Verse 654-657

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

बीजोदकपृथिव्यादि सर्वदा कार्यकारकम् ।
प्रसक्तं निर्विशेषत्वात्संयोगासंभवेन तु ॥ ६५४ ॥
क्षेत्रबीजजलादीनि सापेक्षाणीति गम्यते ।
स्वकार्यकरणान्नित्यं दण्डचक्रोदकादिवत् ॥ ६५५ ॥
यस्तैरपेक्ष्यते भावः स संयोगो भविष्यति ।
सविशेषणभावाच्च भिन्न एवेति गम्यते ॥ ६५६ ॥
संयुक्ते आहरेत्युक्ते संयोगं प्रेक्षते ययोः ।
तदन्यपरिहारेण ते एवाहरति ह्ययम् ॥ ६५७ ॥

bījodakapṛthivyādi sarvadā kāryakārakam |
prasaktaṃ nirviśeṣatvātsaṃyogāsaṃbhavena tu || 654 ||
kṣetrabījajalādīni sāpekṣāṇīti gamyate |
svakāryakaraṇānnityaṃ daṇḍacakrodakādivat || 655 ||
yastairapekṣyate bhāvaḥ sa saṃyogo bhaviṣyati |
saviśeṣaṇabhāvācca bhinna eveti gamyate || 656 ||
saṃyukte āharetyukte saṃyogaṃ prekṣate yayoḥ |
tadanyaparihāreṇa te evāharati hyayam || 657 ||

“If there were no conjunction, then the soil, the seed, the water and the earth and such things should be always producing their effects; as there would be no ground for differentiation.—As a matter of fact however, the soil, the seed, the water and such things are always found to require something else in the producing of their effects;—like the stick, the wheel and water, etc. (in the making of jar). That thing which they require is conjunction; and as it has a particular characteristic, it is regarded as distinct (from other things). when one is told to ‘bring two conjoined things’, he brings only those two things in which he perceives the conjunction, avoiding everything else.”—(654-657)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts (654-663) set forth the arguments adduced by Uddyotakara, which are calculated to show that the Author’s own Reasons are ‘Unproven’ (Not admitted):—[see verses 654-657 above]

Uddyotakara has argued as follows [in Nyāyavārtika on 2.1.33, Page 221, Bib. Ind.]:—“If Conjunction were not a distinct thing, then, of such things as the soü, the seed, etc.—each itself being always there,—they would always produce their effects in the form of the sprout, etc. As a matter of fact however, they do not do so. Hence from the fact of the non-production of the effects always, it is understood that the soü, etc. require the help of some other thing, in the producing of the effect in the shape of the sprout; just as in the producing of the Jar, the Olay, the Stick, the Water, the Thread, etc. require the help of the Potter. Hence it is established that this something else that they need is Conjunction.

“Then again, the Conjunction between two substances is perceived as a qualification of those substances, and hence it is directly perceived as something different from those substances. For instance, when someone is told by another person to ‘bring two conjoined things’, he brings only those two things in which he perceives the Conjunction, and not any Substance at random. If the Conjunction were not something real and different, he might bring anything.

“All these arguments put inversely are to be used in proving the existence of Disjunction.”—(654-657)