This nyāya is concerned with the lamp in a house. In the light of the same lamp, someone reads, someone writes, some others do other work. Thus the same lamp is useful for a variety of things. Likewise if something has multifaceted application then this nyāya is used to describe that. In the other two nyāyas called dehalīdīpa-nyāya, kākākṣi-nyāya, a thing has two applications. The specialty here is that it has more.
4. Now on to "na matsthāni bhūtāni". Was it not said earlier that matsthāni bhūtāni (all objects are in me)? But when we analyse reality, the objects do not exist in me; but only appear to be in me. Brahma is the substratum for that appearance. A traveller sees flowing water at a distance. But it is nothing other than a mirage. It is only a phenomenon; not an actual stream. That false appearance is created by a combination of sand, sunlight, and distance.
ಎಲ್ಲಿಂದಲೋ ಒಲವು ಬಂದು ಮನಸನು ಹೊಗಲು
ಯಾರು ತಡೆಯುವರದರ ಪ್ರೇರಣೆಯನು
ಫಲವಿಹುದೆ, ನಲವಿಹುದೆ, ಒಲವು ಪಡಿಮೂಡಿಹುದೆ
ಎನ್ನುವಾಲೋಚನೆಯೆ ಜನಿಸದಂತೆ |
ಮರುಳಾಗಿ ಮೈಮರೆತು ದೂರದಿಂದಲೆ ತನ್ನ
ಪ್ರಿಯಜನಕೆ ಪ್ರೇಮವನು ಸಲಿಸಬಹುದು
Let us look at the Indian theatrical tradition with the above perspective in mind; it will help us gain new and novel insights.
Daśa-rūpakas[1]
The two ślokas beginning with “Mayā tatamidaṁ” have the following seven points.
ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾನೆಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಸಂವಾದಿಯಾಗಿ ಸೀಸಪದ್ಯವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿದ ನವೋದಯದ ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ಮಾದರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬಹುದು. ಈ ಪದ್ಯಗಳು ನಿರಪವಾದವಾಗಿ ಮಾತ್ರಾಜಾತಿಯ ವರ್ಗದವು. ಇಲ್ಲಿಯ ಎತ್ತುಗೀತಿಗಳು ಆಟವೆಲದಿ ಮತ್ತು ತೇಟಗೀತಿ ಎಂಬ ಬಂಧಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಂವಾದಿಯಾಗದೆ ಪಂಚಮಾತ್ರಾಚೌಪದಿಗಳೇ ಆಗಿರುವುದು ಗಮನಾರ್ಹ.
ತಾಮಸಾವೃತರಾಗಿ ನಿಜಜನರ್ ನಿದ್ರಿಸಿರ-
ಲವರನೆಳ್ಚರಿಸಿದಾ ಧೀರನಾರು?
ದೇಶೀಯರಾತ್ಮಗೌರವವ ಮರೆತಿರಲಂದು
Apahāravarmā declared that the bag would fulfil people’s wishes only when everything that has been snatched away was returned to its owners. He made sure that Kāmamañjarī gave back her belongings to her patrons. Dhanamitra complained to the king that his enchanted bag was stolen by someone and was given to Kāmamañjarī. She, in turn, transferred the blame to Arthapati and the king banished him from the kingdom.
Interpretation should happen in such a way that there is no room for inconsistencies. Even in treatises which are honest there might be statements which contradict each other. If that happens one of them should be slightly modified to remove such inconsistency. The important premise should drive the secondary premise in this case.
sarvagatamirdum ātmaṃ
nirvikṛtaṃ sarvaśaktam adu niṣkarmam ।
nirvairaṃ sarvasamaṃ
nirvṛtidaṃ patrasumajalārpakariṃgam ॥
The ātmā, though all-pervading,
is immutable, and though omnipotent, is actionless.
It is without a rival, and is the same everywhere.
It yields supreme bliss to even those offering a leaf, a flower or water.
