Verse 19

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अथास्त्यतिशयः कश्चिदभिव्यक्त्यादिलक्षणः ।
यं हेतवः प्रकुर्वाणा न यान्ति वचनीयताम् ॥ १९ ॥

athāstyatiśayaḥ kaścidabhivyaktyādilakṣaṇaḥ |
yaṃ hetavaḥ prakurvāṇā na yānti vacanīyatām || 19 ||

It might be urged that “there is some peculiar feature, something in the shape of manifestation and the like,—by producing which, causes might cease to be defamed (as futile)”.—(19)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author, in the following text, indicates (on behalf of the Sāṃkhya) the fallacy of ‘Inadmissibility’ in the argument just put up by himself—[see verse 19 above]

[The Sāṃkhya may argue as follows:—]—“If, in your first argument, you mean your premiss 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, without 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.

This 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 peculiar conditions as Growth, etc.—‘Which’ (in the Text) stands for the ‘peculiar feature’,—‘To be defamed’,—blamed. What is meant is that our theory is not open to the fallacies that have been urged against our Reason as being ‘Inadmissible’, ‘Untrue’ and the like.—(19)