Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
## Chapter Five:
[207
**Taking Hold of the Subtle**
This [sutra] shows that the multitude of jivas and pudgalas is not due to their being innumerable and infinite in relation to the absence of a field, but rather due to the desirability of infinite and innumerable variations.
8538. This is said for the purpose of understanding the specific characteristics of the individual substances that have been authorized. They are inactive. ||7||
8539. The modification that arises from both internal and external causes is called action, which is the cause of a substance's attainment of a different field. Those that are devoid of such action are inactive. Here it is argued: If dharma, etc., are inactive substances, then their production would not occur. For the production of pots, etc., is seen to be preceded by action. And without production, there would be no destruction. Therefore, the concept of all substances having production, etc., as their three characteristics is contradicted? No, because there is another explanation. Even in the absence of production caused by action, the production of dharma, etc., is conceived of in another way. For example, there are two types of production: self-caused and caused by another's modification. Self-caused production is accepted on the basis of the authority of the scriptures, which state that there are infinite subtle and gross qualities in every substance, which, due to their being located in the six places, are constantly undergoing increase and decrease. Therefore, their production and destruction are natural. Similarly, there is also production and destruction caused by another's modification. For example, dharma, etc., are the causes of the movement, rest, and immersion of horses, etc. Since there is a difference in these movements, etc., from moment to moment, their causes must also be different. Thus, production and destruction are attributed to dharma, etc., in relation to another's modification.
It is argued: If dharma, etc., are inactive, then they cannot be the cause of the movement, etc., of jivas and pudgalas. For water, etc., are active, and they are seen to be the cause of the movement, etc., of fish, etc., otherwise not? This is not a fault.