________________
150
F. W. Thomas, Mallisena's Syadvādamañjarī
and it is defined as "the meeting of things which had not met"); non-meeting, belonging to a prior time, is one state, and meeting, belonging to a later time, is another. Thus in the case of these two also the fault of difference of state is hard to get over. And how, having one-formness, has it impromptu conjunction with bondage? And before conjunction with bondage, why was it not liberated? Moreover, by that bondage does it experience alteration, or not? If it experiences, it is non-eternal, like its skin, etc. If it does not experience, thereby, as it is without alteration, whether that exists or does not exist, there is to it, as to ether, no difference; so that because of the fruitlessness of the bondage it would be simply eternally liberated. And thus the system of bondage and liberation in the world disappears. And to that effect they quote:
"What matter to the sky rain and sunshine? The result of those two is in the skin. If he is like the skin, he is non-eternal; if he is like the Void, there is no real result" "). In case of non-appropriateness of bondage there is also non-appropriateness of liberation; because the word 'liberation' is a synonym for the cleaving apart of bonds.
Likewise also, in the doctrine of non-equivocal non-eternal there is no appropriateness of pleasure and pain, etc.: For what is non-eternal has the attribute of absolute annihilation; and, if the self is such, since the performer of the action of acquiring merit has perished without continuance, to whom, pray, belongs the experience of the pleasure which is the fruit thereof? Likewise, upon the total destruction also of the performer of action for acquiring sin, to whom is to belong the consciousness of pain? And thus one is the performer of the action, and another the enjoyer of the fruit thereof; so that inconsistency results. Or else, because of the text (205)
"In whatever series there has been deposited a suffusion of karina,
In the same does the fruit replace it, like the redness in a cotton cloth""), -
to say that there is no inconsistency is also mere verbiage. Since series and suffusion") have previously been quashed as unreal. Likewise merit and sin also do not fit; for of these two the practical efficacy is the experiencing of pleasure and pain. And the inappropriateness of that has just been stated. Hence from the absence of producing practical efficacy there is inappropriateness of those two also.
Moreover, the non-eternal lasts for one moment only; and, since in that moment it is occupied merely with origination, how has it attainment of the action of acquiring merit and sin? And in the second, etc., moments it does not succeed even in abiding; and in the absence of the action of acquiring merit and demerit, whence come merit and demerit, since they are without root? And, given non-existence of those, whence is there experience of pleasure and pain? Or let that somehow be: nevertheless, the subsequent moment must be similar to the prior moment, because of the homogeneity of the acquiring to the thing to be acquired. Hence, from a prior moment which was in pain, how could there arise a subsequent moment. which is in pleasure? And how from that as in pleasure could it be in pain? Because of the consequence of having dissimilar parts. Likewise also as regards merit and sin, etc.; so there
is not much in this.
Likewise of bondage and liberation there is no possibility. For in the world the same who is bound is the one liberated; and, since upon acceptance of destruction without continuance
4) Quotation not traced.
5) Quoted also in Pramana-naya-tattvaloka, VII. 55 (comm.), Nyaya-manjari (ed. p. 443), Pramanamimämsä, I. i. 15, and Sarva-darśana-samgraha, II (Bauddha-chapter). The Void is ether, sky.
*) See supra, p. 121.
7) See supra, v. XIX, pp. 123 sqq.
