इतरेतरप्रत्ययत्वादिति चेत्, न, उत्पत्तिमात्रनिमित्तत्वात् ॥ १९ ॥
itaretarapratyayatvāditi cet, na, utpattimātranimittatvāt || 19 ||
itaretara-pratyayatvāt—Because of successive causality; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; utpatta-mātra-nimittatvāt—because they are merely the efficient cause of the origin.
19. If it be said (that the formation of aggregates is possible) because of the successive causality (of Nescience etc. in the Bauddha series), (we say), no, because they are merely the efficient cause of the origin (of the immediately subsequent thing in the series, and not of the aggregation).
The series is as follows:
- Samskara (attachment, aversion, etc.),
- Vijnana (self-conscious-ness),
- name (earth, water, etc.),
- colour (the rudimentary ingredients of the body),
- abode of the six (i.e. the body and the senses),
- experience of pleasure etc.,
- merit and demerit,
In this series the immediately preceding item is the cause of the next, and so we can explain the mundane existence without any combining principle, as demanded in the previous Sutra. These constitute an uninterrupted chain of cause and effect, revolving unceasingly, and this cannot take place without aggregates. So aggregates are a reality.
The Sutra refutes it by saying that though in the series the preceding one is the cause of the subsequent one, there is nothing which can be the cause of the whole aggregate. That the atoms cannot combine of themselves even when they are assumed to be permanent and eternal, has been shown in refuting the Vaiseshikas. Much more is their combination by themselves impossible when they are momentary, as the Buddhists hold. Again, the individual soul, for whose enjoyment etc. this aggregate of body etc. exists, is also momentary and cannot therefore be an enjoyer; and whose again is Liberation, since the individual soul is momentary? So the series, though it stands in a relation of successive causality, cannot fee the cause of the aggregates, and there being no permanent enjoyer, there is neither any need of these aggregates. So the Bauddha doctrine of momentariness is untenable.
The Sutra can also be explained as follows: The Bauddhas say, if we hold that the atoms stand in a relation of causality, then no combining principle of the atoms would be necessary; in that case they would join of themselves. The latter part of the Sutra refutes this saying that the causality will explain only the production of the atoms of the pot of a subsequent moment by the atoms of the pot of a previous moment, but will not explain the combination of the atoms into an aggregate, which can take place only if there is an intelligent agent behind, for otherwise the combination of inert and momentary atoms cannot be explained.