PANCHADASI--- part 68

madan_gautam's picture



Average: 1.7 (12 votes)

E text source- www.celextel. org 28.By such entertaining tales Vasistha described the power of Maya. This power is now being described more fully.
29. This power is different both from its effect and also from its substratum. The blister (which is the effect) and the charcoal (the substratum) are cognised objects; but the power to burn is inferred from the effect (viz., the blister).
30. The pot with its properties of thickness, roundness and so forth, is the product of power acting on the clay with its five properties of sound, touch, form, taste and smell, but the power is different here (from both the pot and the clay).
31. In the power (that creates the pot) there is neither form nor quality; as it is it remains (even when it has produced the effect, it undergoes no change). It is therefore said to be beyond thought and description.
32. Before the creation of the pot, the power (of giving rise to a pot) is implicit in the clay. With the help of the potter and other means the clay is transformed into a pot.
33. People of immature minds confound the properties of the effect with those of the cause, the clay and speak of it as the pot.
34. The clay, before the potter worked on it, cannot be called a pot. But it is proper to call it a pot when it acquires the properties such as thickness, hollowness and so forth.
35. The pot is not different from the clay, as it has no existence apart from the clay; it is neither identical with the clay, as in the unmoulded clay it is not perceived.
36. Therefore the pot (a product of power) can only be called indescribable, like the power which produces it. Hence the product of power when imperceptible is simply called power and when perceptible it is called a pot.
37. A magician’s power is not apparent earlier; it is only when he brings it into operation that it appears as an army of Gandharvas and the like.
38. Thus being illusive, in the scriptures, the products of power are called unreal whereas reality is predicated only of the entity in which the power inheres, e.g., of the clay in which the pot inheres.
39. A pot taken as a product of power is only a name composed of words; it is not a real entity. Only the clay that possesses sound, touch, form, taste and smell, is a real entity.
40. Of the three entities, the manifest (i.e., product of power), the unmanifest (i.e., the power itself), and the substratum in which they both inhere, the first two exist by turns (thus cancelling one another); but the third persists in both (and at all times).
41. A product of power though visible has no real substance, as it is subject to creation and destruction. When it appears, it is given a name by men.
42. When the product perishes, its name continues to be used by men. Since it is indicated only by name, it is said to be of nominal existence.
43. This form of the product (of power, like the pot) is not real like clay, because it is unsubstantial, destructible and a mere name based upon words.
44. The substance clay is said to be the real entity because by nature it is unchanged, substantial and indestructible at all times, before the production of the pot, after its destruction and even while it is manifest.
45. (Doubt): If the thing indicated by the three terms i.e., the manifest, the pot and the modified form is unreal, why is it not destroyed when the knowledge of its substratum (clay) dawns ?
46. (Reply): With the knowledge of the substratum the pot is destroyed, for your idea of the reality of the pot is removed. This is what is meant by the destruction of the pot through knowledge; it does not mean that the pot would cease to appear.
47. Though a man appears head downwards when reflected in water, he is not so. No one would ever mistake it for the real person standing on the bank.
48. According to the doctrine of the non-dualists, such knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of the unreality of the superimposed thing, the world), gives liberation, the supreme goal of life. As the substratum clay is not rejected, the appearance of a pot in it is accepted.
49. In an actual modification of the substratum, when milk is turned into curd (for example), the former form, milk, disappears. But in the modification of clay into a pot or gold into an ear-ring, the substratum does not change.
50. (Doubt): When a pot is broken into pieces, they do not resemble the original clay, for broken pieces only are seen. (Reply): It is not so, for when reduced to powder they do. The persistence of gold in the ear-ring is very clear.
51. When milk is turned into curd, actual change of substance takes place. Milk ceases to exist as such and cannot be recovered from the curd. By this, the case of a clay-pot or a gold-ring (as examples of Vivarta) does not suffer.
52. According to the Arambhavadins, clay should have two sets of properties, viz., those of the cause and those of the effect, for they hold, the properties of the effects are different from those of the cause, which is, however, not the case.
53. The sage Aruni mentions the three examples of clay, gold and iron (only to show that all effects are only phenomenal). Therefore one should fix in mind the unreality of all effects.
54. Aruni holds that a knowledge of the cause implies a knowledge of all its effects. But how would a knowledge of the unreal effects arise from a knowledge of their real cause ?
55. According to the common view, an effect, such as a pot, is a modification of its material cause, clay; the clay portion of the pot is the real substance. Therefore when the cause of the pot is known, the real portion of substance of the pot is also known.
56. The unreal portion of the effect need not be known, because its knowledge serves no useful purpose. A knowledge of the real substance is necessary for men, whereas a knowledge of the unreal portion is useless.