365bet娱乐

We shall discuss the antiquity of the 艢补颈惫补 religion and philosophy in a separate section. It is a pity that it is extremely difficult, nay, almost impossible, to trace the history of the continuous development of Saiva thought from earliest times. We can do no more than make separate studies of different aspects of Saiva thought appearing in different contexts, and then try to piece them together into an unsatisfactory whole. This is largely due to various factors. First, the 艢补颈惫补 thought was expressed both in Sanskrit and also in Dravidian languages. We do not yet know definitely if the Dravidian texts were but translations from Sanskrit sources, or were only inspired by Sanskrit writings. Later writers, even in the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉, hold that 艢颈惫补 was the author of all 艢补颈惫补 scriptures either in Sanskrit or in Dravidian. This, of course, refers to the earliest writings, the 膧驳补尘补蝉.

We do not know the exact date of the earliest 膧驳补尘补蝉. The word 鈥�腻驳补尘补鈥� needs a little explanation. It means 鈥渢exts that have come down to us鈥�, and which are attributed either to God or to some mythical personage. We have a list of twenty-eight 艢iv膩caryas in the 痴腻测补惫墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, and these have been referred to as late as the tenth century A.D. But there is nothing to prove the historical existence of these 艢补颈惫补 teachers, nor do we know what 膧驳补尘补蝉 we owe to each of them. We have no direct knowledge of any Dravidian philosophical culture before the Aryan culture had penetrated into the South. It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how there could be Dravidian works of philosophy which ran parallel to the Sanskrit works.

The other difficulty is that most of these supposed 膧驳补尘补蝉 of the past are not now available. Most of the 膧驳补尘补蝉 that we get now are written in Sanskrit in various Dravidian scripts. The records of the schools of 艢补颈惫补 philosophy mentioned by 艢补峁卥补谤补 in his 产丑腻峁�y补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-蝉奴迟谤补 must have been written in Sanskrit, but the present writer is quite unable to identify all the schools referred to in the seventh or eighth centuries with the existing records of 艢补颈惫补 thought. There was a great upheaval of 艢补颈惫补 thought from the twelfth century, contemporaneously with the revival of 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 thought in 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, but 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 himself does not refer to all the schools of 艢aivism referred to by 厂补峁卥补谤补 and 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 Mi艣ra in his 叠丑腻尘补迟墨 commentary. 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 only mentions the K膩lamukhas and the 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补蝉, and no literature about their philosophical views is now available. The 碍腻辫腻濒颈办补 sect probably still exists here and there, and one may note some of their practices, but so far we have not been able to discover any literature on the practices of the K膩lamukhas. But we shall revert again to the problem when we discuss the antiquity of 艢补颈惫补 thought and its various schools. The three schools of Southern 艢aivism that are now generally known are the 痴墨谤补-艣补颈惫补蝉, the Siva箩帽腻苍补-siddhi school and the school of 艢aivism as represented by 艢r墨ka峁噒ha. We have dealt with the 艢aivism of 艢r墨ka峁噒ha in two sections. The school of 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补-艢aivism is mentioned in the fourteenth century in 惭腻诲丑补惫补鈥檚 Sarva-诲补谤艣补苍补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 and the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 school is referred to in the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补 and many other 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉. In the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, particularly in the last section called the 痴腻测补惫墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, we have a description of the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 philosophy. I shall, therefore, now try to collect the description of the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补 system of thought as found in the 痴腻测补惫墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺.

The 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, according to the testimony of the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 itself, is supposed to have been a massive work of one hundred thousand verses divided into seven sections, written by 艢颈惫补 Himself. This big work has been condensed into twenty-four thousand verses by 痴测腻蝉补 in the Kaliyuga. We know nothing about the historicity of this 痴测腻蝉补. He is supposed to have written most of the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉. The present 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, however, contains seven sections, of which the last section called the 痴腻测补惫墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 is divided into two parts and is supposed to elucidate the view of the different schools of 艢aivism. According to our interpretation it shows only one school of 艢aivism, namely the 笔腻艣耻辫补迟补-艢aivism in two variant forms. None of the works that we have been able to discover so far have been attributed to Siva or 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补, though 厂补峁卥补谤补 in his 产丑腻峁�y补 on the Brahma-蝉奴迟谤补 II. 2, 37 refers to 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补 works written by 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补. We have traced some of the 膧驳补尘补蝉, but these 膧驳补尘补蝉 are not called 厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补, nor are they supposed to owe their authorship to 惭补丑别艣惫补谤补. On the evidence of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, we have quite a number of 艢补颈惫补 teachers who are regarded as incarnations of Siva and also many of their disciples, but we know nothing about these mythical teachers. One teacher called Upamanyu is often referred to in the 痴腻测补惫墨测补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 section as instructing the principles of 艢aivism. The account of 艢aivism given by 艢补峁卥补谤补 in his 产丑腻峁�y补 referred to above, is very meagre, but it seems to indicate that the 艢补颈惫补s regarded 辫谤补办峁泃颈 as the material cause and 艢颈惫补 as the instrumental or efficient cause; and it is this latter view that 艢补峁卥补谤补 mainly criticises as the school of 莫艣惫补谤补-k膩ra峁噄ns, implying thereby the view that the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 cannot tolerate the idea of a separate efficient cause as 莫艣惫补谤补. 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 also points out that the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 being the material cause could not be identified with the efficient cause, the 莫艣惫补谤补. In 艢aivism we are faced with the problem of solving the issue between 艢补峁卥补谤补 and the 艢补颈惫补s. Our treatment of Srika峁噒ha鈥檚 产丑腻蝉测补 has shown the direction in which the 艢补颈惫补s want to solve the difficulty, but 艢r墨ka峁噒ha鈥檚 产丑腻蝉测补 is probably a work not earlier than the eleventh century, and many other works of 艢aivism can be traced only as far back as the twelfth century A.D. On the testimony of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, which must have been written before the time of 艢补峁卥补谤补, we know that 艢补颈惫补 works by great 艢补颈惫补 teachers were written both for those who adhered to the 痴补谤峁嚹伵况补尘补 dharma and for those who did not care for the 痴补谤峁嚹伵况补尘补 dharma and were not privileged to study the Vedas. The latter class of works must therefore have been the Dravidian works of the South, many of which are now lost, and of which only some traditions are available in the Sanskrit 膧驳补尘补蝉. We have already dealt with these in another section. We shall have occasion to show that the K膩艣mlr form of 艢aivism was more or less contemporaneous with 艢补峁卥补谤补.

In the second section of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 called the Rudra-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻, we are told that at the time of the great dissolution, when all things were destroyed, there was only darkness, no sun, no planets, no stars, no moon, and no day and night; there is only pure vacuity devoid of all energy. There was no sensibility of any kind; it was a state when there was neither being nor non-being; it was beyond all mind and speech, beyond all name and form. But yet in that neutral state there existed only the pure being, the pure consciousness, infinite and pure bliss, which was immeasurable and a state in itself; it had no form and was devoid of all qualities^[1]. This was purely of the nature of pure consciousness, without beginning and end and without any development. Gradually there arose a second desire or will by which the formless was changed into some form by its own playful activities. This may be regarded as the all-creating pure energy, of which there is no parallel. The form created by this energy is called 蝉补诲腻艣颈惫补. People also call Him 莫艣惫补谤补, or God. The lone energy, spontaneously moving, created from itself its own eternal body, which is called 辫谤补诲丑腻苍补, 辫谤补办峁泃颈, or 尘腻测腻, and which generates the category of buddhi. This 尘腻测腻 or 辫谤补办峁泃颈 is the creator of all beings and is regarded as coming into contact with the supreme 辫耻谤耻峁�a, the 艢颈惫补, called 艢补尘产丑耻, who is different from God. This 艣补办迟颈 or energy is also regarded as 办腻濒补 or time.

From 辫谤补办峁泃颈 came the mahat or buddhi and from buddhi came the three 驳耻峁嘺蝉, sattva, rajas and tamas, and from them the threefold 补丑补峁卥腻谤补. From 补丑补峁卥腻谤补 came the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤补蝉, the five 产丑奴迟补蝉, the five conative senses, and the five cognitive senses, and manas.

In the 碍补颈濒腻蝉补-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 the view of 艢aivism is described as being the 艢iv膩dvaita system or the monistic theory of 艢aivism^[2]. It is said here that since all living beings are constituted of a male and a female part, the original cause must also be represented by a male and a female principle united. As a matter of fact, the 厂腻峁僰丑测补蝉 had taken that idea from this statement, and had regarded the original cause as being 辫谤补办峁泃颈 and 辫耻谤耻峁�a. But they tried to establish it merely on rational grounds; they were not disposed to establish it in a theistic sense. For that reason, though some of the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 categories may be accepted, yet the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 philosophy as a whole, being a purely rationalistic system, ought to be abandoned. The Brahman is regarded in the Vedas as being the unity of sat, cit and 腻苍补苍诲补, and it is in the neuter gender. The being represented in Brahman means that all negation of being is excluded. The neuter character of the being represents the fact that it is the 辫耻谤耻峁�a, and this 辫耻谤耻峁�a also is of an illuminating nature. The pure consciousness in the unity of sat-cid-腻苍补苍诲补 represents the female part. So the two parts that are regarded as male and female are the illuminating part (辫谤补办腻艣补) and the pure consciousness, and these two together are the generating causes of the world. So in the unity of sac-dd-腻苍补苍诲补 we have the unity of 艢颈惫补 and 艢补办迟颈. This illumination is also sometimes impeded, as the flame of a wick is impeded by smoke and other impurities. These are the malas which do not belong to 艢颈惫补, but are seen in the fire of pure consciousness. It is on this account that the cicchakti or the energy of pure consciousness is seen in an impure state in human souls. It is for the expulsion of this mala that the pervasiveness of 艣补办迟颈 or energy is to be assumed as existing in all time. 艢补办迟颈 thus is the symbol of bala or strength. In the 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍 there is both the 艢颈惫补-aspect and the 艣补办迟颈- aspect. It is by the connection of 艢颈惫补 and 艢补办迟颈 that there is 腻苍补苍诲补 or bliss. The Atman is pure consciousness and this consciousness holds within it all knowledge and all energy; it is independent and free, and that is its nature. In the 艢颈惫补-蝉奴迟谤补, 箩帽腻苍补 or knowledge has been described as a bondage, but the word 箩帽腻苍补 there means only finite, limited or turbid knowledge which all human beings have, and in this way alone can knowledge be regarded as bondage.

The 艢补办迟颈 or energy is also called spanda or vibration. Knowledge, movement and will are like the three sides of 艢颈惫补, and human beings get their inspiration from between these. As we have said above, the 艢颈惫补 and 艢补办迟颈 combined gives the supreme 艣补办迟颈 called par膩艣补办迟颈, and from this par膩艣补办迟颈 there evolves the cicchakti or power of consciousness. From this comes the 艣补办迟颈 or bliss or 腻苍补苍诲补-艣补办迟颈, from this the will-power or icch膩-艣补办迟颈, and from this come 箩帽腻苍补-艣补办迟颈, or power of knowledge, and the power of motivation, or 办谤颈测腻-艣补办迟颈. The first category of vibration in the category of 艢颈惫补 is called 艣颈惫补-迟补迟迟惫补. The world and the souls are entirely identical with 艢颈惫补, and such a knowledge leads to liberation.

The supreme Lord contracts Himself and manifests Himself as the individual 辫耻谤耻峁�as or souls who enjoy the qualities of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈. This enjoyment takes place through the function of fivefold 办补濒腻, such as that which leads the individual to action; that which leads him to discover the true reality of twofold 惫颈诲测腻 ; that which attaches him to the objects of sense (谤腻驳补); 办腻濒补 or time which makes things happen in succession; niyati, which is used in a peculiar sense, not of destiny but of conscience, that is, it is the factor by which one decides what one should do or not do^[3].

The 辫耻谤耻峁�a or the individual souls possess in a cumulative way the qualities of knowledge, will, etc. The so-called citta or the psychic plane is constituted of the various qualities existent in the 辫谤补办峁泃颈. From buddhi come the various senses and subtle matter.

The system of thought referred to above, the 艢iv膩dvaita system, is arranged in rather a clumsy manner. The points that emerge from the above statements can be briefly summarised. First, it regards the Brahman as being an undifferentiated Being or Non-being, when there is nothing but void in the universe. From this Being-and-Non-being, the Brahman, there sprang forth an entity which represents within it the two principles of male and female energy which pervades all living beings. It is out of this principle, the 艢颈惫补, that we have, on the one hand the individual selves which are but contractions of the nature of the supreme Lord, and on the other we have the world evolving out of the female energy side, the 辫谤补办峁泃颈, more or less in the 厂腻峁僰丑测补 fashion. The 辫耻谤耻峁�a is supposed to have within him fivefold categories, through which he can experience joys and sufferings of his intercourse with the world as such. These individuals, on account of the contraction that they suffered, show themselves as impure as a flame in a wick appears smoky. Thus the whole system tends towards a sort of monism without being purely idealistic. The closeness or its affinity with 艢r墨ka峁噒ha鈥檚 philosophy will be immediately apparent, though there are differences in the mode of expression. There are certain passages which remind us of some form of K膩艣m墨r 艢aivism, which though a monism, is largely different from the monism as expressed herein. We also find here a reference to the spanda theory of K膩艣m墨r 艢aivism. But in spite of this we need not think that the monistic 艢aivism was first enunciated in this 笔耻谤腻峁嘺 or in this chapter. We shall have occasion to show that some form of distinctly monistic 艢aivism with relative bias could be traced to the beginnings of the Christian era. The K膩艣m墨r 艢aivism flourished probably from the seventh to the eleventh century A.D. It may, therefore, be thought that the chapter under reference of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 was probably written somewhere about the ninth or the tenth century A.D., which may also be regarded as the time of 艢r墨ka峁噒ha, though we are not sure if he flourished somewhere at the eleventh century A.D. after 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补. We discuss these matters further in the appropriate sections.

In the second chapter of the Rudra-蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺^[4], 艢颈惫补 is supposed to say that the highest reality, the knowledge of which brings liberation, is pure consciousness, and in that consciousness there is no differentiation between the self and the Brahman^[5]. But strangely enough 艢颈惫补 seems to identify bhakti or devotion with knowledge. There can be no knowledge without bhakti^[6]. When there is bhakti or devotion, there is no distinction of caste in the way of attaining the grace of God. 艢颈惫补 then classifies the different types of bhakti. The nature of devotion, as described in this chapter under consideration, shows that bhakti was not regarded as an emotional outburst, as we find in the Caitanya school of bhakti. Here bhakti is regarded as listening to the name of 艢颈惫补, chanting it, and meditating on Him as well as worshipping Him and regarding oneself as the servitor to 艢颈惫补, and also to develop the spirit of friendship through which one can surrender oneself to God 艢颈惫补. The chanting of the name of 艢颈惫补 is to be associated with the legendary biography of 艢颈惫补 as given in the 笔耻谤腻峁嘺蝉. The meditation on 艢颈惫补 is regarded as amounting to the development of the idea that 艢颈惫补 is all-pervasive and is omnipresent. And this makes the devotee fearless. It is through bhakti that true knowledge and the disinclination to worldly things can occur.

In IV. 41 four types of liberation are described as 蝉腻谤奴辫测补, 蝉腻濒辞办测补, s膩nnidhya, and 蝉腻测耻箩测补. We have already discussed in the fourth volume the nature of those types of liberation which are also admitted by the followers of the M膩dhva school of Yai峁ａ箛avas. And this liberation is only granted by 艢颈惫补 who is beyond all the 驳耻峁嘺蝉 of 辫谤补办峁泃颈.

The ultimate nature of 艢颈惫补 is described here (IV. 41) as being changeless (尘谤肠颈办腻谤颈苍) and beyond 辫谤补办峁泃颈. He is of the nature of pure knowledge, unchangeable, all-perceiving. The fifth kind of liberation called the kaivalya can be attained only by the knowledge of 艢颈惫补 and His ultimate nature. The whole world springs out of Him and returns to Him and is always pervaded by Him. He is also designated as being the unity of being, consciousness, and bliss (sac-cid-腻苍补苍诲补); He is without any qualities or conditions, pure, and cannot be in any way made impure. He has no colour, no form and no measure. Words cannot describe Him and thoughts cannot reach Him. It is the Brahman which is also called 艢颈惫补. Just as space (腻办腻艣补) pervades all things, so He pervades all things. He is beyond the range of 尘腻测腻 and beyond conflict (诲谤补苍诲惫腻迟墨迟补). He can be attained either through knowledge or through devotion, but the way of devotion is easier to follow than the way of knowledge. In the next chapter (rv. 42) it is said that it is from 艢颈惫补, the ultimate Brahman, that 辫谤补办峁泃颈 as associated with 辫耻谤耻峁�a (individual souls) is produced^[7]. This evolution of 辫谤补办峁泃颈 as associated with 辫耻谤耻峁�a is called the category of Rudra, which is only a transformation of 艢颈惫补, the highest Brahman, just as golden ornaments may be regarded as transformations of gold. The formless 艢 iva is considered as having a form only for the advantage of meditation.

All that one can know or see in the universe, in the highest or the lowest, is only 艢颈惫补, and the character of things in their plurality is formed from Him. 艢颈惫补 alone remains the same unchangeable reality before the creation, and at the dissolution of the creation. The pure 艢颈惫补 is regarded as qualified only when one considers Him as being the possessor of 艣补办迟颈 or energy with which in reality He is identical. It is through the will of 艢颈惫补 that all operations in the world can go on. He knows them all, but no one knows Him. Having created the world He remains away from it and is not involved with it. But it is in His form as pure consciousness that He is seen in and through the world, as the sun is seen in his reflections. In actuality 艢颈惫补 does not enter into this world of change. In reality 艢颈惫补 is the whole of the world, though the world appearances seem to occur in a time series of discontinuity. A箩帽腻苍补 or nescience only means misunderstanding, it is not a substance that stands by Brahman and could be regarded as a dual entity^[8].

According to the Ved膩ntins the reality is one, and the individual soul (箩墨惫补), which gets deluded by a惫颈诲测腻 or nescience and thinks itself to be different from the Brahman, is only a part of it. But when released from the grasp of nescience it becomes one with 艢颈惫补, and 艢颈惫补, as we have already said, pervades all things without being actually in them. One can attain liberation by following the path indicated by the 痴别诲腻苍迟补. As fire, which exists in the wood, can be manifested by the constant rubbing of the wood, so by the various processes of devotion one can attain 艢颈惫补, but one must be convinced of the fact that whatever exists is 艢颈惫补, and it is only through illusion that various names and forms appear before us^[9]. Just as the ocean, or a piece of gold, or a piece of mud may appear in various shapes, though actually they remain the same, so it is only by various conditions through which we look at things that they appear so different, though they are actually nothing but 艢颈惫补. There is actually no difference between the cause and the effect^[10], yet through illusion one thinks of something as cause and something else as effect. From the seed comes the shoot, appearing as different from the seed, but ultimately the shoot grows into a tree and fructifies and thereby reduces itself into fruit and seed. The seed stays on and produces other shoots and the original tree is destroyed. The true seer is like the seed from which there are many transformations, and when these have ceased we have again the true seer. With the removal of nescience (a惫颈诲测腻) a person is dissociated from egoism and becomes pure, and then through the grace of God 艢颈惫补 he becomes what he really is, that is, 艢颈惫补. Just as in a mirror one can see one鈥檚 body reflected, so one can see oneself reflected in one鈥檚 pure mind, that is 艢颈惫补, which is one鈥檚 real character.

We thus see that in this school of 艢aivism as described in the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 IV. 43, we have a monistic system of 艢aivism which is very much like the monistic system of 艢补峁卥补谤补. It believes that the plurality of appearance is false, and that the only reality is Brahman or 艢颈惫补. It also believes that this false appearance is due to the interference of nescience. It does not admit any difference between cause and effect, but yet it seems to adhere to the monotheistic faith that God 艢颈惫补 can bestow liberation on those who are devoted to Him, though it does not deny that the Brahman can be attained by the way indicated in the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉. It says that 箩帽腻苍补 comes from bhakti or devotion, from bhakti comes love (prema)_y and from prema one gets into the habit of listening to episodes about the greatness of 艢颈惫补, and from that one comes into contact with saintly people, and from that one can attain one鈥檚 preceptor. When in this way true knowledge is attained, one becomes liberated. The practice of the worship of the preceptor is also introduced here. It is said that if one gets a good and saintly preceptor, one should worship him as if he were 艢颈惫补 Himself, and in this way the impurities of the body will be removed, and it will be possible for such a devotee to attain knowledge.

We thus see that in this chapter, though 艢aivism is interpreted purely on Ved膩ntic lines, the doctrine of theism and the doctrine of preceptor worship are somehow grafted into it, though such doctrines cannot fit in with the monism of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉 as interpreted by 艢补峁卥补谤补. This system, therefore, seems to present a specimen of 艢aivism different from what we had in the second book of the 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺_y and different also from the philosophy of 艢aivism as presented by 艢r墨ka峁噒ha and Appaya 顿墨办峁�i迟补.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

satyam 箩帽腻苍补m ananta峁� ca par膩na峁囜笉a峁� para峁�-maha岣�.
aprameyam an膩dh膩ram avik膩ram an膩k峁泃i,
nirgu峁嘺峁� yogigamya帽 ca sarva-vy膩pyeka-k膩raham.
      艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, II. 1. 6, 11c, d-12.

[2]:

utp膩峁瓂a a箩帽腻苍补-sambh奴ta峁� sa峁兣沘y膩hhya峁� vi峁�a-drumam,
艣iv膩dvaita-ma岣ツ�-kalpa-v峁沰峁�a-bh奴mir yath膩 bhavet.
      Ibid. VI. 16. 11.

[3]:

ida峁� tu mama kartavyam ida峁� neti niy膩mik膩,
niyatis sy膩t....
      艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺, vi. 16. 83.

[4]:

 艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 II. 2 . 23 .

[5]:

paratattva峁� vij膩r奴hi ti箩帽腻苍补峁� parame艣vari
dvit墨ya峁� smara峁嘺峁� yatra naham brahmeti 艣uddhadhi岣�.
      艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 II . 2 . 23 . 13 .

[6]:

bhaktau j帽膩ne na bhedo hi...
vi箩帽腻苍补峁� na bhavaty eva sati bhakti-virodhina岣�.
      Ibid. II. 2. 23. 16.

[7]:

tasm膩t prak峁浥玶 utpeom膩 puruse峁嘺 samanvit膩.
      Ibid. IV. 42. 3.

[8]:

a箩帽腻苍补峁� ca mater bhe岣峯 n膩sty anyacca dvaya峁� puna岣�.
9: dar艣ane峁�u ca sarve峁�u mati-bhe岣峚岣� pradar艣yate.
      艢颈惫补-mah膩pur膩峁嘺 IV. 43. 8 c, d.

[9]:

bhr膩nty膩 n膩n膩-svar奴po hi bh膩sate 艣a峁卥aras sad膩.
      Ibid. IV. 43. 15 c, d.

[10]:

k膩rya-k膩ra峁嘺yor bhedo vastuto na pravartate,
kevala峁� bhr膩nti-buddhyaiva tad-abh膩ve sa na艣yati.
      Ibid. IV. 43. 17.