पृथक् चेद् बुद्धिरन्योऽर्थः सैव चेत्काऽन्यता तयोः । कल्पनायां प्रमाणं चेत् पौरुषं किं न कल्प्यते ॥ १२ ॥
pṛthak cēd buddhiranyō’rthaḥ saiva cētkā’nyatā tayōḥ | kalpanāyāṁ pramāṇaṁ cēt pauruṣaṁ kiṁ na kalpyatē || 12 ||
Translation
If it is apart from understanding, it is another thing; if it is that very understanding, what is the difference between them? And if there is warrant for supposing it, why not suppose effort instead?
Word by word
- pṛthak
- apart
- cēd
- (cet) if
- buddhir
- (buddhiḥ) understanding
- anyō
- (anyaḥ) another
- arthaḥ
- thing
- sā
- that
- ēva
- very
- cēt
- if
- kā
- what
- anyatā
- the difference
- tayōḥ
- between them
- kalpanāyāṁ
- for supposing it
- pramāṇaṁ
- warrant
- pauruṣaṁ
- effort
- kiṁ
- why
- na
- not
- kalpyatē
- suppose
Meaning
Now the question of proof, in a neat dilemma. The commentary sets it out. Whatever proves fate, it would have to be known by understanding (buddhi), the understanding that acts and knows. Either fate is the same as that, and it is only another name for the doer; or it is something quite other, and has no use in the action. Then the commonest argument: students in a class study alike, and some learn and some do not; so there must be a fate. Vasiṣṭha answers: the unequal results do need explaining, but why reach for an unknown when the known will serve? Each one's past effort accounts for it. Another commentary agrees: a sharper mind is itself the fruit of past effort. It is a good rule of thought generally. Before inventing a new cause, look for an ordinary one.