Sources:
द्वयोरप्यावयोः सिद्धे भिन्नाधारे क्रियाफले। निर्व्यापारश्च तत्रात्मेत्यत्र वादो वृथा ननु॥
The one who provides the cause is connected with the con-
sequence? Such an occurrence is never seen. It is taught that there is an agent and an experiencer of the consequence in
terms of a unity of the continuum of consciousnesses.
བྱ་བ་འབྲས་གཞི་ཐ་དད་དང་། །
དེར་བདག་བྱེད་པ་མེད་པར་ཡང་། ། འུ་བུ་གཉིས་ཀ་ལ་གྲུབ་པས། །
འདིར་བརྩད་དོན་མེད་མ་ཡིན་ནམ། །The bases of the act and fruit are not the same,
In both a self is without scope for action. This is valid both for you and us;
What point is there, therefore, in our debate?
"Since it is established for both of us
That action and result have different bases And that a self does not have any function in this,
Is your objection here not quite pointless?" [71]
– L’acte et son effet n’ayant pas la même base,
Le moi est inopérant : Sur cela nous sommes d’accord ;
Il serait vain d’argumenter davantage.
La acción y el resultado no tienen las mismas bases.
En ambos el “yo” no actúa. En esto los dos estamos de acuerdo,
¿qué sentido tiene, pues, este debate?[p.165]La Práctica del BodisatvaHervás, María Jesús (Padmakara Translation Group, Spain), trans. La Práctica del Bodisatva: Una Traducción del Bodicharyavatara de Shantideva. Translated from the 2006 English translation of Helena Blankleder and Wulstan Fletcher. Novelda, Alicante, Spain: Ediciones Dharma, 2008.
The bases of action and result are different,
And although the creator self does not exist, Since this is the same for both of us,
Isn’t this debate here pointless?
In the separation of action and the base of its result,
There, no self actor exists. This is ascertained by both of us.
Isn’t this argument baseless?
བྱ་བ་འབྲས་བཞི་ཐ་དད་དང་། །
དེ་བདག་བྱེད་པ་མེད་པར་ཡང་། ། ཡུ་བུ་གཉི་ག་ལ་གྲུབ་པས། །
འདིར་བརྩད་དོན་མེད་མ་ཡིན་ནམ། །
