Datasets:

buddhist-nlp

/

tatpa-cleaned

like 0

Follow

Dharmamitra 42

tatra prakṛtivyāpārarahitatvapratipādanāya sāṅkhyamatam upadarśayann āha aśeṣaśaktipracitād ityādi /

In order to establish the absence of any functioning of prakṛti, [the author] proceeds to present the Sāṃkhya doctrine, [beginning with the words] "aśeṣaśaktipracitāt."

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

The followers of Kapila [maintain that] pradhāna, which is endowed with all the inherent potencies that produce the multitude of effects beginning with mahat, [and] which is characterized by the equilibrium state of sattva, rajas and tamas - from that alone these various effects beginning with mahat proceed.

pradhānadevetyavadhāraṇaṃ kālapuruṣādivyavacchedārthaṃ /

The emphasis on "from pradhāna alone" serves to exclude [other possible causes] such as Time, Puruṣa and so forth.

kevalād iti vacanaṃ seśvarasaṅkhyopakalpiteśvaranirāsārthaṃ /

The term "kevala" [is used] to exclude [the concept of] Īśvara postulated by the theistic Sāṃkhya.

tathā hi teṣāṃ prakriyā /

Their [system of] evolution is as follows.

pradhānād buddhiḥ prathamam utpadyate buddheścāhaṅkāraḥ ahaṅkārāt pañcatanmātrāṇi śabdasparśarasarūpagandhātmakāni indriyāṇi caikādaśotpadyante /

From pradhāna first arises buddhi, from buddhi [arises] ahaṅkāra, from ahaṅkāra arise the five tanmātras consisting of sound, touch, taste, form and smell, and the eleven organs.

pañca buddhīndriyāṇi śrotratvakcakṣurjihvāghrāṇalakṣaṇāni pañca karmendriyāṇi vākpāṇipādāpāyūpasthā manaścaikādaśam iti /

[These are] the five organs of cognition characterized as ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose; the five organs of action [namely] speech, hands, feet, excretory organ and generative organ; and mind as the eleventh.

pañcabhyaś ca tanmātrebhyaḥ pañca bhūtāni /

And from the five tanmātras [arise] the five elements.

śabdādākāśaṃ sparśād vāyuḥ rūpāttejaḥ rāsādāpaḥ gandhāt pṛthivīti /

From sound [arises] ether, from touch air, from form fire, from taste water, and from smell earth.

yathoktam īśvarakṛṣṇena /

As stated by Īśvarakṛṣṇa.

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

From prakṛti [emerges] mahat, from that [emerges] ahaṅkāra, and from that [emerge] the sixteen [elements]; from those sixteen, from the five [tanmātras emerge] the five elements.

iti /

Thus.

tatra mahāniti buddher ākhyā / buddhiścāyaṃ ghaṭaḥ paṭa iti viṣayādhyavasāyalakṣaṇā /

Here "mahān" is the name for buddhi; and buddhi is characterized by determination regarding objects [such as] "this [is] a pot", "this [is] cloth".

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

But ahaṅkāra is characterized by expressions like "I [am] fortunate", "I [am] handsome"; and manas is characterized by deliberation.

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

For example, when some young man thus hears "there is food in another village", his deliberation would be "I shall go there - will there be molasses and curds, or just curds?"

evaṃ saṅkalpavṛtti mana iti /

Thus, that which has deliberation as its function is manas.

tadevaṃ buddhyahaṅkāramanasāṃ parasparaṃ viśeṣo boddhavyaḥ /

Thus in this way should the mutual distinction between buddhi, ahaṅkāra and manas be understood.

śeṣaṃ subodhaṃ /

The rest [is] easily understood.

ete ca mahadādayaḥ pradhānapuruṣau ceti pañcaviṃśatireṣāṃ tattvāni /

These, beginning with mahat, along with pradhāna and puruṣa, [make up] these twenty-five tattvas.

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

As has been said: "The knower of the twenty-five tattvas, in whichever āśrama he delights, whether wearing matted locks, shaven-headed, or [wearing] a topknot - he is liberated, there is no doubt about this."

iti

Thus [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

These various effects proceeding from pradhāna are not entirely different from their cause as the Buddhists and others maintain, but rather have the same form [as their cause], that is, they have pradhāna as their essential nature - such is the analysis [of the compound tadrūpāḥ]

traiguṇyādirūpeṇa prakṛtyātmabhūtā eva iti

[The products] are indeed identical in nature with prakṛti through having the form of the three guṇas and so forth

tathā hi loke yadātmakaṃ kāraṇaṃ bhavati śuklais tu śuklaḥ

For thus in the world, whatever nature the cause has - white [produces] white

evaṃ pradhānam api triguṇātmakaṃ tathā buddhyahaṅkāratanmātrendriyabhūtātmakaṃ vyaktam api triguṇamupalabhyate tasmāt tadrūpaṃ

Thus pradhāna consists of the three guṇas, and likewise the manifest consisting of buddhi, ahaṅkāra, tanmātras, senses and elements is also observed to have three guṇas, therefore it has the same form [as pradhāna]

kiṃ ca aviveki

Moreover, [pradhāna] is indiscriminable

tathāhīme sattvādayaḥ idaṃ ca mahadādi vyaktam iti pṛthaṅ na śakyate kartuṃ kiṃ tu ye guṇās tadvyaktaṃ yadvyaktaṃ te guṇā iti

For these [three constituents] sattva and the others cannot be separated [by saying] "this is the manifest beginning with mahat", but rather "what are the guṇas that is the manifest, what is the manifest those are the guṇas"

kiṃ ca dvayam api vyaktam avyaktaṃ ca viṣayaḥ bhogyasvabhāvatvāt

Moreover, both the manifest and unmanifest are objects because they have the nature of being experienced

sāmānyaṃ ca sarvapuruṣāṇāṃ

And [both are] common to all puruṣas

malladāsīvat

Like a dancing girl [who is common property]

acetanātmakaṃ ca sukhaduḥkhamohāvedakatvāt

And [both are] of insentient nature because they do not experience pleasure, pain and delusion

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

[It is] productive in nature; that is, the Pradhāna produces Buddhi, Buddhi produces Ahaṅkāra, Ahaṅkāra produces the Tanmātras and the eleven Indriyas, [and] the Tanmātras produce the great elements.

tasmāt traiguṇyādirūpeṇa tadrūpā evāmī kāryabhedāḥ pravartante /

Therefore, all these different products evolve having the same form [as Pradhāna], being constituted of the three guṇas.

triguṇamavivekiviṣayaḥ sāmānyamacetanaṃ prasavadharmī /

"[The Manifest is] possessed of three guṇas, undiscriminated, objective, common, non-conscious [and] productive in nature;

vyaktaṃ tathā pradhānaṃ tadviparītas tathā ca pumān /

the Manifest and the Pradhāna are thus; the Puruṣa is the opposite and yet similar."

nanu yadi tadrūpā eva kāryabhedās tatkathaṃ śāstre vyaktāvyaktayor vailakṣaṇyam upavarṇitaṃ /

[One might ask:] "If the different products indeed have the same form [as Pradhāna], then why is the distinction between manifest and unmanifest described in the śāstra?"

hetumadanityamavyāpi sakriyamanekamāśritaṃ liṅgaṃ / sāvayavaṃ paratantraṃ vyaktaṃ viparītamavyaktaṃ //

"[The Manifest is] caused, non-eternal, non-pervasive, active, manifold, dependent, [serving as] a mark, composed of parts, subordinate; the Unmanifest is the opposite [of these]."

tatra hyayam arthaḥ hetumat kāraṇavat vyaktam eva /

The meaning of this is: only the Manifest has a cause.

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

Thus indeed, Buddhi is caused by Pradhāna, Ahaṅkāra is caused by Buddhi, the five Tanmātras and eleven Indriyas are caused by Ahaṅkāra, [and] the elements are caused by the Tanmātras.

natvevam avyaktaṃ / tasya kutaścidapyanutpatteḥ /

But the Unmanifest is not like this, because it has no origin from anything whatsoever.

tathā vyaktam anityaṃ utpattidharmakatvāt /

Similarly, the Manifest is non-eternal because it has the nature of [being subject to] origination.

natvevam avyaktaṃ tasyānutpattimatvāt /

But the Unmanifest is not like this, because it has the nature of non-origination.

buddhyahaṅkārādibhedena cānekavidhaṃ vyaktamupalabhyate nāvyaktaṃ tasyaikasyaiva sato lokatrayakāraṇatvāt /

The Manifest is observed to be multiform through such distinctions as buddhi [cosmic intelligence] and ahaṅkāra [I-principle], but not the Unmanifest, since it alone, being one, is the cause of the three worlds.

āśritaṃ ca vyaktaṃ yadyasmād utpadyate tasya tadāśritatvāt /

And the Manifest is dependent, because whatever arises from something is dependent on that [source].

natvevamavyaktaṃ tasyākāryatvāt liṅgaṃ ca vyaktaṃ layaṃ gacchatīti kṛtvā /

But the Unmanifest is not like this, because it is not an effect. And the Manifest is dissolvable, because it undergoes dissolution.

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

For thus at the time of dissolution, the elements dissolve into the tanmātras [subtle elements], the tanmātras and the sense organs into ahaṅkāra, ahaṅkāra into buddhi, and buddhi into pradhāna [primordial nature], but the Unmanifest does not undergo dissolution into anything, because it has no existing cause [above it].

sāvayavaṃ ca vyaktaṃ śabdasparśarasarūpagandhātmakairavayavair yuktatvāt /

And the Manifest is composite, because it is endowed with components consisting of sound, touch, taste, form, and smell.

natvevam avyaktaṃ pradhānātmani śabdādīnām anupalabdheḥ /

But the Unmanifest is not like this, because sound and the other [sensory qualities] are not found in the nature of pradhāna.

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

Moreover, just as a son is not independent while his father lives, so too the Manifest is always dependent because it relies on [its] cause; but the Unmanifest is not like this, because it is eternal and not dependent on any cause.

tadetat sarvamāśaṅkyāha bhāvata iti /

Having considered all these [objections], he says "by nature."

bhāvataḥ pāramārthataḥ tādrūpyaṃ /

"By nature" means "in ultimate reality" [there is] identity of form.

prakṛtivikārabhedena tu pariṇāmaviśeṣād bhedo yathokto na virudhyata ity arthaḥ /

The meaning is that the distinction as stated between prakṛti and its modifications is not contradictory due to the specific transformations.

athavā bhāvata iti / svabhāvatastraiguṇyarūpeṇa tadrūpā eva pravartante /

Or "by nature" means that by their own nature, consisting of the three guṇas, they proceed in that very form.

sattvarajastamasāṃ tūtkaṭānutkaṭatvaviśeṣāt sargavaicitryaṃ mahadādibhedenāviruddhamevetyarthaḥ /

The meaning is that the diversity of creation in the form of mahat and other [principles] is not contradictory due to the specific predominance or non-predominance of sattva, rajas and tamas.

tadanena kāraṇātmani kāryam astīti pratijñātaṃ bhavati //

By this it is established that the effect exists within the nature of the cause.

tatra katham avagamyate prāgutpatteḥ satkāryam ity āha yadītyādi

How is it understood that the effect [exists] prior to production? [The text] explains this beginning with "yadi."

yadi tvasadbhavet kāryaṃ kāraṇātmani śaktitaḥ /

If the effect were non-existent potentially in the nature of the cause,

kartuṃ tannaiva śakyeta nairūpyādviyadabjavat //

it could not be produced, due to having no form, like a sky-lotus.

satkāryatvaprasiddhaye paraiḥ pañca hetava uktāḥ asadakaraṇādupādānagrahaṇāt sarvasambhavābhāvāt / śaktasya śakyakaraṇāt karaṇabhāvāc ca satkāryaṃ

For establishing the pre-existence of the effect, others [i.e., the Sāṃkhyas] have stated five reasons: because the non-existent cannot be produced, because there is recourse to material causes, because everything cannot come from everything, because the capable produces only what it is capable of, and because the effect is of the nature of the cause.

yadi hi kāraṇātmani prāgutpatteḥ kāryaṃ nābhaviṣyat tadā tan na kenacid akariṣyata yathā gagananalinãṃ

If indeed the effect did not exist in the nature of the cause prior to production, then it could not be produced by anyone, just like a sky-lotus.

prayogaḥ yadasattan na kenacit kriyate

[The logical] application: what is non-existent cannot be produced by anyone.

yathā gaganāmbhoruhaṃ

Like a sky-lotus.

asac ca prāgutpatteḥ paramate na kāryam iti vyāpakaviruddhopalabdhiprasaṅgaḥ

And according to the opponent's view, the effect is non-existent prior to production, thus leading to a contradiction of the pervader.

na caivaṃ bhavati

And this is not the case.

tasmād yatkriyate tilādibhis tailādikāryaṃ tat tasmāt prāgapi saditi siddhaṃ

Therefore it is established that whatever effect, such as oil etc., is produced from [causes] such as sesame seeds etc., exists even prior to that [production].

śaktirūpeṇa vyaktirūpeṇa tu kāpilair api prāk satvasyāniṣṭatvāt

[It exists] in the form of potency, but even the followers of Kapila do not accept its existence in manifest form prior [to production].

nairupyād iti

[This is] due to [its] formlessness.

niḥsvabhāvatvāt

Because [the effect] would have no intrinsic nature [if it were non-existent]

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

[The text] states "why do [people] take only specific material causes according to distinctions like rice seeds etc., and not others, even though the non-existence [of effects] is equal [everywhere]?" in support of the second reason

yadi sadbhavetkāryaṃ tadā puruṣāṇām pratiniyatopādānagrahaṇaṃ na syāt

If the effect were non-existent, then people would not resort to only specific material causes

tathā hi śāliphalārthinaḥ śālibījamevopādadate na kodravabījaṃ

For indeed, those desiring rice grains take up rice seeds only, not kodrāva seeds

tathā śvo me brāhmaṇā bhoktāra iti dadhyarthinaḥ kṣīramupādadate na salilaṃ

Similarly, one who desires curds [thinking] "Brāhmaṇas will be eating at my [place] tomorrow" takes up milk, not water

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

If the non-existence of rice etc. is in rice seeds etc. just as it is in kodrāva seeds etc., then why, even though the non-existence of rice grains etc. is equal everywhere, are only specific [causes] like rice seeds taken up?

yāvatā kodravādayo 'pi śāliphalārthibhir upādīyeran asatvāviśeṣāt

Since [according to you] there is no difference in non-existence, those desiring rice grains could just as well take up kodrāva and other [seeds]

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

If [you say] they are not taken up because they lack that fruit, then the rice seed also should not be taken up by one desiring rice grains, since it [too] lacks that fruit, just like the kodrāva seed; but this is not the case

tasmāt tatra tatkāryam astīti gamyate

Therefore it is understood that the effect exists there [in its cause]

sarvaṃ ca sarvato bhāvād bhaved utpattidharmakaṃ

And everything capable of being produced would arise from everything [if effects were non-existent in their causes]

tādātmyavigamasyeha sarvasminnaviśeṣataḥ //

Because the absence of identity [with the effect] is equally [present] in everything.

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

If it is your view that the effect which is produced was [previously] non-existent, then from every substance - from grass, dust, clods and so forth - every effect like gold, silver and so forth would be produced.

kasmāt / tādātmyavigamasya sarvasminnaviśiṣṭatvāt /

Why? Because the absence of identity [with the effect] is equally [present] in everything.

vivakṣitatṛṇādibhāvātmatāvirahasya sarvasminnutpattimati bhāve nirviśiṣṭatvād ity arthaḥ /

That is to say, because the absence of identity with the nature of the intended grass etc. is equally [present] in everything that is capable of being produced.

pūrvaṃ kāraṇamukhena prasaṅga uktaḥ samprati tu kāryadvāreṇeti viśeṣaḥ /

Previously, the undesired consequence was stated from the perspective of the cause, but now [it is stated] through [the perspective of] the effect - this is the difference.

na ca sarvaṃ sarvato bhavati /

And [yet] everything is not produced from everything.

tasmād ayaṃ niyamas tatraiva tasya sambhavād iti gamyate //

Therefore, this law [follows] because that [effect] pre-exists in that [cause] alone.

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

One might say this: "The powers of causes are restricted to specific effects only; therefore, even though the effect [previously] does not exist, only some [specific] effect is produced, not [an impossibility] like a sky-lotus, and only some [specific] material cause is utilized."

śaktīnāṃ niyamādeṣāṃ naivam ityapyanuttaraṃ / śakyam eva yataḥ kāryaṃ śaktāḥ kurvanti hetavaḥ //

[The objection that] "because of the restriction of these powers [it is] not so" is not a [valid] answer, because efficient causes produce only that effect which is possible [for them to produce].

kāraṇābhimatānāṃ bhāvānāṃ /

Of those entities which are considered to be causes.

naivam iti

[That is] not so.

yathoktaṃ dūṣaṇaṃ na bhavatītyarthaḥ

The meaning is that the objection as stated does not apply.

tadetad anuttaraṃ bauddhādeḥ

This [therefore] is not a proper reply from the Bauddha and others.

kasmāt

Why?

yasmācchaktā api hetavaḥ kāryaṃ kurvāṇāḥ śakyakriyameva kurvanti nāśakyaṃ

Because even potent causes, while producing effects, produce only what is amenable to their action, not what is impossible [for them to produce].

nanu kenaitaduktam aśakyaṃ kurvantīti yenaitat pratiṣidhyate bhavatā kiṃtvasadapi kāryaṃ kurvantītyetāvaducyate

[The opponent asks:] "Who has said that [causes] produce what they are unable to produce, that you are denying it? Only this much is being said - that they produce even what [previously] did not exist."

tac ca teṣāṃ śakyakriyamevetyata āha akāryatiśayam ityādi

And since [the opponent claims] this is indeed amenable to their action, [the author] states "that to which no peculiarity..." etc.

akāryātiśayaṃ yat tu nīrūpamavikāri ca / vikṛtāvātmahānyāptes tatkriyeta kathaṃ nu taiḥ

"How indeed could that which admits no peculiarity, which is formless and immutable, be produced by those [causes], since [any] modification would result in the loss of its very nature?"

evaṃ manyate asatkāryakāritvābhyupagamād evāśakyakriyaṃ kurvantītyuktaṃ bhavati

[The Sāṃkhya] thinks thus: "From the very acceptance of the production of non-existent effects, it follows that [causes] produce what is impossible [for them] to produce."

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

For indeed, what is non-existent is formless [and] without essence; and what is formless is, like a hare's horn and such things, that to which no peculiarity can be attributed, [i.e.] that which cannot receive any peculiarity; and what cannot receive any peculiarity is, like ākāśa, immutable.

tattathābhūtamasamāsāditaviśeṣarūpaṃ kathaṃ kenacicchakyate kartuṃ

How can such a thing, which has not acquired any specific form, be produced by anything?

athāpi syāt sadavasthāpratipatter vikriyata eva tadityata āha vikṛtāvātmahānyāpter iti

If it should be argued that "from the apprehension of [its] existent state, it does indeed undergo modification," to this [the author] says "since modification [would result in] the loss of its nature."

yasmād vikṛtaviṣyamāṇāyāṃ yastasyātmā svabhāvo nīrūpākhyo varṇyate tasya hāniḥ prāpnoti

Because when [something] is being modified, that which is its nature, [its] essence, which is described as formless, would be lost.