________________
TATTVA-KAUMUDI
IX
वाच० here lays down the opinions of ( 1 ) the बौद्धs, ( 2 ) the नैयायिकs and the वैशेषिकs, and ( 3 ) the वेदान्तिन्s as पूर्वपक्ष.
14
[IX
(1) The s maintain that existence comes into being from non-existence ( असत: सज्जायते ).
(2) The नैयायिकs and the वैशेषिकs maintain that an existent cause produces a non-existent effect ( सतोऽसज्जायते ).
(3) The वेदान्तिन्s maintain that the cause alone is existent, the effect being only an apparent change ( एकस्य सतो विवर्तः न कार्यजातं वस्तु सत् ). All these views are fully discussed in the Introduction.
जय,
उपादानग्रहणात् वाच० interprets ग्रहणात् as सम्बन्धात्. But गौड, माठर and चन्द्रिका explain it as taking or seeking. S. N. S. observes that although • ́s explanation is simpler, yet apparently, the same idea is repeated in शक्तस्य शक्यकरणात्. बाच॰'s explanation is also included in सर्वसम्भवाभावात्. “It is also to be noted that while उपादानग्रहणात् emphasises the adequacy of the cause to the effect, शक्तस्य शक्यकरणात् looks at the adequacy of the effect to the cause; hence, the latter does not merely repeat the idea of the former. " ( S. N. S. p. 28, 1n ).
कारणभावाच्च – जय० gives two explanations of this phrase— कारणस्य सत्त्वादित्यर्थः । यथसत्कार्यमुत्पयते किमिति कारणभावेन कार्यस्य भावो भवति । भवति च । तस्माच्छक्तिरूपेणावस्थितमिति गम्यते । अथवा कारणभावादिति कारणस्वभावात् । यत्स्वभावं कारणं तत्स्वभावं कार्यम् । यथा स्निग्धस्वभावभ्यस्तिलेभ्यः स्निग्धमेव तैलम्, मृदो मृत्स्वभावो घटः ।। ( p. 12 ). माठर and गोडo agree with the latter explanation वाच०, on the other hand, explains it as कार्यस्य कारणात्मकत्वात् - -on account of the identity of cause and effect.
तस्मादियं पटोत्पत्तिः स्वकारणसमवायो वा स्वसत्तासमवायो वा उभयथापि नोत्पयते etc. (para 75 ). After having disproved the नैयायिक's theory of origination of effect ( उत्पत्ति ), वाच० proceeds further —Now, what is your उत्पत्ति ? Is it the समवाय ( Inherence ) of the effect in its cause? That is, is it the which is
