Shloka 38
Śrī–Indra–Bali Saṃvāda: The Departure and Fourfold Placement of Lakṣmī
तथा हि मुसलैह्हन्यु: शरीरं तत् पुनर्भवेत् । पृथग्ज्ञानं यदन्यच्च येनैतन्नोपपद्यते
tathā hi musalaiḥ hanyuḥ śarīraṃ tat punar bhavet | pṛthagjñānaṃ yad anyac ca yenaitan nopapadyate ||
भीष्म उवाच— एवं तर्के सति, यदि मुसलैर्हन्यते शरीरं, तत् पुनर्भवेत् इति प्रसज्येत। अथ चेत् ‘पृथग्ज्ञानम् अन्यत्’ इति ब्रूयात् येनैतन्नोपपद्यते, तदा पृच्छामः—युष्माभिः कल्पितस्य सजातीयविज्ञानप्रवाहस्य किमुपादानम्? यदि पूर्वक्षणवर्ती विज्ञानमुपादानं, तन्न; तद् विनष्टम्। अथ पूर्वक्षणविज्ञाननाश एवोत्तरक्षणसजातीयविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः कारणम् इति, तर्हि मुसलैर्हतस्य शरीरस्यापि नाशमात्रात् अन्यशरीरोत्पत्तिः स्यात्—अयुक्तम्।
भीष्म उवाच
Educational Q&A
Bhishma presses a causal-logic critique: if one claims a continuous ‘similar’ cognition arises without a persisting basis—either from a vanished prior cognition or from its mere destruction—then the theory yields absurd consequences. A coherent account of karmic continuity and rebirth requires an intelligible causal substrate or linkage, not mere momentary cessation.
In Shanti Parva’s philosophical discussion, Bhishma addresses an opponent’s claim that different persons’ cognitions are wholly distinct, so one person cannot experience another’s karmic results. Bhishma challenges the opponent to explain what underlies the supposed homogeneous stream of cognition, using the ‘body smashed by clubs re-arising’ analogy to show the flaw in making mere destruction a cause.