Nyayasutra 338

NyS 3.2.68: If [it is argued that] that [difference and cessation] is produced by the unseen (non-seeing), [we reply:] there would be the undesirable consequence of that again in liberation.

'Unseen' (adṛṣṭa) is said to mean non-seeing (adarśana); the origination of the body from the elements is caused by non-seeing. Never, when the body has not arisen, can the seer, being without a locus, see the visible. And this visible object for him is twofold: the sense object and the diversity of the unmanifest and the self; the creation of the body is for that purpose. When that has ended, the elements, having fulfilled their purpose, do not produce a body, and thus separation from the body is intelligible—if you think this, [we reply:] 'there would be the undesirable consequence of that again in liberation'—it would follow that a body would originate again. For between the non-origination of seeing when a body has not arisen, which is considered non-seeing, and the non-origination of seeing upon the cessation of the body in liberation, which exists as non-seeing—between these two instances of non-seeing there is no difference whatsoever; therefore, since non-seeing has not ceased, it would follow that a body would originate again in liberation.

If [it is said that] the distinction is being fulfilled in purpose—[the opponent objects:] ‘The distinction is this: having fulfilled their purpose, the elements do not initiate another body once seeing is concluded.’ If this is said: No, because initiation is observed both when there is execution and when there is non-execution. Initiation of a body is repeatedly observed for elements that have fulfilled their purpose because of the execution of the apprehension of objects; and initiation of a body is repeatedly observed to be purposeless because of the non-execution of the seeing of the distinction between primordial matter and the self. Therefore, if the creation of the elements were not caused by karma, the arising of the body would not reasonably be for the purpose of seeing; but in a creation caused by karma, the arising of the body is reasonably for the purpose of seeing. ‘Seeing’ means the experience of the maturation of karma.

‘If [it is said that] this is caused by the unseen (adṛṣṭa)?’ Certain people hold the view that what is called ‘unseen’ is a particular quality of atoms which is the cause of motion; impelled by it, the atoms combine and produce the body. Then the mind enters it, impelled by its own quality, the unseen; and when the body has a mind, apprehension occurs for the seer.
On this view indeed, because the quality is indestructible, ‘there would still be the consequence of that at liberation.’ At liberation, the arising of the body [would still occur], because the unseen, which is a quality of the atoms, cannot be destroyed. ||68