________________
78 : śramaņa, Vol 63, Na. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2012
Kșņikaikāntapaksepī pretyabhāvādyasambhavaḥ/ Pratyabhijñādyabhāvanna kāryārambhaḥ kutaḥ phalar/B9
In the view of those who accept kşaņikaikānta (absolute momentaryness), existence after death etc. is impossible. As there will be no pratyabhijñā ("This is that only' this kind of recognition or memory etc.), is impossible. There cannot be any beginning of any effect leading to any fruit. It means, if a man does not remember his previous experience, how can he act to satisfy his desire by doing necessary acts. One collects firewood, cooking pot, rice and water, wishing to cook food without pratyabhijñā (memory); this action (kāryārambha) 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/
Santānnāntaravannaikaḥ santanastadvataḥ prthak.40 In this verse, Samantabhadra refutes the view of the Buddhist kșanikavāda recognizing different moments and unconnected with one another but taking rise one after the another is untenable. Being different and unconnected, relationship of cause and effect cannot exist, as one cannot be like another santāna.
Hemacandra (1088-1172) also raised many objections. He says:
Naikāntavāde sukhadukhabhogau na punyapāpe na ca bandhamokṣau/
Durnitivāda-vyasanākṣīņaiva, parairviluptam jagadapyasesam/41 It means, if we accept the nature of Satas 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 can explain obviously above mentioned question or problems in a right perspective.
