Verse 32

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

उत्पादो वस्तुभावस्तु सोऽसता न सता तथा ।
सम्बध्यते कल्पिकया केवलं त्वसता धिया ॥ ३२ ॥

utpādo vastubhāvastu so'satā na satā tathā |
sambadhyate kalpikayā kevalaṃ tvasatā dhiyā || 32 ||

In reality, the ‘production’ (or a thing) consists in its becoming a thing; this ‘production’ cannot be related to what is existent, or with what is non-existent; it is related only to a conceptual idea which is purely nonexistent—(32)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[Says the Sāṃkhya]—“If it is your view that what is produced has been non-existent, then how is it that in the Sutra (of the Buddhists), the production of both, the Existent as well as the Non-existent, has been denied?

This is the declaration—‘O high-minded one, all Things are un-produced, as neither the Existent nor the Non-existent is ever produced The answer to this is provided by the following:—[see verse 32 above]

The particle ‘tu’ (in reality) serves to emphasise what is going to be said.—When we come to examine in what manner a particular thing may be distinguished from other things, we find that what is called the ‘production’ (appearance, coming into existence, of a Thing) is only its own Essence, becoming itself, which exists merely for a moment, free from all connection with all elements of the Past and the Future. It is not a ‘Universal’ with particular features, as assumed by the Vaibhāṣika; such a ‘Universal’ is going to be refuted (under Chapter 13). Nor does it consist in ‘inherence in Being’ or ‘inherence in its own Cause’, as postulated by the Vaiśeṣika; as both these also are going to be refuted (under Chapter 13); and because, under the theory of the other party (the Vaiśeṣika), both these (Inherences) are constant, and what is already constant cannot be produced. To this effect there is the following declaration:—‘Being (Existence) consists in being in contact with the Cause; the Cause is a cause by virtue of producing the Effect; the Being and the Contact both being constant, what is there that could be produced?’

This—the said Production—cannot be related to what is non-existent,—by the relation of ‘co-essentiality’ (being of the same essence); as ‘existent’ and ‘non-existent’ are mutually contradictory, what is nonexistent cannot come about. Nor can the ‘production’ be related to what is existent already from before; because before Production, the existent cannot be there.

Question—“Then how is it that you (Buddhists) are upholders of the doctrine that ‘the Effect is non-existent’?”

Answer—Only to a conceptual idea, etc.;—it is only to a conceptual idea,—which is of the nature of either the Active Agent or the Instrument,—(Cause)—it is led into relationship. As a matter of fact, there is nothing called ‘non-existent’ which could enter into ‘production’; the idea therefore that ‘the non-existent is produced’ is purely conceptual.—(32)