Datasets:

buddhist-nlp

/

tatpa-noisy

like 0

Follow

Dharmamitra 40

tatra prakṛtivyāpārarahitatvapratipādanāya sāṅkhyamatam upadarśayann āha aśeṣaśaktipracitād ityādi /

In order to show that there is no functioning of Primordial Matter, the Author proceeds to set forth the Sāṃkhya theory regarding it, in Text (7).

yadaśeṣābhir mahadādikāryagrāmajanikābhir ātmabhūtābhiḥ śaktibhiḥ pracitam yuktam satvarajastamasāṃ sāmyāvasthālakṣaṇaṃ pradhānaṃ tata evaite mahadādayaḥ kāryabhedāḥ pravartante iti kāpilāḥ /

That which is equipped endowed with all such potencies productive of the host of products such as the Mahat (Cosmic Intelligence) and the rest, such is Pradhāna, Primordial Matter, which consists of the Attributes of ‘Harmony’, ‘Energy’ and ‘Inertia’, in the state of equilibrium; and it is from out of this that the Cosmic Intelligence and other Evolutes evolve;

pradhānadevetyavadhāraṇaṃ kālapuruṣādivyavacchedārthaṃ /

The emphasising of ‘Primordial Matter alone’ is for the purpose of excluding such agencies as those of Time, A Personality and the like;

kevalād iti vacanaṃ seśvarasaṅkhyopakalpiteśvaranirāsārthaṃ /

the addition of the term ‘Kevalāt’, ‘itself’, is meant to exclude the ‘God’ postulated by the Theistic Sāṃkhya (Yoga).

tathā hi teṣāṃ prakriyā /

Evolve, are produced, directly or indirectly.

pradhānād buddhiḥ prathamam utpadyate buddheścāhaṅkāraḥ ahaṅkārāt pañcatanmātrāṇi śabdasparśarasarūpagandhātmakāni indriyāṇi caikādaśotpadyante /

The process of this Evolution is as follows: Out of Pradhāna (Primordial Matter) first of all evolves Buddhi (Cosmic Intelligence); out of Cosmic Intelligence, evolves Ahaṅkāra (the I-principle); out of the I-principle evolve the five Tanmātras (Rudimentary Substances), consisting of Sound, Touch, Taste, Colour, and Odour and also the eleven Sense-organs;

pañca buddhīndriyāṇi śrotratvakcakṣurjihvāghrāṇalakṣaṇāni pañca karmendriyāṇi vākpāṇipādāpāyūpasthā manaścaikādaśam iti /

the five Organs of Sensation, in the shape of the Organ of Hearing, of Touch, of Vision, of Taste and of Smell, the five Organs of Action, in the shape of Organs of Speech, Hands, Feet, Excretory Organ and the Generative Organ; and Mind is the eleventh.

pañcabhyaś ca tanmātrebhyaḥ pañca bhūtāni /

they are, in fact, of the same essence; i.e. they have their essence in that same, Primordial Matter;

śabdādākāśaṃ sparśād vāyuḥ rūpāttejaḥ rāsādāpaḥ gandhāt pṛthivīti /

as it has no cause into which it could become merged. Further, the Manifest is ‘composite’, being made up of such components as Sound, Touch, ‘Colour, Taste and Odour;

yathoktam īśvarakṛṣṇena

such is the view of the Followers of Kapila.

prakṛter mahāṃstato 'haṅkāras tasmādguṇaś ca ṣoḍaśakaḥ / tasmād api ṣoḍaśakāt pañcabhyaḥ pañcabhūtāni //

Out of the five Rudimentary Substances evolve the five Gross Substances, Ākāśa out of Sound-rudiment, Air out of Touch-rudiment, Fire out of Colour-rudiment, Water out of Taste-rudiment and Earth out of Odour-rudiment.

iti /

thence the I-principle;

tatra mahāniti buddher ākhyā / buddhiścāyaṃ ghaṭaḥ paṭa iti viṣayādhyavasāyalakṣaṇā /

from among this Group of Sixteen, out of five, issue the five Gross Substances’, Here the term ‘Mahān’, ‘Great Principle’, stands for Buddhi, the Cosmic Intelligence;

ahaṅkāras tu ahaṃ subhago 'haṃ darśanīya ityādyabhidhānalakṣaṇaḥ / manas tu saṅkalpalakṣaṇaṃ /

this Cosmic Intelligence functions in the form of such conception or determination of things as ‘this is a jar’, ‘this a piece of cloth’, The I-principle functions in the form of such notions as ‘I am handsome’, ‘I am presentable’, The Mind functions in the form of Reflection;

tadyathā kaścid evaṃ vaṭuḥ śṛṇoti grāmāntare bhojanam astīti tatra tasya saṅkalpaḥ syāt yāsyāmīti kiṃ tatra guḍadadhi syād utasviddadhīti /

for instance, a boy happens to hear that food is to be had in another village, and this gives rise to his reflection in the form ‘I shall go there, I wonder if there would be curds and molasses or curds only’;

[p.17] evaṃ saṅkalpavṛtti mana iti /

that which functions thus as Reflection is the Mind.

tadevaṃ buddhyahaṅkāramanasāṃ parasparaṃ viśeṣo boddhavyaḥ /

Such is to be understood the distinction among Cosmic Intelligence, I-principle and Mind.

śeṣaṃ subodhaṃ /

The rest (of Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Kārikā) is easily intelligible.

ete ca mahadādayaḥ pradhānapuruṣau ceti pañcaviṃśatireṣāṃ tattvāni /

These entities, Cosmic Intelligence and the rest, along with Primordial Matter and the Spirit make up the twenty-five Principles (or Realities, Real Entities) of these philosophers.

yathoktam pañcaviṃśatitattvajño yatra yatrāśrame rataḥ / jaṭī muṇḍī śikhī vāpi mucyte nātra saṃśayaḥ //

To this end, it has been declared that ‘One who knows the twenty-five Principles, be he addicted to any life-stage, being either a Hermit (wearing knotted locks), or a Wandering Mendicant (with shaven head), or a Householder (wearing the top-knot), becomes liberated;

iti /

there is no doubt on this point’,

ete yathoktāḥ kāryabhedāḥ pradhānāt pravartamānā na bauddhādyabhimatā iva kāryabhedāḥ kāraṇādatyantabhedino bhavanti kiṃtu tadrūpā eva tat pradhānaṃ rūpaṃ ātmā yeṣām iti vigrahaḥ /

All these various Products evolving out of Primordial Matter are not entirely distinct from their Cause, as are the Products postulated by the Bauddhas; they are, in fact, of the same essence; i.e. they have their essence in that same, Primordial Matter; such is the analysis of the compound ‘tadrūpāḥ’ (in the Text).

traiguṇyādirūpeṇa prakṛtyātmabhūtā eveti /

The products are of the same essence as Primordial Matter, in the sense that they are all made up of the Three Attributes.

tathā hi loke yadātmakaṃ kāraṇaṃ bhavati śuklais tu śuklaḥ /

For instance, in the ordinary world, it is found that the Product is of the same essence as the Cause;

evaṃ pradhānam api triguṇātmakaṃ tathā buddhyahaṅkāratanmātrendriyabhūtātmakaṃ vyaktam api triguṇamupalabhyate tasmāt tadrūpaṃ /

And Primordial Matter is made up of the Three Attributes; and all that is manifested, in the form of Cosmic Intelligence, I-principle, Rudimentary Substances, Sense-organs and Gross Substance, is also found to be made up of the Three Attributes, hence it is that all this latter is of the same essence as Primordial Matter.

kiṃ ca aviveki /

Similarly, Primordial Matter is not-distinguishable;

tathāhīme sattvādayaḥ idaṃ ca mahadādi vyaktam iti pṛthaṅ na śakyate kartuṃ / kiṃ tu ye guṇās tadvyaktaṃ yadvyaktaṃ te guṇā iti / kiṃ ca dvayam api vyaktam avyaktaṃ ca viṣayaḥ / bhogyasvabhāvatvāt /

that is to say, it cannot be distinguished that ‘these are the Three Attributes, Harmony and the rest (constituting the Unmanifest Primordial Matter), and these are the Cosmic Intelligence and the rest constituting the Manifest in fact, the notion always is that ‘the Attributes are the Manifest, and the Manifest is the Attributes Further, both these, the Manifest and the Unmanifest are Objective, because they have the character of objects of enjoyment (experience, for the Spirit).

sāmānyaṃ ca sarvapuruṣāṇāṃ /

Both again are common, to all Spirits;

malladāsīvat /

just as the Malla-dāsī (the Slave-girl who is the common property of several men).

acetanātmakaṃ ca / sukhaduḥkhamohāvedakatvāt /

It is also insentient, as it cannot feel pleasure or pain or delusion, It is productive;

prasavadharmī ca / tathā hi pradhānaṃ buddhiṃ janayati buddhir apyahaṅkāraṃ ahaṅkāro 'pi tanmātrāṇīndriyāṇi caikādaśaḥ tanmātrāṇi mahābhūtāni janayantīti /

that is, Primordial Matter is productive of Cosmic Intelligence, Cosmic Intelligence produces the I-principle, the I-principle produces the Rudimentary Substances and the Eleven Sense-organs; and the Rudimentary Substances produce the Gross Substances.

tasmāt traiguṇyādirūpeṇa tadrūpā evāmī kāryabhedāḥ pravartante / yathoktam

Thus all these various Products evolve, all having the same essence as Primordial Matter, inasmuch as they also are constituted by the Three Attributes (are non-distinguishable, objective, common, insentient and productive).

triguṇamavivekiviṣayaḥ sāmānyamacetanaṃ prasavadharmī /

This has been thus declared (by Īśvarakṛṣṇa, in Kārikā 11) ‘The Manifest is with the Three Attributes, undistinguishable, objective, common, insentient and productive;

vyaktaṃ tathā pradhānaṃ tadviparītas tathā ca pumān // iti /

so also is Primordial Matter; the Spirit is the reverse and yet also similar’,

nanu yadi tadrūpā eva kāryabhedās tatkathaṃ śāstre vyaktāvyaktayor vailakṣaṇyam upavarṇitaṃ / tathāhīśvarakṛṣṇoktam hetumadanityamavyāpi sakriyamanekamāśritaṃ liṅgaṃ / sāvayavaṃ paratantraṃ vyaktaṃ viparītamavyaktaṃ //

The following question has been raised “If the Products are of the same essence as Primordial Matter, then how is it that in this Philosophy a distinction has been made between the Manifest (Product) and the Un-manifest (Cause)? Par instance, it has been declared by Īśvarakṛṣṇa (in his Kārikā, 10) ‘The Manifest is with cause, not eternal, not-pervasive, mobile, multiform, dependent, soluble, composite, subordinate;

tatra hyayam arthaḥ hetumat kāraṇavat vyaktam eva /

the Unmanifest is the reverse of this The meaning of this is as follows: It is the Manifest alone that has a cause;

tathā hi pradhānena hetumatī buddhiḥ ahaṅkāro buddhyā hetumān pañcatanmātrāṇyekādaśendriyāṇyahaṅkāreṇa hetumanti bhūtāni tanmātraiḥ /

e.g. Cosmic Intelligence is ‘with cause’ i.e. has its cause in Primordial Matter; the I-principle has its cause in Cosmic Intelligence; the Five Rudimentary Substances and the Eleven Sense-organs have their cause in the I principle; and the Gross Substances have their cause in the Rudimentary Substances.

natvevam avyaktaṃ / tasya kutaścidapyanutpatteḥ /

The Unmanifest, however, is not so (having no cause), because it is never produced, having no beginning.

tathā vyaktam anityaṃ utpattidharmakatvāt /

not so the Manifest, which, in fact, is non-pervasive in character.

natvevam avyaktaṃ tasyānutpattimatvāt /

not so the Unmanifest; because, being all-pervading, it cannot be mobile.

buddhyahaṅkārādibhedena cānekavidhaṃ vyaktamupalabhyate nāvyaktaṃ tasyaikasyaiva sato lokatrayakāraṇatvāt /

Further, the Manifest is actually found to be multiform, through such diversity as is involved in the notions of the Cosmic Intelligence, I-principle and the rest; not so the Unmanifest, which in one and the same form, is the cause productive of all the three Regions.

[p.18] āśritaṃ ca vyaktaṃ yadyasmād utpadyate tasya tadāśritatvāt /

Then the Manifest is ‘dependent’, that which is produced out of another thing is dependent upon this latter;

natvevamavyaktaṃ tasyākāryatvāt liṅgaṃ ca vyaktaṃ layaṃ gacchatīti kṛtvā /

as it is not a product. The Manifest again is ‘soluble’, in the sense that it goës into dissolution;

tathā hi pralayakāle bhūtāni tanmātreṣu līyante tanmātrāṇīndriyāṇI cāhaṅkāre ahaṅkāro buddhau buddhiś ca pradhāne na tvevam avyaktaṃ kvacidapi layaṃ gacchati tasyāvidyamānakāraṇatvāt /

for instance, at the time of the Universal Dissolution, the Gross Substances become dissolved into Rudimentary Substances, the Rudimentary Substances and Sense-organs into the I-principle, the I-principle into Cosmic Intelligence, and the Cosmic Intelligence into Primordial Matter; the Unmanifest however never goes into Dissolution;

sāvayavaṃ ca vyaktaṃ śabdasparśarasarūpagandhātmakairavayavair yuktatvāt /

as it has no cause into which it could become merged. Further, the Manifest is ‘composite’, being made up of such components as Sound, Touch, ‘Colour, Taste and Odour;

natvevam avyaktaṃ pradhānātmani śabdādīnām anupalabdheḥ /

not so the Unmanifest, as Sound and the rest are not found to be present in the constitution of Primordial Matter.

kiṃ ca yathā pitari jīvati putro na svatantro bhavati tathā vyaktam sarvadā kāraṇāyattatvāt paratantraṃ natvevam avyaktaṃ tasya nityamakāraṇādhīnatvāt /

Lastly, just as, while the father is alive, the son is not his own master, so also the Manifest is always ‘subordinate’, resting always on its Cause; not so the Unmanifest, because it is eternal and hence not subservient to any Cause”.

tadetat sarvamāśaṅkyāha bhāvata iti / bhāvataḥ pāramārthataḥ tādrūpyaṃ / prakṛtivikārabhedena tu pariṇāmaviśeṣād bhedo yathokto na virudhyata ity arthaḥ /

The answer to this is supplied in the Text, by the word ‘Bhāvataḥ ‘bhāvataḥ’ means that ‘in reality’ there is sameness of essence, and yet there is nothing incongruous in the idea that there is distinction into ‘Cause and Effect’, based upon the diversity of modifications.

athavā bhāvata iti / svabhāvatastraiguṇyarūpeṇa tadrūpā eva pravartante /

Or, the term ‘bhāvataḥ’ may mean ‘by their nature’, the sense being that by their very nature, consisting of the Three Attributes, the things operate only in that form, which is the same as that of Primordial Matter.

sattvarajastamasāṃ tūtkaṭānutkaṭatvaviśeṣāt sargavaicitryaṃ mahadādibhedenāviruddhamevetyarthaḥ /t adanena kāraṇātmani kāryam astīti pratijñātaṃ bhavati //

What is meant is that, the diversity found in the World in the shape of the ‘Great Principle’ (Cosmic Intelligence) and other products is due to the predominance or otherwise of one or the other of the Three Attributes of Harmony, Energy and Inertia.

tatra katham avagamyate prāgutpatteḥ satkāryam ity āha yadītyādi

Thus it becomes finally established that the Product always exists in the form of the Cause.

yadi tvasadbhavet kāryaṃ kāraṇātmani śaktitaḥ /

“If the effect were non-existent, potentially, in the form of the cause, then it could not be produced;

kartuṃ tannaiva śakyeta nairūpyādviyadabjavat //

because it would have no form at all, being like the sky-lotus.” (8)

satkāryatvaprasiddhaye paraiḥ pañca hetava uktāḥ asadakaraṇādupādānagrahaṇāt sarvasambhavābhāvāt / śaktasya śakyakaraṇāt karaṇabhāvāc ca satkāryaṃ iti tatra prathamahetusamarthanārtham idamucyate / yadi tvasadbhavetkāryam ityādi / yadi hi kāraṇātmani prāgutpatteḥ kāryaṃ nābhaviṣyat tadā tan na kenacid akariṣyata yathā gagananalina ṃ/

Answer For proving the existence of the Effect (even prior to its production), the other Philosophers (Sāṃkhyas) have put forward the following five reasons (as stated in Sāṃkhyakārikā, 9) “(1) Because what is non-existent cannot be produced, (2) because there is always recourse to the Cause, (3) because all things are not possible, (4) because the efficient can produce only that for which it is efficient, and (5) because the Effect is of the essence of the Cause, therefore the Effect must be existent (even before it is produced).” (I) In support of the first reason, the following explanation has been provided (by the Text) in the words If the Effect were non-existent, etc.

prayogaḥ yadasattan na kenacit kriyate /

That is to say, if the Effect did not already exist in the form of the Cause, even prior to its production, then it could not be produced;

yathā gaganāmbhoruhaṃ /

as it would be like the Sky-lotus (a non-entity).

asac ca prāgutpatteḥ paramate na kāryam iti vyāpakaviruddhopalabdhiprasaṅgaḥ /

prior to its production, the Effect is non-existent, according to the other party, hence the acceptance of the other party’s view would lead to a contingency contrary to the universal proposition (set forth above as the Major Premiss);

na caivaṃ bhavati /

as a matter of fact, no such contingency does arise;

tasmād yatkriyate tilādibhis tailādikāryaṃ tat tasmāt prāgapi saditi siddhaṃ / śaktita iti /

hence it becomes established that whatever effect is produced in the shape of such Effects as Oil and the like, by such causes as Sesamum and the like, did exist even before the said production.”

śaktirūpeṇa vyaktirūpeṇa tu kāpilair api prāk satvasyāniṣṭatvāt / nairupyād iti /

Potentially i.e. in the form of the latent potency; as regards actual appearance (manifestation), even the followers of Kapila do not regard the Effect to have existed prior (to the actual production).

niḥsvabhāvatvāt //

Because it would have no form at all, which means that, if the Effect had no existence, then it could not have any form at all.

dvitīyahetusamarthanārtham āha kasmāccetyādi kasmāc ca niyatānyeva śālibījādibhedataḥ / upādānāni gṛhṇanti tulyasatve 'paraṃ na tu //

“How is it that people have recourse to only specific causes, in the shape of such diverse things as the paddy-seed and the like, and not any other, even though the nonexistence (of the desired effect or product) is equal (everywhere)?” In support of the second reason set forth [as above, in Sāṃkhyakārikā.

[p.19] yadi sadbhavetkāryaṃ tadā puruṣāṇām pratiniyatopādānagrahaṇaṃ na syāt /

“If the Effect were non-existent, then people would not have had recourse to only specific causes (productive of particular Products).

tathā hi śāliphalārthinaḥ śālibījamevopādadate na kodravabījaṃ /

For instance, when a man wants paddy-grains, he takes up paddy-seeds, not Kodrava-seeds;

tathā śvo me brāhmaṇā bhoktāra iti dadhyarthinaḥ kṣīramupādadate na salilaṃ /

when a man, thinking of feeding Brāhmaṇas the next day, wishes to have curds ready for the purpose, he secures a supply of milk, not water.

tatra yathā śālibījādiṣu śālyādīnāmasattvaṃ tathā kodravabījādiṣvapīti tatkimiti tulye 'pi sarvatra śāliphalādīnām asatve pratiniyatānyeva śālibījādīnyupādīyante /

As regards the ‘non-existence’ of the Paddy-grain or the Curd, this ‘non-existence’ (according to the Opponent) is there as much in the Paddy-seed as in the Kodrava-seed (and as much in milk as in water); then how is it, that though the ‘non-existence’ of the Paddy-grain and other products is equal everywhere (in the Paddy-seed as well as in other seeds), yet it is only the specific seeds that are secured;

yāvatā kodravādayo 'pi śāliphalārthibhir upādīyeran asatvāviśeṣāt /

the persons wanting the paddy-grain could secure the Kodrava and other seeds also, inasmuch as the Paddy-grain would be as ‘non-existent’ in these latter as in the Paddy-seeds.

atha tatphalaśūnyatvāt tais tair nopādīyante / yadyevaṃ śālibījam api śāliphalārthinā nipādeyaṃ syāt tatphalaśūnyatvāt / kodravabījavat na caivaṃ bhavati /

If it be urged that those other seeds are not secured by people because the desired grain is not there in them, then, in that case, the person wanting paddy-grain also should not secure the Paddy-seed, as the desired grain is not there also (according to the Opponent), exactly as in the Kodrava-seed.

tasmāt tatra tatkāryam astīti gamyate //

Hence it follows that the particular Effect (Paddy-grain) is actually present in the particular Cause (Paddy-seed).” (9)

sarvaṃ ca sarvato bhāvād bhaved utpattidharmakaṃ /

“Everything likely to be produced would be produced from everything;

tādātmyavigamasyeha sarvasminnaviśeṣataḥ //

because the negation of co-essentiality is equally present in everything.” (10)

yadi cāsadeva kāryam utpadyata iti bhavatāṃ mataṃ tasmāt sarvasmāt padārthāt tṛṇapāṃsuloṣṭādikāt sarvaṃ suvarṇarajatādi kāryamutpadyeta /

“If it is your view that the Effect that is produced has been non-existent (before production), then, under that view, every product, in the shape of gold, silver and the rest, would be produced from all things, such as grass, dust, clods and the rest;

kasmāt / tādātmyavigamasya sarvasminnaviśiṣṭatvāt /

why ? because the negation of co-essentiality is equally present in everything;

vivakṣitatṛṇādibhāvātmatāvirahasya sarvasminnutpattimati bhāve nirviśiṣṭatvād ity arthaḥ /

that is, the negation or absence of the character of being co-essential with, of the same essence as the Grass and the rest is equally present in everything that is likely to be produced.

pūrvaṃ kāraṇamukhena prasaṅga uktaḥ samprati tu kāryadvāreṇeti viśeṣaḥ /

In the preceding text, the incongruity was indicated through the Cause, and in the present text, it is indicated through the Effect; such is the difference between the two.

na ca sarvaṃ sarvato bhavati /

And yet, as a matter of fact, everything is not produced from everything.

tasmād ayaṃ niyamas tatraiva tasya sambhavād iti gamyate //

Hence it follows that the natural law is that one effect is produced from one cause because it is only in that cause that that effect already exists (in a latent form).” (10)

syād etat kāraṇānāṃ pratiniyateṣveva kāryeṣu śaktayaḥ pratiniyatāḥ tena kāryasyāsatve 'pi kiñcid eva kāryaṃ kriyate na gaganāmbhoruhaṃ kiñcid evopādānamupādīyate /

because potent causes produce only such effect as is amenable to their potency.” (11) The following might be urged (against the Sāṃkhya view): “The potency of Causes is such as is restricted to specific Effects; hence, even though the Effect has been non-existent, yet it is only some one effect, an actual Product, that is produced, and not an absolute non-entity, like the Sky-lotus;

yadeva samarthaṃ na tu yatkiñcit kiñcid eva tu kutaścidbhavati natu sarvaṃ sarvata ityetaccodyam utthāpyottarābhidhānavyājena caturthahetusamarthanārtham āha śaktīnām ityādi / śaktīnāṃ niyamādeṣāṃ naivam ityapyanuttaraṃ / śakyam eva yataḥ kāryaṃ śaktāḥ kurvanti hetavaḥ //

this is the reason why only a specific cause is secured (for the production of a particular effect), that one which is efficient for the purpose, not anything at random; so that particular effects are produced from particular causes, and not every effect from every cause”. Having this objection in view, the Sāṃkhya, under the pretext of answering it, puts forward the following arguments in support of the fourth reason set forth [in the Sāṃkhyakārikā, 9: ‘Because the efficient can do that only for which it is efficient’].

kāraṇābhimatānāṃ bhāvānāṃ /

Of these things, i.e. of things that are held to be causes.

naivam iti /

It is not as has been urged;

yathoktaṃ dūṣaṇaṃ na bhavatītyarthaḥ /

i.e. the objection urged does not affect the Sāṃkhya position;

tadetad anuttaraṃ bauddhādeḥ / kasmāt / yasmācchaktā api hetavaḥ kāryaṃ kurvāṇāḥ śakyakriyameva kurvanti nāśakyaṃ //

hence it is not a suitable answer to our argument made by the Bauddha and others, Why? Because even potent Causes, when producing their effects, produce only such effects as are amenable to their action, and not what is not so amenable.

nanu kenaitaduktam aśakyaṃ kurvantīti yenaitat pratiṣidhyate bhavatā kiṃtvasadapi kāryaṃ kurvantītyetāvaducyate / tac ca teṣāṃ śakyakriyamevetyata āha akāryatiśayam ityādi /

“That to which no peculiarity can be attributed, which is eormless and unmodipiable, how could such a thing be produced by causes, when any modification would involve the loss of its very essence?” (12) [Says the Opponent to the Sāṃkhya] “Who has said that causes produce effects which they are not efficient to produce, that you are denying it here? All that is said is that they also produce such effects as have been non-existent;

akāryātiśayaṃ yat tu nīrūpamavikāri ca /

and that such previously non-existent effect is quite amenable to the potency of the cause”.

vikṛtāvātmahānyāptes tatkriyeta kathaṃ nu taiḥ //

To this the Sāṃkhya makes the following reply: [see verse 12 above]

[p.20] evaṃ manyate asatkāryakāritvābhyupagamād evāśakyakriyaṃ kurvantītyuktaṃ bhavati /

The Sāṃkhya reasons as follows: “The acceptance of the view that the Effect produced has been non-existent implies that causes produce an effect which is incapable of being produced by them.

tathā hi yadasat tannīrūpaṃ niḥsvabhāvaṃ yacca nīrūpaṃ tacchaśaviṣāṇādivadakāryātiśayam anādheyātiśayaṃ yac ca nādheyātiśayaṃ tadākāśavadavikāri /

For instance, that which is non-existent is formless i.e. characterless; that which is formless is, like the Hare’s Horn, something to which no peculiarity can be attributed, i.e. which cannot be. regarded as having any characteristics; and that to which no peculiarity can be attributed must be unmodifiable, immutable, like Ākāśa;

tattathābhūtamasamāsāditaviśeṣarūpaṃ kathaṃ kenacicchakyate kartuṃ / athāpi syāt sadavasthāpratipatter vikriyata eva tadityata āha vikṛtāvātmahānyāpter iti /

how can such a thing, which has not acquired a specific form, be produced by any cause? It might be argued that ‘from the fact of its being perceived in its existing state (after being produced) it follows that it does become modified The answer to that is that any modification would involve the loss of its very essence.

yasmād vikṛtaviṣyamāṇāyāṃ yastasyātmā svabhāvo nīrūpākhyo varṇyate tasya hāniḥ prāpnoti /

If modification is admitted, then its very essence, essential character, which is described as consisting of formlessness, would become lost.

nahyasataḥ svabhāvāparityāge sati tadrūpatāpattir yuktā / parityāge vā na tarhi asadeva sadrūpatāṃ pratipannam iti siddhyet /

As a matter of fact, unless the non-existent thing has relinquished its essential character (of formlessness), it cannot become existent; and if it does relinquish the essential character, then it would not be true that the non-existent (formless) thing has become existent (with form);

anyadeva hi sadrūpamanyaccāsadrūpaṃ parasparaparihāreṇa tayor avasthitatvāt /

the form of the Existent is entirely different from the form of the non-existent, the two being mutual contradictories.

tasmād yadasattadaśakyakriyam eva /

Hence what is non-existent cannot be produced.

tathābhūtapadārthakāritvābhyupagame hi kāraṇānām aśakyakāritvamevābhyupagataṃ syāt /

If it be admitted that a Cause can produce such ang then It would be admitted that Causes actually produce only suchngs as are incapable of being produced!

na cāśakyaṃ kenacit kriyate yathā gaganāmbhoruhaṃ /

Certainly what is incapable of being produced can never be produced; as we find in the case of the Sky-lotus.

ataḥ śaktipratiniyamādityanuttarametat //

From all this it follows that the Sāṃkhya argument (the fourth in the Kārikā) is unanswerable.” (12)

kāryasyaivamayogāc ca kiṃkurvatkāraṇaṃ bhavet / tataḥ kāraṇabhāvo 'pi bījāder na vikalpate //

“Thus the effect being impossible, what would that be by producing which anything would be a cause? as a consequence, it cannot be possible to admit the causal character of even such things as the seed and the like.” (13)

yadvā yathoktāddhetucatuṣṭayāt /

Thus, i.e. in accordance with the reason explained in the preceding text;

asatkāryavāde sarvathāpi kāryasyāyogāt kiṃkurvadbījādi kāraṇaṃ bhavet / tataścaivaṃ śakyate vaktuṃ / na kāraṇaṃ bījādiravidyamānakāryatvād gaganābjavad iti /

or on account of the four Reasons stated above (by the Sāṃkhya), the Effect being absolutely impossible, under the theory that ‘the Effect is non-existent (prior to its production)’, what would that be by producing which, the Seed and other things would be a Cause? Hence it would be possible to assert that the Seed and other such things cannot be ‘Causes’, because their effect is non-existent, like the Sky-lotus.

na caivaṃ bhavati / tasmād viparyaya iti siddhaṃ prāgutpatteḥ satkāryam iti //

And yet such an assertion is impossible, Hence it becomes established that the contrary view is the right one, that the Effect exists even prior to its actual production, (13)