Kapila's doctrine, although to be rejected on account of it's being in
conflict with Scripture and sound reasoning, yet recommends itself to
the adherents of the Veda on some accounts--as e.g. its view of the
existence of the effect in the cause. Kanâda's theory, on the other hand,
of which no part can be accepted and which is totally destitute of proof,
cannot but be absolutely disregarded by all those who aim at the highest
end of man.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the big and long'.
17. Even on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non-
establishment of that.
We so far have refuted the Vaiseshikas, who hold the doctrine of atoms
constituting the general cause. Now the followers of Buddha also teach
that the world originates from atoms, and the Sûtras therefore proceed
to declare that on their view also the origination, course, and so on,
of the world cannot rationally be accounted for. These Bauddhas belong
to four different classes. Some of them hold that all outward things,
which are either elements (bhûta) or elemental (bhautika), and all
inward things which are either mind (kitta) or mental (kaitta),--all
these things consisting of aggregates of the atoms of earth, water, fire
and air--are proved by means of Perception as well as Inference. Others
hold that all external things, earth, and so on, are only to be inferred
from ideas (vijñâna). Others again teach that the only reality are ideas
to which no outward things correspond; the (so-called) outward things
are like the things seen in dreams. The three schools mentioned agree in
holding that the things admitted by them have a momentary existence only,
and do not allow that, in addition to the things mentioned, viz.
elements and elemental things, mind and mental things, there are certain
further independent entities such as ether, Self, and so on.--Others
finally assert a universal void, i.e. the non-reality of everything.
The Sûtras at first dispose of the theory of those who acknowledge the
real existence of external things. Their opinion is as follows. The
atoms of earth which possess the qualities of colour, taste, touch and
smell; the atoms of water which possess the qualities of colour, taste
and touch; the atoms of fire which possess the qualities of colour and
touch; and the atoms of air which possess the quality of touch only,
combine so as to constitute earth, water, fire and air; and out of the
latter there originate the aggregates called bodies, sense-organs, and
objects of sense-organs. And that flow of ideas, which assumes the form
of the imagination of an apprehending agent abiding within the body, is
what constitutes the so-called Self. On the agencies enumerated there
rests the entire empiric world.--On this view the Sûtra remarks, 'Even
on the aggregate with its two causes, there is non-establishment of
that'. That aggregate which consists of earth and the other elements and
of which the atoms are the cause; and that further aggregate which
consists of bodies, sense-organs and objects, and of which the elements
are the cause--on neither of these two aggregates with their twofold
causes can there be proved establishment of that, i.e. can the
origination of that aggregate which we call the world be rationally
established. If the atoms as well as earth and the other elements are
held to have a momentary existence only, when, we ask, do the atoms
which perish within a moment, and the elements, move towards combination,
and when do they combine? and when do they become the 'objects of states
of consciousness'? and when do they become the abodes of the activities
of appropriation, avoidance and so on (on the part of agents)? and what
is the cognising Self? and with what objects does it enter into contact
through the sense-organs? and which cognising Self cognises which
objects, and at what time? and which Self proceeds to appropriate which
objects, and at what time? For the sentient subject has perished, and
the object of sensation has perished; and the cognising subject has
perished, and the object cognised has perished. And how can one subject
cognise what has been apprehended through the senses of another? and how
is one subject to take to itself what another subject has cognised? And
should it be said that each stream of cognitions is one (whereby a kind
of unity of the cognising subject is claimed to be established), yet
this affords no sufficient basis for the ordinary notions and activities
of life, since the stream really is nothing different from the
constituent parts of the stream (all of which are momentary and hence
discrete).--That in reality the Ego constitutes the Self and is the
knowing subject, we have proved previously.
18. If it be said that (this) is to be explained through successive
causality; we say 'no,' on account of their not being the causes of
aggregation.
'If it be said that through the successive causality of Nescience and so
on, the formation of aggregates and other matters may be satisfactorily
accounted for.' To explain. Although all the entities (acknowledged by
the Bauddhas) have a merely momentary existence, yet all that is
accounted for by avidyâ. Avidyâ means that conception, contrary to
reality, by which permanency, and so on, are ascribed to what is
momentary, and so on. Through avidyâ there are originated desire,
aversion, &c., which are comprised under the general term 'impression'
(samskâra); and from those there springs cognition (vijñâna) which
consists in the 'kindling' of mind; from that mind (kitta) and what is
of the nature of mind (kaitta) and the substances possessing colour, and
so on, viz. earth, water, &c. From that again the six sense-organs,
called 'the six abodes'; from that the body, called 'touch' (sparsa);
from that sensation (vedanâ), and so on. And from that again avidyâ, and
the whole series as described; so that there is an endlessly revolving
cycle, in which avidyâ, and so on, are in turn the causes of the links
succeeding them. Now all this is not possible without those aggregates
of the elements and elemental things which are called earth, and so on;
and thereby the rationality of the formation of those aggregates is
proved.
To this the second half of the Sûtra replies 'Not so, on account of
(their) not being the causes of aggregation'.--This cannot rationally be
assumed, because avidyâ, and so on, cannot be operative causes with
regard to the aggregation of earth and the other elements and elemental
things. For avidyâ, which consists in the view of permanency and so on,
belonging to what is non-permanent, and desire, aversion and the rest,
which are originated by avidyâ cannot constitute the causes of (other)
momentary things entering into aggregation; not any more than the
mistaken idea of shell-silver is the cause of the aggregation of things
such as shells. Moreover, on the Bauddha doctrine, he who views a
momentary thing as permanent himself perishes at the same moment; who
then is the subject in whom the so-called samskâras, i.e. desire,
aversion, and so on, originate? Those who do not acknowledge one
permanent substance constituting the abode of the samskâras have no
right to assume the continuance of the samskâras.
19. And on account of the cessation of the preceding one on the
origination of the subsequent one.
For the following reason also the origination of the world cannot be
accounted for on the view of the momentariness of all existence. At the
time when the subsequent momentary existence originates, the preceding
momentary existence has passed away, and it cannot therefore stand in a
causal relation towards the subsequent one. For if non-existence had
causal power, anything might originate at any time at any place.--Let it
then be said that what constitutes a cause is nothing else but existence
in a previous moment.--But, if this were so, the previous momentary
existence of a jar, let us say, would be the cause of all things
whatever that would be met with in this threefold world in the
subsequent moment-cows, buffaloes, horses, chairs, stones, &c.!--Let us
then say that a thing existing in a previous moment is the cause only of
those things, existing in the subsequent moment, which belong to the
same species.--But from this again it would follow that one jar existing
in the previous moment would be the cause of all jars, to be met with in
any place, existing in the following moment!--Perhaps you mean to say
that one thing is the cause of one subsequent thing only. But how then
are we to know which thing is the cause of which one subsequent thing?--
Well then I say that the momentarily existing jar which exists in a
certain place is the cause of that one subsequent momentary jar only
which exists at the very same place!--Very good, then you hold that a
place is something permanent! (while yet your doctrine is that there is
nothing permanent).--Moreover as, on your theory, the thing which has
entered into contact with the eye or some other sense-organ does no
longer exist at the time when the idea originates, nothing can ever be
the object of a cognition.
20. There not being (a cause), there results contradiction of the
admitted principle; otherwise simultaneousness.
If it be said that the effect may originate even when a cause does not
exist, then--as we have pointed out before--anything might originate
anywhere and at any time. And not only would the origination of the
effect thus remain unexplained, but an admitted principle would also be
contradicted. For you hold the principle that there are four causes
bringing about the origination of a cognition, viz. the adhipati-cause,
the sahakâri-cause, the âlambhana-cause, and the samanantara-cause. The
term adhipati denotes the sense-organs.--And if, in order to avoid
opposition to an acknowledged principle, it be assumed that the
origination of a further momentary jar takes place at the time when the
previous momentary jar still exists, then it would follow that the two
momentary jars, the causal one and the effected one, would be perceived
together; but as a matter of fact they are not so perceived. And,
further, the doctrine of general momentariness would thus be given up.
And should it be said that (this is not so, but that) momentariness
remains, it would follow that the connexion of the sense-organ with the
object and the cognition are simultaneous.
21. There is non-establishment of pratisankhyâ and apratisankhyâ
destruction, on account of non-interruption.
So far the hypothesis of origination from that which is not has been
refuted. The present Sûtra now goes on to declare that also the absolute
(niranvaya) destruction of that which is cannot rationally be
demonstrated. Those who maintain the momentariness of all things teach
that there are two kinds of destruction, one of a gross kind, which
consists in the termination of a series of similar momentary existences,
and is capable of being perceived as immediately resulting from agencies
such as the blow of a hammer (breaking a jar, e.g.); and the other of a
subtle kind, not capable of being perceived, and taking place in a
series of similar momentary existences at every moment. The former is
called pratisankhyâ-destruction; the latter apratisankhyâ-destruction.--
Both these kinds of destruction are not possible.--Why?--On account of
the non-interruption, i.e. on account of the impossibility of the
complete destruction of that which is. The impossibility of such
destruction was proved by us under II, 1, 14, where we showed that
origination and destruction mean only the assumption of new states on
the part of one and the same permanent substance, and therefrom proved
the non-difference of the effect from the cause.--Here it may possibly
be objected that as we see that a light when extinguished passes away
absolutely, such absolute destruction may be inferred in other cases
also. But against this we point out that in the case of a vessel of clay
being smashed we perceive that the material, i.e. clay, continues to
exist, and that therefrom destruction is ascertained to be nothing else
but the passing over of a real substance into another state. The proper
assumption, therefore, is that the extinguished light also has passed
over into a different state, and that in that state it is no longer
perceptible may be explained by that state being an extremely subtle one.
22. And on account of the objections presenting themselves in either
case.
It has been shown that neither origination from nothing, as held by the
advocates of general momentariness, is possible; nor the passing away
into nothing on the part of the thing originated. The acknowledgment of
either of these views gives rise to difficulties. If the effect
originates from nothing, it is itself of the nature of nothing; for it
is observed that effects share the nature of what they originate from.
Pitchers and ornaments, e.g. which are produced from clay and gold
respectively, possess the nature of their causal substances. But you
hold yourself that the world is not seen to be of the nature of
nothingness; and certainly it is not observed to be so.--Again, if that
which is underwent absolute destruction, it would follow that after one
moment the entire world would pass away into nothingness; and
subsequently the world again originating from nothingness, it would
follow that, as shown above, it would itself be of the nature of
nothingness (i.e. there would no longer be a _real_ world).--There being
thus difficulties on both views, origination and destruction cannot take
place as described by you.
23. And in the case of space also, on account of there being no
difference.
In order to prove the permanency of external and internal things, we
have disproved the view that the two forms of destruction called
pratisankhyâ and apratisankhyâ mean reduction of an existing thing to
nothing. This gives us an opportunity to disprove the view of
Ether (space) being likewise a mere irrational non-entity, as the
Bauddhas hold it to be. Ether cannot be held to be a mere irrational non-
entity, because, like those things which are admitted to be positive
existences, i.e. earth, and so on, it is proved by consciousness not
invalidated by any means of proof. For the formation of immediate
judgments such as 'here a hawk flies, and there a vulture,' implies our
being conscious of ether as marking the different places of the flight
of the different birds. Nor is it possible to hold that Space is nothing
else but the non-existence (abhâva) of earth, and so on; for this view
collapses as soon as set forth in definite alternatives. For whether we
define Space as the antecedent and subsequent non-existence of earth,
and so on, or as their mutual non-existence, or as their absolute non-
existence--on none of these alternatives we attain the proper idea of
Space. If, in the first place, we define it as the antecedent and
subsequent non-existence of earth, and so on, it will follow that, as
the idea of Space can thus not be connected with earth and other things
existing at the present moment, the whole world is without Space.
If, in the second place, we define it as the mutual non-existence of
earth, and so on, it will follow that, as such mutual non-existence
inheres in the things only which stand towards each other in the
relation of mutual non-existence, there is no perception of Space in the
intervals between those things (while as a matter of fact there is). And,
in the third place, absolute non-existence of earth, and so on, cannot
of course be admitted. And as non-existence (abhâva) is clearly
conceived as a special state of something actually existing, Space even
if admitted to be of the nature of abhâva, would not on that account be
a futile non-entity (something 'tukcha' or 'nirupâkhya').