10-26-2022, 03:29 PM
There is no origination (utpāda) without destruction (vyaya); similarly, there is no destruction (vyaya) without origination (utpāda). Origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya) do not take place without the object (artha) that has permanence
(dhrauvya) of existence.
Explanatory Note:
Origination (utpāda) does not take place without destruction (vyaya), destruction (vyaya) does not take place without origination (utpāda), origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya), together, do not take place without permanence (dhrauvya), and permanence (dhrauvya) does not take place without origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya), together. Therefore, origination (utpāda) connotes destruction (vyaya), destruction (vyaya) connotes origination (utpāda), and the combination of origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya) connotes permanence (dhrauvya). To illustrate with an example,
origination (utpāda) of the pot is destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); origination (utpāda) of the new mode (paryāya) must accompany the destruction (vyaya) of the prior mode (paryāya).
Origination (utpāda) of the pot and destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay) is permanence (dhrauvya) of clay; the existence of a substance (dravya) must accompany its mode (paryāya). Permanence (dhrauvya) of clay is the origination (utpāda) of the pot and the destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); modes (paryāya) cannot exist without permanence (dhrauvya) of the substance (dravya). All three – origination (utpāda), destruction (vyaya) and permanence (dhrauvya) – are essential marks (laksana) of the substance (dravya). Considering origination (utpāda) only as the mark of the substance (dravya) suffers from two anomalies.
1) Origination (utpāda) of the pot is on destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); without destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay), it is not possible for the pot to come into existence.
2) If origination (utpāda) could take place without permanence (dhrauvya) of the substance (dravya) then there should be origination (utpāda) of non-existent (asat) objects;
it would mean origination (utpāda) of the ‘sky-flowers’. Considering destruction (vyaya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), too, suffers from two anomalies.
1) Destruction (vyaya) itself, without origination (utpāda), will become non-existent, as the cause of destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay) is origination (utpāda) of the pot.
2) It would entail destruction (vyaya) of the existence (sat) and on destruction (vyaya) of the existence (sat) even knowledge etc. will cease to exist. Considering permanence (dhrauvya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), again, suffers from two anomalies.
1) It would mean non-existence of the mode (paryāya).
2) Momentariness (anityatva) will have no existence, making everything absolutely permanent (nitya). If mode (paryāya) is nonexistent, the substance (dravya), too, cannot exist; the clay cannot exist without its modes (paryāya) such as the pot and the lump (of clay). Without acceptance of momentariness (anityatva) even the thoughts in the mind would become absolutely permanent (nitya). It is clear, therefore, that all three – origination (utpāda) of the new mode (paryāya), destruction (vyaya) of the prior mode (paryāya) and permanence (dhrauvya) of the basic object – together, constitute the marks (lakÈaõa) of the substance (dravya).
(dhrauvya) of existence.
Explanatory Note:
Origination (utpāda) does not take place without destruction (vyaya), destruction (vyaya) does not take place without origination (utpāda), origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya), together, do not take place without permanence (dhrauvya), and permanence (dhrauvya) does not take place without origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya), together. Therefore, origination (utpāda) connotes destruction (vyaya), destruction (vyaya) connotes origination (utpāda), and the combination of origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya) connotes permanence (dhrauvya). To illustrate with an example,
origination (utpāda) of the pot is destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); origination (utpāda) of the new mode (paryāya) must accompany the destruction (vyaya) of the prior mode (paryāya).
Origination (utpāda) of the pot and destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay) is permanence (dhrauvya) of clay; the existence of a substance (dravya) must accompany its mode (paryāya). Permanence (dhrauvya) of clay is the origination (utpāda) of the pot and the destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); modes (paryāya) cannot exist without permanence (dhrauvya) of the substance (dravya). All three – origination (utpāda), destruction (vyaya) and permanence (dhrauvya) – are essential marks (laksana) of the substance (dravya). Considering origination (utpāda) only as the mark of the substance (dravya) suffers from two anomalies.
1) Origination (utpāda) of the pot is on destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay); without destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay), it is not possible for the pot to come into existence.
2) If origination (utpāda) could take place without permanence (dhrauvya) of the substance (dravya) then there should be origination (utpāda) of non-existent (asat) objects;
it would mean origination (utpāda) of the ‘sky-flowers’. Considering destruction (vyaya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), too, suffers from two anomalies.
1) Destruction (vyaya) itself, without origination (utpāda), will become non-existent, as the cause of destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay) is origination (utpāda) of the pot.
2) It would entail destruction (vyaya) of the existence (sat) and on destruction (vyaya) of the existence (sat) even knowledge etc. will cease to exist. Considering permanence (dhrauvya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), again, suffers from two anomalies.
1) It would mean non-existence of the mode (paryāya).
2) Momentariness (anityatva) will have no existence, making everything absolutely permanent (nitya). If mode (paryāya) is nonexistent, the substance (dravya), too, cannot exist; the clay cannot exist without its modes (paryāya) such as the pot and the lump (of clay). Without acceptance of momentariness (anityatva) even the thoughts in the mind would become absolutely permanent (nitya). It is clear, therefore, that all three – origination (utpāda) of the new mode (paryāya), destruction (vyaya) of the prior mode (paryāya) and permanence (dhrauvya) of the basic object – together, constitute the marks (lakÈaõa) of the substance (dravya).