पृष्ठम्:गौडपादकारिका.pdf/173

विकिस्रोतः तः
एतत् पृष्ठम् परिष्कृतम् अस्ति

114 Notes on Gandapada-Karika " > If it is argued that we might accept the proposition that only an उत्पन्न thing produces a first, then there would be the fault of endless- ness (न व्यवस्था = अनवस्था ) thus:- B is produced by A ( which must itself be उत्पन्न according to the above supposition ), A in turn owes its origination to, say, A', A' to A2, A2 to A3 and so on ad infi- nitum. If the series comes to an end at some point, all the preced- ing links break down and the main proposition falls to the ground. (14) The objector says:-- We can produce a दृष्टांत which slows that an can originate, and which also does not contain the अनवस्थादोष. This संसार is admitted by all to be अनादि, so also are धर्माधर्म and देहादिसंघात. Now धनाधर्म (कारण) produces the फल or कार्य (देहादिसंघात) and देहादिसंघात (कारण), (धर्माधर्म ) Here the कारण and कार्य are interdependent and अनादि. So this दृष्टांत should meet all your objections. The Siddhāntin's answer is:--- It is a contradiction in terms to speak of अनादित्व and हेतुफलभाववत्त्व. How can an अनादि thing have any कारण ? How can an अनादि thing have any फल which is necessarily associated with change in the कारण? (न हि नित्यस्य कूटस्थस्यात्मनो हेतु- फलात्मता संभवति | K. bhasya). ( 15 ) Again, your argument that इल or कार्य produces the कारण is simply astounding ! Can any one in his senses argue that a son begets the father? (16) Again, it is no use saying that कारण and कार्य mutually produce each other. You must be able to state the order in which the things are produced. It cannot be argued that कारण and कार्य may both be produced simultaneously, for, in that case, the left and the right horns of a cow, that spring up simultaneously could be regarded as having कारणकार्यभाव between them! Sankara uses the विषाण simile in his Vedantasutrabhāsya on II. 2-17, अथापृथक्वालमयुतसिद्धत्व. मुच्येत सव्यदक्षिणयोरपि गोविषाणयोरयुतसिद्धत्वं प्रसज्येत । ( (17) Further, the कारण which depends for its production upon its फल ( which is जन्य ), cannot possibly be proved to exist ! And a non-existent कारण, it is needless to add, like शशविषाण, can