प्रत्यक्षादीनि बाधेरन्कृष्णलादिषु पाकवत् । अक्षजादिनिभैरेतैः कथं स्याद्वाक्यबाधनम् ॥
pratyakṣādīni bādherankṛṣṇalādiṣu pākavat | akṣajādinibhairetaiḥ kathaṃ syādvākyabādhanam ||
Perception and the like may override [a literal sense], as in the 'cooking' of the gold pieces. But how could the sentence be overridden by these [notions], which only resemble [knowledge] born of the senses and so on?
प्रत्यक्ष आदि [प्रमाण शब्दार्थ को] बाधित कर सकते हैं, जैसे सोने के टुकड़ों (कृष्णल) के 'पकाने' में। पर इन्द्रियजन्य ज्ञान आदि के समान दिखने वाले इन [प्रत्ययों] से वाक्य कैसे बाधित हो सकता है?
Meaning today and contextआज के लिए अर्थ और संदर्भ
The sense 'I am suffering' feels as certain as seeing, yet it is an interpretation, not a direct perception of the Self. Feeling something strongly does not make it the truth about who you are.
'मैं दुःखी हूँ' यह भाव देखने जितना निश्चित लगता है, फिर भी यह एक व्याख्या है, आत्मा का प्रत्यक्ष नहीं। किसी बात को तीव्रता से महसूस करना उसे आपके स्वरूप का सत्य नहीं बनाता।
Shankaracharya answers the objection that perception contradicts 'Thou art That'. Perception can override the literal sense of a Vedic injunction, as with the 'cooking' of gold pieces (krishnala), which cannot literally be softened; but the feeling 'I am in pain' only looks like perception, so how could it override the sentence?