Verse 41

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

सिद्धेऽपि त्रिगुणे व्यक्ते न प्रधानं प्रसिध्यति ।
एकं तत्कारणं नित्यं नैकजात्यन्वितं हि तत् ॥ ४१ ॥

siddhe'pi triguṇe vyakte na pradhānaṃ prasidhyati |
ekaṃ tatkāraṇaṃ nityaṃ naikajātyanvitaṃ hi tat || 41 ||

Even though the ‘manifest’ be accepted as ‘consisting of three attributes’,—primordial matter does not become established as the one eternal cause of that (manifest); because that ‘manifest’ is not imbued with any single generic character.—(41)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Now the Author admits (for the sake of argument) that the Reason (Homogeneity) is ‘admissible’, ‘proved’,—and proceeds to show its invalidity, ‘Inconclusiveness’—in the following:—[see verse 41 above]

Even if it be taken as proved that the ‘Manifest’ consists of the ‘Three Attributes’, yet that does not prove what the Sāṃkhya wishes—viz. that the Cause of that ‘Manifest’ is that which is called ‘Primordial Matter’; that is to say, because the reason that has been put forward has not been found to be concomitant with a Cause of that kind. For instance, what the Sāṃkhya desires to prove is that the Cause of the ‘Manifest’ is one, consisting of the Three Attributes, eternal and all-pervading; as a matter of fact, with such a Cause, the invariable concomitance of the Reason has nowhere been perceived; nor is it necessary that the Cause must be of the same nature as the Effect is found to be; because there is a clear difference between the Cause and its Effect. You hold that the Effect in the shape of the ‘Manifest’ is that which has such characteristics as ‘having a Cause’, ‘being non-eternal’, ‘non-pervasive’ and so forth; and yet you do not hold the Cause (of this Manifest) to have these characteristics. Hence your Reason (Premiss) is ‘too wide’, ‘inconclusive’,

The Text next proceeds to show that the Reason put forward (by the Sāṃkhya) is ‘contradictory’ also, inasmuch it entails the conception contrary to the nature of the particular Entity:—As the one eternal Came, etc.;—that is to say, what is meant to be proved is the existence of an Entity, which is one, eternal and made up of the Three Attributes, as the Cause (of the ‘Manifest’); and no such entity is established by the Reason put forward;—in fact, what is established is something quite contrary to it,—“How so?”—Because that is not endowed, etc.—The particle ‘hi’ stands for ‘because’; hence the meaning is that the Effect in the shape of the ‘Manifest’ is not recognised to be imbued with any such single generic character as consists of the Three Attributes and which forms the very essence of the ‘Manifest’,—“What is it then that is recognised?”—The ‘Manifest’ is actually cognised as endowed with such qualities as multiplicity, non-eternality and so forth. If the ‘Manifest’ were really imbued with any such generic character as that postulated by the other party, then the Cause also of that ‘Manifest’ would have to be recognised as possessed of that character. Inasmuch as, however, the Effect (in the shape of the ‘Manifest’) is actually found to be imbued with such qualities as ‘non-eternality’, ‘multiplicity’ and the like—its Cause also has to be inferred as possessed of these same qualities. Specially because in the case of a Cause that is eternal, the idea of its fruitful operations being both sequential and simultaneous would involve self-contradiction;—and because diversity in the Effect can be only due to diversity in the Cause; otherwise the diversity in the Effect would be without any Cause (baseless).—From all this it follows that any such single eternal Entity as Primordial Matter cannot be recognised.—If the name ‘Primordial Matter’ is given to a Cause that is non-eternal and many, then there we have no quarrel with you.—(41)