ijnananam
svacittad@r@s@tyamatranavatare@na mahamate valaprthagjana@h
bhavabhavasvabhavaparamarthad@r@s@tidvayvadino bhavanti_.]

[Footnote 3: Compare Nagarjuna's karika, _B.T.S._ p. 196, _Akas'am
s'as'as'@r@nganca bandhyaya@h putra eva ca asantas'cabhivyajyante
tathabhavena kalpana_, with Gau@dapada's karika, III. 28, _Asato
mayaya janma tatvato naiva jayate bandhyaputro na tattvena mayaya
vapi jayate_.]

427

describes this final state [Footnote ref l]. All the dharmas
(appearances) are without death or decay [Footnote: ref 2].
Gau@dapada then follows a dialectical form of argument which
reminds us of Nagarjuna. Gau@dapada continues thus: Those who
regard kara@na (cause) as the karyya (effect in a potential form)
cannot consider the cause as truly unproduced (_aja_), for it
suffers production; how can it be called eternal and yet changing?
If it is said that things come into being from that which has no
production, there is no example with which such a case may be
illustrated. Nor can we consider that anything is born from that
which has itself suffered production. How again can one come to a
right conclusion about the _regressus ad infinitum_ of cause and
effect (_hetu_ and _phala_)? Without reference to the effect there
is no cause, and without reference to cause there is no effect.
Nothing is born either by itself or through others; call it either
being, non-being, or being-non-being, nothing suffers any birth,
neither the cause nor the effect is produced out of its own nature
(_svabhavatah_), and thus that which has no beginning anywhere cannot
be said to have a production. All experience (_prajnapti_) is
dependent on reasons, for otherwise both would vanish, and there
would be none of the afflictions (_sa@mkles'a_) that we suffer. When
we look at all things in a connected manner they seem to be
dependent, but when we look at them from the point of view of
reality or truth the reasons cease to be reasons. The mind (_citta_)
does not come in touch with objects and thereby manifest
them, for since things do not exist they are not different from
their manifestations in knowledge. It is not in any particular
case that the mind produces the manifestations of objects while
they do not exist so that it could be said to be an error, for in
present, past, and future the mind never comes in touch with
objects which only appear by reason of their diverse manifestations.
Therefore neither the mind nor the objects seen b