________________
. In the view of those who accept kșanaikānta (absolute momentaryness), existence after death etc. is impossible. As there will be no pratyābhijñā (This is that only),this kind of recognition or memory etc., is impossible. There cannot be any beginning of any effect leading to any result. It means, if a man does not remember his previous experience, how will he act to satisfy his desire by doing necessary acts. One collects firewood, cooking pot, rice and water, wishing to cook food, without pratyābhijñā (recognition); this action (kāryarambha) can never take place, and the fruits of the act (phala) can consequently never happen. Another argument is preferred against the Buddhists in this verse..
na hetuphala bhāvadiranyabhāvādananvayāt, santānāntaravannaikaḥ santanastadvatah prthak.'
Here, Samantabhadra refutes the view of the Buddhist kşanaikavāda, recognizing different moments and unconnected with one another, but taking rise one after another is untenable.. Being different and unconnected, relationship of cause and effect cannot exist, as one cannot be like another santāna (write). Hemachandra (1088-1172) also raised many objections. He says: naikāntavāde sukhadukhabogaui na punyapāpe na ca bandhamokṣau, durnitivāda-vyasanāsinaiva, parairviluptaṁ jagadapyaśeșam.
It means, if we accept the nature of sat (reality) as absolute eternal or absolute non-eternal, then we can't explain the experiences of pleasure and pain, merit and sin, bondage and liberation. The triple nature of sat if analyzed deeply, can explain obviously above mentioned questions or problems in a right perspective.
Āptamīmāṁsā of Samantabhadra. op.cit., gāthā-3.43. ? Syādvād-Mañjarī of Mallişeņa Sūri, op.cit., kārikā-27.
