Aptamimansa Critique of an Authority Bhasya

Author(s): Samantbhadracharya, Akalankadev, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Jagruti Dilip Sheth Dr

Page 96

DIFFERENCE AND IDENTITY
61
are the seats of a common universal that resides in both by samavāyarelation. Even then, to the extent that the Nyaya-Vaisesika tends to talk as if qualities, actions, universals and samavāya-relation are substancelike entities (while universal and samavāya-relation not only substancelike but also eternal) Samantabhadra's criticism seems to be in place.
verses 67-69 अनन्यतैकान्तेऽणूनां सङ्घातेऽपि विभागवत्। असंहतत्वं स्याद्भूतचतुष्कं भ्रान्तिरेव सा॥६७॥
If one maintains that an effect is absolutely nondistinct from atoms (that are to act as its cause), then there arises the difficulty that these atoms should remain as much unrelated after their mutual conjunction (that is to give rise to the effect in question) as they were in the early state of mutual disjuction; moreover, in that case the four basic elements (viz. earth, water, fire, air) will turn out to be but illusory appearances. (67)
Note: That is to say, since on the rival's showing earth etc. ought to be of the form of atoms and since they are not visible in the form of atoms, the rival should conclude that the visible form of earth etc. is an illusory appearance. ___कार्यकारणादेरभेदैकान्ते धारणाकर्षणादयः परमाणूनां सङ्घातेऽपि मा भूवन, विभागवत् । नाहितोऽपि विशेषो तेषां विभागैकान्तं निराकरोति । तत एवान्यत्रापि तत् नेष्यते। पृथिव्यादिभूतचतुष्टयस्थितिरेवं विभ्रममात्रं प्राप्नोति । इष्टत्वात् अदोष इति चेत्, न, प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधात् ।।६७॥
कार्यभ्रान्तेरणुभ्रान्ति: कार्यलिङ्गं हि कारणम्। उभयाभावतस्तत्स्थं गुणजातीतरच्च न॥६८।।
And when their effects (viz. the basic elements earth, water, fire, air) thus turn out to be illusory appearances, these atoms themselves follow suit, for the nature of cause is inferred from that of its effect. Again, in the absence of all cause and all effect there also do not exist qualities, universals etc. supposedly residing in a cause or an effect. (68)