Nyāya Sūtras 103

103.2

athāpi ---

103.3

nātītānāgatayor itaretarāpekṣā siddhiḥ ||

The establishment of the past and the future is not through mutual dependence.

103.4

yady atītānāgatāv itaretarāpekṣau sidhyetāṃ pratipadyemahi vartamānavilopam/ nātītāpekṣānāgatasiddhiḥ nāpy anāgatāpekṣātītasiddhiḥ/ kayā yuktyā? kena kalpenātītaḥ katham atītāpekṣānāgatasiddhiḥ, kena ca kalpenānāgata iti naitac chakyaṃ nirvaktum avyākaraṇīyam etad vartamānalopa iti/ yac ca manyeta hrasvadīrghayoḥ sthalanimnayoś chāyātapayoś ca yathetaretarāpekṣayā siddhir evam atītānāgatayor iti, tan nopapadyate viśeṣahetvabhāvāt/ dṛṣṭāntavat pratidṛṣṭānto 'pi prasajyate, yathā rūpasparśau gandharasau netaretarāpekṣau siddhyataḥ evam atītānāgatāv iti netaretarāpekṣā kasyacit siddhir iti/

If the past and the future were established through mutual dependence, we might admit the elimination of the present. But the establishment of the future does not depend on the past, nor does the establishment of the past depend on the future. By what reasoning? In what manner is the past [established]? How could the establishment of the future depend on the past, and in what manner is the future [established]? This cannot be stated; it is impossible to explain if the present is eliminated. And as for what might be thought—that just as short and long, high and low, shadow and sunlight are established through mutual dependence, so too are the past and future—that is untenable, because there is no specific reason. A counter-example also presents itself against the example: just as color and touch, or smell and taste, are not established through mutual dependence, so too the past and future; thus nothing is established through mutual dependence.

103.5

yasmād ekābhāve ṇyatarābhāvād ubhayābhāvaḥ --- yady ekasyānyatarāpekṣā siddhir anyatarasyedānīṃ kim apekṣā? yady anyatarasyaikāpekṣā siddhir ekasyedānīṃ kim apekṣā? evam ekasyābhāve anyataran na sidhyatīty ubhayābhāvaḥ prasajyate//41//

Because in the absence of one, due to the absence of the other, there would be the absence of both. If the establishment of one depends on the other, on what then does the other depend? If the establishment of the other depends on the one, on what then does the one depend? Thus, in the absence of one, the other is not established, and it follows that both do not exist. //41