Introduction : VIII Gaudopada's Contribution etc. XLIX While writing his bhāşya upon Isvarakışņa's Sāåkhyakārikās, Gaudapāda must have been struck by the discrepancy between the Saikhya teners मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिः and महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त. How can the प्रकृति which has no विकृति by nature, give rise to विकारs? In the course of his bhāşya on the Sānkhyakārikās, be quotes गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते ( from the Bhagavadgită ) twice, which points a way out of the difficulty, by declaring that the विकृति concerns only the गुणs. This would naturally lead to the acceptance of the theory of an unreal or illusory production, (2) सर्व सद्भावेनाजम्:--All is सत् and unoriginated. From the Upanișadic passages, Gaudapāda concluded that every thing that exists is Brahman and as Brahman could not ever change its nature, it must be regarded as being अजं साम्यं विशारदम्. (3) कार्यकारणभाव cannot be proved to exist. All complex and gross can be reduced to its simplest and subtlest form. The big Nyagrodha tree can be seen to have its rise from the subtle seed. So, this vast universe can be taken to have for its cause only one entity in the ultimate analysis. Even the Naiyāyikas admit that only number i really exists, other numbers 2, 3 etc. are produced byअपेक्षाबुद्धि with respect to number 1. This being so, the ultimate cause can be described in the Upanişadic language as एकमेवाद्वितीयम्. How did the Universe come to be produced from this एक and अद्वितीय cause which is variously described as Brahman, Atman etc.? The creation can not be described as real, because the relation of cause and effect can not be proved.. Thus- कारण implies that (1) कारण and कार्य different, (2) that असत् must have existed before कार्य, that is, कार्य must have been असत् before it is produced. Both these suppositions are wrong. If कार्य and कारण are different, anything can be produced out of anything (पट can be produced from मृत्तिका); if कार्य is असत् before, it would always remain असत्. A कार्य must have its nature similar to that of the कारण- Therefore (1) A सत् can not produce an असत् (2) An असत् can not produce a सत्, (3) सत् can not produce another सत्, for there would be विक्रिया in its nature during the process. (4) A non-existent thing can obviously not be pro- duced from a non-existent thing, 7
