Mandukya Karika, verse 4.4

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

भूतं न जायते किंचिदभूतं नैव जायते ।
विवदन्तो द्वया ह्येवमजातिं ख्यापयन्ति ते ॥ ४ ॥

bhūtaṃ na jāyate kiṃcidabhūtaṃ naiva jāyate |
vivadanto dvayā hyevamajātiṃ khyāpayanti te || 4 ||

4. The existent cannot (again) pass into (birth) existence. Nor can the non-existent be born or come into being as existent. Thus disputing among themselves, they, as a matter of fact, tend to establish the Advaita view and support the Ajāti or the absolute non-evolution (of what exists).

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

What do they, by refuting each other’s conclusions and quarrelling among themselves, really establish? It is thūs replied:—No¹ entity which is already in existence can again pass into birth. The reason is that as entity, it already exists. Ft is just like the Ātman, which already being in existence, cannot be born again as a new entity. Thus argues the supporter of evolution from non-ens (i.e., from a non-existing cause) and refutes the Sāṃkhya theory that an existing cause is born again as an effect. Similarly, the follower of the Sāṃkhya theory refutes the supporter of the non-ens view regarding creation by a non-existing cause. He declares that a non-existing² cause, on account of its very non-existence, cannot, like the horns of a hare, produce an effect. Thus³ quarrelling among themselves, by supporting “existent” and “non-existent” causes, they refute their_s respective opponent’s views and declare, in effect, the truth that there is no creation at all.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ No, etc.—This is the view of the followers of the Naiyāyika and Vaiśeṣika systems. According to them, an existing entity cannot be born as an effect. If an entity already exists, it is not said to be produced again. This view can be stated thus:—A cannot produce B, as A is always A and B is always B. It may be contended that A + C may produce B. Therefore C is something which does not exist in the cause A. Therefore the effect B does not come out of the cause A.

² Non-existing, etc.—This is the view of the followers of the Sāṃkhya system. According to them, the existing entity cannot undergo any annihilation; nor can the non-existing entity pass into existence. The existing entity is existent in times, past, present and future. A non-existing entity, such as the child of a barren woman, is always non-existent. By “birth”, the Sāṃkhyas mean manifestation and by “death”, they understand the return of the effect into the cause. The sesame seed produces oil. It means that oil, already existent in the seed, manifests itself in the form of the effect when the seed (the cause) is pressed. But one cannot get oil by pressing sand, as oil is never present in the sand. The clay which contains in potential form the pot, manifests the pot. Again the destruction of the pot means its going back to the original cause, viz., the clay. There is no absolute destruction of the pot.

³ Thus, etc.—Both the theories are based upon causality. But by refuting each other, they, in fact, refute causality itself. For, if an existing thing is produced from an existing cause (as the Sāṃkhyas profess) then there cannot be, in truth, any causal relation. Similarly, it is absurd to say that a positive thing can be produced by a non-existing cause. Thus the entire theory of causality is refuted. This only establishes the Advaita position of Ajāti which means that there is no act of creation or manifestation.