________________
=XVI]
NOTES
23
XIV
The difficulty lies in the expression तद्विपर्ययाभावात्. गोड ० and explain it as- on account of the absence of the contraries of त्रैगुण्य in the प्रधान, अविवेक्यादि resides in the प्रधान. वाचo offers an alternative explanation —— on account of the absence of अविवेक्यादि in the contrary of व्यक्त, i. e., पुरुष, अविवेक्यादि resides in the प्रधान and its constituents. चन्द्रिका adopts the second explanation. 4 also agrees with it. cf. त्रैगुण्यस्याभावेऽविवेक्यादयोरभावात् ( ? ) । न हि निर्गुणस्य पुरुषस्याविवेक्यादिः संभवति । तस्मात् त्रैगुण्यादेवाविवेक्यादिः सिद्धः ॥ ( p. 20 ). The explanation of गौडo, as rightly pointed out by S. N S. ( See p. 41, 1n.), renders the other half of the redundant, because,
it simply repeats the same argument.
XV and XVI
The term stands for the diverse forms of the evolved which differ from one another. As compared with its effects, a cause is unlimited and thus unmanifest जय ० uses a curious expression, ( संसर्गिन् ) for cause. It seems that the word stands for the union or contact of different effects in their cause; cf. - तस्मादेतेषामेकेन संसर्गिणा भवितव्यम् । यत्रैतेषां संसर्गस्तदव्यक्तं कारणमस्ति (p. 21 ).
समन्वय = एकरूपता, similarity, or एकजात्यनुगम (i. e. belonging to one genus ), according to जय०. गौड ० understands समन्वय in the sense of inference —' यथा व्रतधारिणं बटुं दृष्ट्वा समन्वयति, नूनमस्य पितरौ ब्राह्मणाविति । The explanation of समन्वयात् ( तां. सू. I. 131 ) as offered by विज्ञान •, vis, उपवासादिना क्षीणं हि बुद्धयादितत्त्वमनादिभिः समन्वयेन समनुगतेन पुनरुपचीयते ( ie intellect and the rest, emaciated by fast are again strengthened by food, etc. ), ' does not directly fit in this Kārika, as rightly pointed out by Sovani ( p. 411 ).
