365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.7.24:

啶呧え啶距ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い啷� 啶む�� 啶掂�嵿く啶距お啶距ぐ啷� 啶ㄠた啶�啶苦い啷嵿い啶� 啶灌�囙い啷佮ぐ啶苦し啷嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶嗋ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い啶距さ啶оた啶�啶距さ啶� 啶む�� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀�� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀�� 啶掂た啶︵�佮�� 啷� 啷ㄠオ 啷�

an膩艣rite tu vy膩p膩re nimitta峁� heturi峁�yate |
膩艣rit膩vadhibh膩va峁� tu lak峁�a峁噀 濒补办峁�a峁嘺峁� vidu岣� || 24 ||

24. The circumstance (nimitta) which works without depending upon any particular operation is called cause. That which assumes the form of a limit is called a sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺).

Commentary

The difference between 鈥�hetu鈥� (cause) and 蝉腻诲丑补苍补 (means) is now pointed out.

[Read verse 24 above]

[If all that helps in the accomplishment of the action is 办腻谤补办补 or 蝉腻诲丑补苍补, the cause (hetu) would also come under it and the third case-affix would be added to it by the 蝉奴迟谤补蝉: kart峁沰ara峁嘺yos 迟峁泃墨测腻 (P. 2.3.18) and P. 2.3.24 would become unnecessary. To meet this difficulty, the difference between means (蝉腻诲丑补苍补) and cause (hetu) is pointed out. By 鈥�hetu鈥� is meant anything which is looked upon as the cause of something irrespective of whether it performs a function or operation or not. It should take a case-ending which is not connected with a means (办腻谤补办补vibhakti). Such a case-ending is the sixth one (峁�a峁ａ弓丑墨), but the 蝉奴迟谤补 鈥榟别迟补耻鈥� (P. 2.3.23) prescribes the third case-ending instead. For example: adhyayanena vasati = He resides for study. Here study (adhyayana) is the cause (hetu) and residence (惫腻蝉补) is the effect (hetumat). 狈补颈测腻测颈办补蝉 say that only that which causes a substance or a quality can be called 鈥�hetu鈥� and that takes a case-ending not connected with a 鈥榤eans鈥� (碍腻谤补办补惫颈产丑补办迟颈). That which is the cause of an action expressed by an action word is 办腻谤补办补. Ex. vidyay膩 vasati, In the 蝉奴迟谤补 鈥榓nur lak峁�a峁噀鈥� (P. 1.4.84), the word 鈥�濒补办峁�a峁嘺鈥� can means 鈥�hetu,鈥� also. But there is a difference between the two. That cause in which there is also the quality of being the limit is 濒补办峁�a峁嘺. Others distinguish between the two by saying that cause (hetu) is that which produces an effect and 鈥�濒补办峁�a峁嘺鈥� is that which makes known something, or produces knowledge. That is not right because hetu also produces knowledge. When a person lives on his knowledge, the latter produces the knowledge as to how he lives (vidy膩der api v膩s膩dini艣caye vy膩p膩r膩t). In v峁沰峁�am anu vidyotate vidyut, v峁沰峁�a is a 濒补办峁�a峁嘺. Irrespective of the consideration whether it produces lightning or not, it is taken as the point of indication of lightning, Lightning flashes from the tree, after reaching the tree. But this is an example of P. 1.4.90. For P. 1.4.84, the example is: 艣膩kalyasya 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻m anu pr膩var峁�at = It rained after (anu) the recitation of the 厂补峁僪颈迟腻 by 艢腻办补濒测补. Here the 厂补峁僪颈迟腻 is not only the point of indication, but also the cause (hetu). It is called 濒补办峁�a峁嘺, because this hetu is also something which makes known (箩帽腻辫补办补). Similarly, smoke is the sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺) of fire because the sight of it leads to the inference of fire. One has seen the two together so many times that when one sees it alone, one infers the existence of the other. It is true that one does not see rain following 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 so often in real life. But if one has understood that a certain thing, has the power to produce a certain effect it can become its sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺) also. The rising of the clouds becomes the cause of our understanding that it will rain. One might argue that invariable concomittance is understood only after seeing two things together many times and not just once. One has not seen 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 followed by rain many times. It may be the cause but seeing them together just once does not enable us to decide. So it cannot be a sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺) of rain just as the rising of clouds can be. To this the answer is that sometimes we decide that there is a relation of cause and effect between two things even after seeing their sequence just once. The reason is that if a thing is not the cause, the effect will not follow it even once. A rice plant will not come out of barley seed even once. To think of something else as the cause would upset the whole scheme of casuality. Nor can it be an accident because what is not the cause cannot produce the effect even once. If we see the 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 produce rain definitely even once, we conclude that it is the cause. As the cause is also something which makes known, it has been called 鈥�濒补办峁�a峁嘺鈥� in P. 1.4.84. The M. Bh膩. says that 濒补办峁�a峁嘺 includes hetu. The rising of the clouds is not only the cause of rain, it is also an indication, a sign of it. Even that which is a limit (avadhi) becomes a sign only if it causes the knowledge of something. The fact is that a sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺) is of many kinds. Sometimes, a thing is a 濒补办峁�a峁嘺, because it is a limit (avadhi) as the tree in the case of lightning. Sometimes, it makes the cause to be known, as in the case of the smoke. Sometimes, it makes the effect to be known, as in the case of clouds. 厂补峁僪颈迟腻 is both the cause and the sign of rain. P. 1.4.90 makes 鈥�anu鈥� a 办补谤尘补辫谤补惫补肠补苍墨测补 (postposition) in the sense of 鈥榮ign鈥� which includes cause also. P. 1.4.84 has been given in order to exclude the third caseaffix expressive of cause (P. 2.3.23). 鈥楢nu鈥� has been given the name of 办补谤尘补辫谤补惫补肠补苍墨测补 twice, once in P. 1.4.84 to exclude the third case-affix and again in P. 1.4.90 to bring in the second case-affix.

The conclusion is: A do-er (办腻谤补办补) is that which helps in the accomplishment of an action by assuming different forms; that which helps in a general way is cause (hetu) and that which makes something else known is a sign (濒补办峁�a峁嘺).]

The author now points out the difference in the scope of 鈥�hetu鈥� and 鈥�蝉腻诲丑补苍补鈥� though they both produce effects.