Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.13

6.p1.13

tadapekṣe ca kāryotpāde kathaṃ sravasmātsarvasaṃbhavaḥ ? dharmādīnāṃ tu jagadvaicitryādikāryabalena kalpanamaparihāryam | yadapi viṣadahanayoḥ sannidhāne satyapi mantropayogāttatkāryājananaṃ tadapi na śaktipratibandhanibandhanam | api tu sāmagryantarānupraveśahetukam | nanu mantroṇānupraviśatā kiṃ kṛtam ? na kiñcitkṛtam | sāmagryantaraṃ tu saṃpāditam | kāciddhi sāmagrī kasyacitkāryasya hetussvarūpaṃ tadavasthameveti cedabhakṣitamapi viṣaṃ kathaṃ na hanyāt ? tatrāsya saṃyogādyapīkṣaṇīyamasti | mantrābhāvo'pyapekṣyatāṃ divyakāle dharma iva mantro'pyanupraviṣṭaḥ kāryaṃ pratihanti | śaktipakṣe'pi vā mantrasya ko vyāpāraḥ | mantreṇa hi śakternāśo vā kriyate pratibandho vā | na tāvannāśaḥ, mantrāpagame punaḥ kāryadraśanāt | pratibandhastu svarūpasyaivāstu | 6.7. nanu svarūpasya kiṃ jātam ? śakterapi kiṃ jātam ? kāryaudāsīnyamiti cettaditaratrāpi samānaṃ svarūpamastyeva, dṛśyamānatvāt | śaktirapyasti punaḥ kāryadarśanānumeyatvāt | etena cakṣuḥ śrikṣayorapi rogādinā darśanaśravaṇaśakternāśapratibandhavikalpo vyākhyātaḥ | apica vyāpāro'pi atīndriyaśaktivadiṣyate bhavadbhiḥ | anayatarakalpanayaiva ca kāryopapatteḥ kimubhayakalpanāgauraveṇa ? śaktamāpyavyāpriyamāṇaṃ na kārakamiti cet śaktamiti kathaṃ jñāyeta ? kāryadarśanāditi cet vyāpārādeva kāryaṃ setsyati ; pādukādervyāpriyamāṇādapi na pādapacchedaṃ paśyāmi | pratyakṣastarhi nātīndriyaḥ, yataḥ kāryadarśanātpūrvamapi vyāpriyamāṇatvaṃ jānāti | kāryānumeyo hi vyapāraḥ kāryādvinā na jñāyetaiva |

and when the production of an effect depends on that, how could everything arise from everything? The positing of righteousness and the like, however, is unavoidable on the strength of effects such as the variety of the world. Moreover, even when poison and fire are present, the non-production of their effect due to the application of a mantra is also not caused by the obstruction of a capacity; rather, it is caused by the intervention of a different totality of causal factors. If it is asked: what has been done by the mantra that intervened? Nothing has been done; however, a different causal totality has been brought about. For a certain causal totality is the cause of a certain effect. If you say: the intrinsic form remains just as it was, then why would poison, even when not eaten, not kill? There, its contact and the like must also be expected. The absence of a mantra should also be expected; just like righteousness at the time of an ordeal, an intervening mantra also impedes the effect. Or, even on the view of capacity, what is the function of the mantra? For by the mantra, is there destruction of the capacity or its obstruction? First, it is not destruction, because the effect is seen again once the mantra is removed. Let the obstruction be of the intrinsic form itself! 6.7. If you ask: what happened to the intrinsic form? Then what happened to the capacity either? If you say: indifference toward the effect, that is equal in the other case too. The intrinsic form certainly exists, because it is seen; the capacity also exists, because it is inferred from the subsequent perception of the effect. By this, the dilemma regarding the destruction or obstruction of the capacity of seeing and hearing in the eye and ear through disease and the like is also explained. Furthermore, an operation is also accepted by you like a supersensible capacity. And since the effect is accounted for by positing either one alone, why incur the heaviness of positing both? If you say: even what is capable is not a causal factor when it is not operating, how could it be known to be capable? If you say: from the perception of the effect, then the effect will be established from the operation alone. I do not see the felling of a tree even when a sandal or the like is operating! Then [the operation] is perceptible, not supersensible, since one knows its state of operating even prior to the perception of the effect. For an operation that is inferable from an effect would never be known without the effect.