तत्र केचित् आहुः ज्ञानाभावात् अज्ञानमूलः संसारः तदपगमे ज्ञानोदयात् शक्तिपात इति तेषां सम्यक् ज्ञानोदय एव विकृत इति वाच्यम् कर्मजन्यत्वे कर्मफलवत् भोगत्वप्रसङ्गे भोगिनि च शक्तिपाताभ्युपगतौ अतिप्रसङ्गः ईश्वरेच्छानिमित्तत्वे तु ज्ञानोदयस्य अन्योन्याश्रयता वैयर्थ्यं च ईश्वरे रागादिप्रसङ्गः विरुद्धयोः कर्मणोः समबलयोः अन्योन्यप्रतिबन्धे कर्मसाम्यं ततः शक्तिपात इति चेत् न क्रमिकत्वे विरोधायोगात् विरोधे ऽपि अन्यस्य अविरुद्धस्य कर्मणो भोगदानप्रसङ्गात् अविरुद्धकर्माप्रवृत्तौ तदैव देहपातप्रसङ्गात् जात्यायुष्प्रदं कर्म न प्रतिबध्यते भोगप्रदम् एव तु प्रतिबध्यते इति चेत् कुतः तत्कर्मसद्भावे यदि शक्तिः पतेत् तर्हि सा भोगप्रदात् किं बिभियात्
Transliteration (IAST)
tatra kecit āhuḥ jñānābhāvāt ajñānamūlaḥ saṃsāraḥ tadapagame jñānodayāt śaktipāta iti teṣāṃ samyak jñānodaya eva vikṛta iti vācyam karmajanyatve karmaphalavat bhogatvaprasaṅge bhogini ca śaktipātābhyupagatau atiprasaṅgaḥ īśvarecchānimittatve tu jñānodayasya anyonyāśrayatā vaiyarthyaṃ ca īśvare rāgādiprasaṅgaḥ viruddhayoḥ karmaṇoḥ samabalayoḥ anyonyapratibandhe karmasāmyaṃ tataḥ śaktipāta iti cet na kramikatve virodhāyogāt virodhe 'pi anyasya aviruddhasya karmaṇo bhogadānaprasaṅgāt aviruddhakarmāpravṛttau tadaiva dehapātaprasaṅgāt jātyāyuṣpradaṃ karma na pratibadhyate bhogapradam eva tu pratibadhyate iti cet kutaḥ tatkarmasadbhāve yadi śaktiḥ patet tarhi sā bhogapradāt kiṃ bibhiyāt
Here some say: transmigration is rooted in ignorance, arising from the absence of knowledge; upon its removal, śaktipāta is from the dawning of knowledge. To them it must be replied: it is precisely the dawning of knowledge that is here at issue. If it is produced by karma, then, like a fruit of karma, there follows the unwanted consequence that it is mere experience; and if śaktipāta is granted to an experiencer (already enjoying its fruit), there is over-extension. If, on the other hand, its cause is the Lord's will, then the dawning of knowledge involves mutual dependence and futility, and there is the unwanted imputation of passion and the like to the Lord. Suppose it be urged: of two opposed deeds of equal strength, when they mutually obstruct one another there is an equilibrium of karma, and from that, śaktipāta. Not so — because, if they occur in sequence, no opposition is possible; and even granting opposition, there would follow the granting of experience by some other, non-opposed deed; and if the non-opposed deed did not operate, death would follow at that very moment. Suppose it be urged: the deed that bestows birth-class and life-span is not obstructed, but only the deed that bestows experience is obstructed. Whence (this)? For if, while that karma still exists, the power were to descend, then why should it be afraid of the deed that bestows experience?