4.19
न तत् स्वाभासं दृश्यत्वात्
na tat svābhāsaṃ dṛśyatvāt
The line
The mind is not self-illuminating, because it is something seen.
नेपालीमा
चित्त आफैँ उज्यालो हुँदैन, किनकि त्यो देखिने कुरा हो।
Where it sits
The claim. 4.20 answers “it lights itself and the object at once.” 4.21 answers “another mind lights it.” Both fail. 4.22 says how awareness knows the mind without migrating into it.
Split: na (न) + tat (तत्) + sva (स्व) + ābhāsam (आभासम्) + dṛśyatvāt (दृश्यत्वात्)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| tat (तत्) | nominative singular, neuter | that. The mind. |
| sva (स्व) | stem | itself. |
| ābhāsam (आभासम्) | nominative singular, neuter | self-illuminating. Lighting itself. |
| dṛśyatvāt (दृश्यत्वात्) | ablative singular | because of being something seen. |
The phrases
The mind is not self-illuminating, because it is something seen. sva (स्व) + ābhāsa (आभास) is a (अ) + ā (आ) = ā (आ). dṛśyatvāt (दृश्यत्वात्) is the because. What is seen is lit by another. The mind is seen, by the puruṣa (पुरुष) of 4.18. So it does not light itself.
Three words of doctrine after na (न). The rest of the argument defends this sentence against two replies.
Sanskrit in this line
-tvāt (त्वात्) as because, with dṛśya (दृश्य) “the seen,” the word from 2.17. na (न) on svābhāsam (स्वाभासम्). A short line, and the because is the whole argument. If you grant that the mind is seen, you cannot grant that it lights itself.
Say it back
Say the because in Sanskrit: dṛśyatvāt (दृश्यत्वात्).