Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

Author(s): Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 37

TATTVASANGRAHA : CHAPTER 1,
entity that has not been posited as the Cause is the Spiril.-as declared (in the Sanielyakarika, 3)— The Spirit is neither procluctive por product'.
This argument may be formulated as follows:- That for which there is nothing to be bronght about cannot be a Cause,-e.g. the Spirit the entity postulated (as Cause) is one for which there is nothing to be brought about ;-hence the entity concerned is not found to fulfil the conditions which are invariably concomitant (with the nature of the Cause).
Both these arguments put forward in the Text are only meant to expose the anomalies (involved in the Santchya doctrine); hence there is no neecl for putting forward only such corroborative examples as are accepted hy both parties.
There is a party among Sarichyas who hold the view that—"The Spirit also is also a doer (a Cause) in regard to his own experiences on the analogy of the Reflection (which, though not of the Reflecting Substance, is yet attribut. el to it; similarly though Experience does not subsist in the Spirit, yet it is attributed to him]"
As against this party, the explanation of the Text would be as follows: The term partce stands for the Para-una, the Liberated Spirit; as such a Spirit would be liberated, he could not be the doer (Cause) in regard to Experience. Hence (even so) there is nothing wrong with the corroborative instanco cited in the Text.-(18)
The Author, in the following text, indicates (on behalf of the Sankhya) the fallacy of Inadinissibility in the argument just put up by himself
TEXT (10)
IT MIGHT BE VRGED THAT THERE IS SOME PECULIAR FEATURE, SOME
THING IN THE SHAPE OF manifestation AND THE LIKE, -BY PRODUCING WHICH, CAUSES MIGHT CEASE TO BE
DEPAMED (AS FUTILE)" -(19)
COMMENTARY.
[The Sankhya may argue as follows: "If, in your first argument, you mean your premies to be in the fully qualified form because it already exists in its entirety, even along with such features as being manifest and the rest'-then the premiss is Untrue', 'Inadmissible'; because we do not regard the Effect as existing along with all such features as being manifested and the like: we regard it as existing only in the form of a potency (in the Cause).
-If, on the other hand, you mean your premiss to be in general form, with. out the said qualification, then it is 'Inconclusive'; because such peculiar features as manifestation and the like are actually produced (even under our theory).-Nor does our theory involve the absurdity of all things being Effects (produced).-For the same reason, the second reason put forward by you is also 'not true', 'Inadmissible, as there is something to be brought about, produced
Tluis is what is meant by the phrase "Something in the shape of Manifestation and the like; the expression and the like' is meant to include such