________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
147 the combination of the bhūtas also, just as oil cannot be found in a samudaya of sands when it is not present in each individual particle of sand. From this, a rule can be deduced that whatever is absent in an individual state should be absent in the collective state also, and whatever is present in.collection should be present in the individual also, e. g., oil when present its prithak avasthā of sesamum is found in its collective state also.
allthili lilli luni
In the present case, cetana is not found in the prithak avastha of bhūtas and hence it is improper to accept that cetanā is produced in the samudaya of bhūtas. Really speaking, it is produced by some other cause totally different from bhūtasamudaya. That cause is nothing else but jîva which is amūrta on account of the amūrta cetanā.
Here again, the opponent may argue that the abovementioned rule is wrong. For, mada is not found in the individual state of a constituent like dhātalî puspa of the madya; and yet the quality of intoxication does exist in its samudaya. But it is not proper to say that mada-bhāva is altogether absent from dhātaki puspa etc. For, mada does exist in the individual state to a certain extent. A dhataki puspa.can induce insanity in its individual capacity; the juice of jaggery, vine, sugar-cane etc. can produce contentment and water can quench the thirst. By the word “adi ” other constituents of wine should also be included, as they too, possess some capacity or the other as far as possible. Now, if caitanya-sakti were present in the individual bhūtas like prithvi etc. even to a limitted extent, caitanya would certainly have been manifested in their combination also. But when cetana is absent in the very prithak state, it can never be produced in the combined state.
Now, what would happen if the constituents of wine had no power of intoxication at all ?
