Note On Mahabhasya II 366 26 Gunasamdravo Dravyam

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 7

A NOTE ON MAHĀBHĀṢYA II 366.26
prakasakád anyau, aprakāśakatvāt, pradipad iva ghaṭaḥ/.
Among the various reasons advanced by the opponent against these inferences there are also the following (301.1-3):
anavadhṛtalaghvädidharmatayam itaratmakam apity atathataivaasajatiyalakṣaṇavyävyttärthaviṣayatāyām asiddham pakṣadharmatvam asmän prati bhavantam ca/.
30)
31)
32)
"In case the properties 'light', etc. [of sukha etc.] are not restricted [to sukha, etc.] exclusively (i.e. if what is meant by the logical reasons adduced by you is not laghv eva sukham na guru na calam vã, etc.), [then sukha, etc.] has also the nature of the other [gunas, i.e. it is also cala and guru]; therefore (i.e. because of the fact that sukha, etc. are hence each of a threefold nature) they are in reality (eva) not so (i.e. are not different from each other). If [these properties are, on the other hand, exclusively restricted to sukha, etc. respectively, and if the logical reasons consequently] refer to an object to which the characteristics of everything different [from it] do not apply, [then] the fact that they are a property of the subject [of the inference] is by no means established for us and for you". In pursuing this argument further the opponent then demonstrates that concepts like 'light', etc. are always relative, and finally states by way of summarizing (302. 4-5): evam evapeksikalohapinḍarkatülagurutvalaghutve 'navasthitaikatve/.
33)
34)
"In this very manner the heaviness of a small iron ball and the lightness of the coma of the seeds of the mudar is not something absolutely determined [once and for ever] as both of them are dependent [on the quantity/weight in each case]"..
35)
To these objections the adherent of Samkhya replies (303. 1-3):
atha mamatra kim? dravyam caitad evam laghugurutväpekṣayā tad eva drstam, na guṇaḥ/ sattvädayo gunds to ime laghutvädilakṣaṇā mayocyante, dravyata teṣam sandrave ekatvapattau bhavati/.
"[If you prefer to consider lightness, etc. to be not absolutely determined, then you are right in stating that it is not at all an established fact for you that sattva and nothing else is light, etc.; but] what has this to do with me? [For, I, on my part, am of the opinion that lightness, etc. are
36)
7