So why can’t potential exist? To explain:
Potential for what has arisen cannot be,
Nor can it be for what in fact is unproduced.
Is this assumed potential something connected with a present consciousness, or with a past or future consciousness? In the case of a produced present consciousness, there cannot be potential. When we talk of the potential’s we are using the sixth case,1
and to say that the essentially resultant consciousness is itself the very cause is illogical. If it were, we would have a causeless result, and once the sprout is produced the seed would also not be destroyed. Therefore it is impossible for a produced consciousness to have potential.
When we say from the potential we are using the fifth case,2
and as has already been explained, since it is existent it would be illogical for a produced consciousness to then originate from a potential. Hence there cannot be potential for that which is already a product.
Nor can that consciousness, when by nature unproduced, have potential. Because
With no distinction one cannot distinguish it,
Or else the barren woman’s son would be a fact. (6.57)
Without something distinct one cannot make distinctions. How so? When referring to consciousness potential, consciousness distinguishes the potential, and potential is the basis distinguished. But a thing yet to be produced cannot be used to indicate negation or affirmation in relation to something, saying it is a consciousness such-and-such or non-consciousness such-and-such. That being the case, what sort of distinction would one then actually be making by saying it is the potential for that? And when it can’t be distinguished as such, to say that will come from it won’t serve to identify it, and one isn’t actually indicating anything at all.
If one still insists that something unproduced can have potential, one would have to agree that a barren woman can have a son. Therefore, potential for something unproduced cannot exist.
Title
Chapter 1: Pramuditā
