365bet娱乐

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

啶膏�傕く啷佮�曕�嵿い啶� 啶︵�傕ぐ啶︵�囙ざ啶膏�嵿ぅ啶� 啶ㄠ�堗ぐ啶ㄠ�嵿い啶班�嵿く啶掂�嵿く啶掂じ啷嵿ぅ啶苦い啶�啷� 啷�
啶忇�曕ぞ啶｀�嵿さ啶�啶苦ぎ啷佮�栢�� 啶班�傕お啶� 啶�啶︵ぃ啷嬥ぐ啷嵿ぎ啶о�嵿く啶掂ぐ啷嵿い啷嵿い啶苦え啶� 啷� 啷оク啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧ぃ啷嵿さ啶ㄠ�嵿い啶班ぞ啶�啶苦ぎ啷佮�栢�嵿く啷囙え 啶むう啷囙さ 啶�啶︵�� 啶曕げ啷嵿お啷嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶�啷嵿ぐ啶氞く啷� 啶�啷傕ぇ啶班ぞ啶︵��啶ㄠぞ啶�啷囙さ啶� 啶膏い啶� 啶� 啶�啷佮�溹�嵿く啶む�� 啷� 啷оク啷�啷� 啷�
啶呧ぃ啷嵿さ啶ㄠ�嵿い啶班ぞ啶�啶苦ぎ啷佮�栢�嵿く啷囙え 啶班�傕お啶� 啶氞�囙う啶ㄠ�嵿く啶︵た啶粪�嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶曕ぅ啶� 啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶�啶掂�囙う啷囙�曕�� 啶�啶班ぎ啶距ぃ啷佮じ啷嵿い啶ムぞ啶膏い啶� 啷� 啷оク啷�啷� 啷�

sa峁儁ukta峁� d奴rade艣astha峁� nairantaryavyavasthitam |
ek膩峁噕abhimukha峁� r奴pa峁� yada峁噊rmadhyavarttina岣� || 1990 ||
a峁噕antar膩bhimukhyena tadeva yadi kalpyate |
pracayo bh奴dhar膩d墨n膩meva峁� sati na yujyate || 1991 ||
a峁噕antar膩bhimukhyena r奴pa峁� cedanyadi峁�yate |
katha峁� n膩ma bhavedeka岣� param膩峁噓stath膩sati || 1992 ||

In every object, if the form of the atom at the centre,鈥攚hich is in conjunction with, or distinct from, or lying contiguously with, the front part of another atom,鈥攊s regarded as also facing a third atom,鈥攖hen, in that case, there would be no aggregation in the form of the hill and other things.鈥擨f, on the other hand, the idea is that what is in front of the other atom is another form: of the first atom,鈥攖hen, in that case, how could such an atom be one?鈥�(1990-1992)

 

Kamala艣墨la鈥檚 commentary (tattvasa峁僩rahapa帽jik膩):

The argument may be formulated as follows:鈥擳hat which is devoid of the form of one or many is 帽t for being regarded as non-existent,鈥攁s the 鈥榮ky-lotus鈥�;鈥攖he Atoms postulated by the other party are devoid of the form of one or many;鈥攈ence this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.

It cannot be said that the Reason here adduced is 鈥榠nadmissible鈥�; because that the Atom is one cannot be admitted; because in the Hill and other things which are aggregates of Atoms, there is diversity of facings towards various directions.

This 鈥榙iversity of facings in various directions鈥� must be present in the Atoms also, otherwise it could not be possible in the aggregates of Atoms, like the Hill and other things;鈥攖his is what is set forth in the words鈥斺��If the assumption is, etc. etc.

Some people hold that in every Object, the Atoms are in close conjunction with one another;鈥攐thers hold that they remain there separate from each other, always, without touching one another;鈥攐thers again hold that there is no intervening space between atoms, hence they are said to be in contact.鈥擴nder all these three views, when the Atom in the middle is surrounded by many other Atoms, if there were no diversity in its facings towards various directions, then,鈥攁s in the case of the Mind and Mental entities,鈥攏o aggregation would be possible, as Atoms have no parts. For instance, that form in which the central Atom would be facing one Atom,鈥攊f in that same form, it also faced other Atoms,鈥攖hen, it would imply that all the surrounding Atoms occupy the same point in space, and no aggregation of them would be possible.

The argument may be formulated as follows:鈥擶hatever faces the Atom of one form must occupy the same point in space,鈥攁s for example, the Atom lying in space behind the said Atom,鈥攐r the House that stands facing another House;鈥攁nd all the Atoms surrounding the central Atom stand facing that central Atom which has only one form;鈥攈ence this is a Reason based on the nature of things. As a consequence of this, there could be no aggregation (of Atoms).

If, on the other hand, the central Atom faces the other Atom in another form, then as the diverse facings would be there, the Atom could not be one,鈥攂eing just like the Jar and other things.

Bhadanta-艢耻产丑补驳耻辫迟补 has offered the following explanation:鈥斺�淚n the case of an entity, as differentiated from the 鈥榥on-existent鈥� and the 鈥榥on-entity鈥�, several Universals are assumed, but not in reality; similarly in the case in question, as Atoms exist in several things, they are assumed to be many, but not in reality. Because there is no distinct Category in the shape of Space (or Direction) as posited by 碍补峁嚹乨补 and others; because if this Space were one only, then the diverse notions of 鈥楨ast鈥�, 鈥榃est鈥� and the rest, would not be possible. It is only the Atoms that lie there one after the other which come to be spoken of as 鈥楽pace鈥� or 鈥楧irection鈥�; hence when it is said 鈥榖ecause there is diversity of facings in Space鈥�, all that is meant is that one Atom is surrounded of several Atoms,鈥攁nd not that the Atom has parts鈥�.

This is not right. Because, if the Atom has no parts, it is like the Mind; and hence there cannot be any such diversity as its 鈥榰pper鈥� or 鈥榣ower鈥� parts; and in that case there could be no 鈥榮urrounding鈥� of the one by the many; just as there is none in the case of the Mind and Mind-products. Thus the 鈥榮urrounding鈥� being, in reality, non-existent,鈥攈ow could there be any existence (of the Atom) in the middl茅 of surrounding Atoms;鈥攂y virtue of which diversity due to facings could foe assumed?

If, even in the absence of 鈥榰pper鈥� and 鈥榣ower鈥� parts, there were 鈥榮urroundings鈥� by other Atoms,鈥攖hen there could be such surrounding of Mind and Mental effects also; and in that case, like the Atoms, these latter also would subsist in Space. If not, then the Atoms also could not subsist in Space. Hence it follows that there could be no aggregation of Atoms; this is absolutely certain.

The following might be urged鈥斺�淚n the case of the Present 鈥楳ind-moment鈥� there is immediate sequence, in time, to the Past and Future 鈥楳ind-moments鈥�,鈥攁nd yet the Present Moment has no parts like the various divisions of Time鈥擲econds, Minutes and so forth;鈥攊n the same mariner, in the case of Atoms, even though there is surrounding of one Atom by many Atoms, there would be no parts in the Atom, due to the facings in Space,鈥�

This is not right.- As a matter of fact, there is no real immediate sequence between the Present Moment and the Past and Future Moments; because at that moment, these latter are non-existent; and there can be no real sequence to what is non-existent. All that is possible is that, because there can be no relation of Cause and Effect between things existing at the same moment, therefore through that relation the existence of the Past and Future Momenta is implied and assumed;鈥攋ust as there is assumption of Prior and Posterior Non-existence. In the case of Atoms however, there cannot be any such assumption of sequence in space; as in that case, no aggregation would be possible.

Then again, it cannot be right to regard things as without cause; for if they were so, they would be always there.

Even the person who admits the 鈥榠llusory鈥� character of things, must regard all things as with cause. And when they are with cause, it is not right that the Cause and Effect should exist at the same moment; nor can the Cause be non-existent before the Effect, as, in that case, it could not have the requisite potency; after the appearance of the Effect, there would be no use for the Cause. Hence it must be admitted that all Causes exist before the Effect. This idea has been thus expressed---⁴ Previous to the Effect if the Cause is non-existent, it can have no potency; after the Effect, there is no use for it; hence all causes must have existence prior to the Effect; hence no Object can exist along with its cognition

Thus, even when all things are without parts, the existence of some sort of sequence in time stands to reason; but how could there be any sequence in space, if there were no parts? This is the point that is urged.

If, even in the absence of parts, there were sequence in space, then there could be such sequence in the case of Mind and Mental effects also; as there would be no difference between the two cases, as already pointed out above.

鈥淭丑别谤别 is difference due to corporeality鈥�.

Not so; as in the absence of parts, there cannot be corporeality also. So this explanation means nothing more than the assertion of the presence of parts. There is no other point of difference. So there is nothing in this.

Thus then, in the case of all things, it is only sequence in time that has some basis in reason; anything more than that,鈥攊n the shape of sequence in space,鈥攊s not possible except when there are parts. Hence it is a perfectly correct statement that鈥攚here there is diversity of facings in Space, the thing cannot be one鈥�.鈥擶e desist from further labouring of this point.鈥�(1990-1992)

On this subject, some people argue as follows:鈥斺�淯nder the circumstances, Atoms may be regarded as being minuter points of Space itself; and if parts of these would have to be assumed, those parts again would consist in the still minuter points of Space; even though this may involve an infinite regress. But in no ease does it seem to be justifiable to regard Atoms as mere ideal (subjective) entities, for fear of having to regard them as with parts.鈥擡ven if they are mere subjective entities, it is necessary to postulate a cause for that Idea; and. that which is the cause of that Idea would itself be the Atom.鈥擨f what you are seeking to prove is that Atoms do not exist at ah,鈥攅ven so, the Reason adduced鈥�-鈥楤ecause there is diversity of facings鈥欌�攊s 鈥榠nadmissible鈥�, Because mere non-entities鈥攍ike the 鈥楬orns of the Ass鈥欌�攄o not have the diverse facings towards the East and other directions.鈥擭or can your argument be treated as a Redactio ad Absurdum; because 鈥榯he diversity of facings鈥� is not admitted by us The answer to this is given in the following鈥擺see verses 1993-1997 next]