the soul, but empirically, it inheres in the objects-of-knowledge (jñeya). The mirror, due to its particular characteristic, reflects the objects; empirically, the objects have the power of relection. Similarly, the sense-independent, infinite knowledge has the power to know all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya); empirically, knowledge inheres in all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya).
Gatha-31
If not all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya) inhere in omniscience (kevalajñāna), then omniscience cannot be all-pervasive (sarvagata). If omniscience is all-pervasive why would all
objects-of-knowledge (jñeya) not inhere in it?
Explanatory Note:
If omniscience (kevalajñāna) is not able to reflect all objects-of-knowledge (jñeya), like the mirror, it cannot be all-pervasive (sarvagata). The mirror, due to its inherent nature, becomes the object of reflection; similarly, knowledge, due to its nature of knowing, inheres in the object-of-knowledge (jñeya). Why would then the object-of-knowledge (jñeya) not called, empirically, as having knowledge? This establishes that the knowledge (jñāna) and the object-of-knowledge (jñeya) inhere in each other, empirically.