Section 1: Sishtaparigrahadhikaranam: Topic 4 (Sutra 12)
Kanada and Gautama refuted.
Etena sishtaparigraha api vyakhyatah II.1.12 (146)
By this (i.e. by the arguments against the Sankhyas) (those other theories) not accepted by the wise or competent persons are explained or refuted.
Etena: by this (by the above reasoning, by what has been said against Sankhya); Sishtaparigrahah: not accepted by the wise or competent persons;Api: also; Vyakhyatah: are explained or refuted.
Other views or theories not accepted by the Vedas are refuted.
Sishtah - the remaining systems like those of the "Atomists" trained, i.e., trained in the Vedas.
Sishtaparigrahah - all other views or systems of thought not accepted by those who are well instructed in the Vedas; all the different views or systems contrary to the Vedas.
Aparigrahah means those systems which do not acknowledge or accept (Parigraha) the Vedas as authority on these matters, but which rely on reason alone and which are not countenanced by the Veda.
All the different views or systems of thought which are contrary to the Vedas and which are not accepted by the disciplined and the wise are refuted by what is said against Sankhya, i.e., by the same arguments.
Like the theory of those who say that Pradhana or Prakriti is the cause of the world, the theories of those who postulate atoms as the cause are refuted by those who know the truths of scripture, like Manu or Vyasa, trained in the correct way of knowing them. The doctrine of the Pradhana deserves to be refuted first as it stands near to the Vedic system, and is supported by somewhat strong and weighty arguments. Further, it has to a certain extent been adopted by some authorities who follow the Veda. If the most dangerous enemy is conquered, the minor enemies are already conquered. Even so, if the Sankhya doctrine is refuted, all other systems are already refuted also.
The Sutra teaches that by the demolition of the Sankhya doctrine given above, the remaining theories not comprised within the Vedas are also refuted, such as the theories of Kanada, Gautama, Akshapada, Buddhists, etc., because they are opposed to the Vedas on these points. The reasons are the same as in the case of Sankhya.
As regards the nature of the atom, there is no unanimity of opinion. Kanada and Gautama maintain it to be permanent, while the four schools of Buddhas hold it to be impermanent. The Vaibhashika Bauddhas hold that the atoms are momentary but have an objective existence (Kshanikam artha-bhutam). The Yogachara Bauddhas maintain it to be merely cognitional (Jnanarupam). The Madhyamikas hold it to be fundamentally void (Sunya-rupam). The Jains hold it to be real and unreal (Sad-asad-rupam).