Verse 27

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

न तद्विषयसंवित्तिर्नोपलम्भावृतिक्षयः ।
नित्यत्वादुपलम्भस्य द्वितीयस्याप्यसंभवात् ॥ २७ ॥

na tadviṣayasaṃvittirnopalambhāvṛtikṣayaḥ |
nityatvādupalambhasya dvitīyasyāpyasaṃbhavāt || 27 ||

The ‘Manifestation’ of the Effect cannot consist in its Apprehension; nor in the removal of what was obstructing its Apprehension; because the Apprehension is a constant factor, and also because there is no possibility of a second (Apprehension).—(27)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It cannot be right to regard the ‘manifestation’ (of the Effect) as consisting in the appearance of the cognition of the Effect; because the Cognition of the Effect is a constant factor. For instance, this cognition of the Effect must, under the theory of the upholder of the theory of the Effect being existent, be something eternal; under the circumstance what of it would be there which would be produced? Also because no second apprehension is possible, the Manifestation of the Effect cannot consist in the appearance of the Cognition of that Effect. The particle ‘also’ has the cumulative force; and it has to be construed apart from its place in the text; it should be taken as after the word ‘asambhavāt’,—(i.e. at the end of the sentence). So that the sense comes to be as follows:—According to your view, Cognition (Consciousness) is one only,—your doctrine being that from Creation down to Dissolution, there is only one Consciousness; and it is this same Consciousness that constitutes Definite Cognition; apart from this then, what other ‘apprehension’ is there which would be styled ‘manifestation’, and which would be produced by Causes?

The following might be urged here (by the Sāṃkhya)—“The Apprehension of an object is not of the nature of ‘Buddhi’ (Consciousness), it is of the nature of ‘Manas’, ‘Mind’”.

But that cannot be right; because all these terms—‘Buddhi’ (Intelligence), ‘Upalabdhi’ (Apprehension), ‘Adhyavasāya’ (Determinate Cognition), ‘Manas’ (Mind), ‘Saṃvitti’ (Knowledge) and so forth,—are synonymous. This is going to be explained later on.

Nor can ‘Manifestation’ of the Effect consist in the ‘removal of what has been obstructing its apprehension’; for the same two reasons. For instance, ‘that which has been obstructing its apprehension’ being something eternal (ex hypoihesi), no ‘removal’ of it is possible. It is not possible for this ‘removal’ to be in the nature of ‘disappearance’; because until the thing has renounced its previous form, it cannot ‘disappear

Further, ‘because there is no possibility of a second apprehension’, there can be no obstacle to apprehension; as there can be no obstruction (concealment) of what is non-existent, because what is ‘obstructed’ is always something that is existent. From all this it follows that there can be no ‘removal’ of the Obstruction (of Apprehension).

Or the term ‘nityatvāt’, ‘because of its being constant’ (in the Text), may be taken to mean that, bemuse the Cognition of the Effect is constant (eternal), there can be no ‘obstruction’ of it; and because such obstruction is impossible, there can be no ‘obstruction’ of it.—Nor again can the ‘removal of the obstruction’ be brought about by anything, because it is characterless (being a negative entity, it has no positive character).

Under the doctrine of the ‘Existent Effect’, the futility of the causal operation is not the only incongruity; the impossibility of Bondage and Liberation is another incongruity; in fact, the most undesirable contingency of the cessation of all worldly activity cannot be avoided. For instance, you hold the doctrine that ‘Liberation’ follows on the appearance of True Knowledge, in the shape of real discrimination between Matter and Spirit; now as this True Knowledge is always constantly present, all embodied beings would be always ‘liberated’; hence there could be no ‘Bondage’. Conversely, ‘Bondage’ also has been held to be due to Wrong Notion (Misconception, Illusion); and as this Illusion also would be a constant factor, all beings would be always ‘under bondage’; and under the circumstances, how could there be any ‘Liberation’?

Then again, whenever people have recourse to any activity, it is either for securing what is beneficial or for getting rid of what is harmful. Under the theory of the ‘Existent Effect’ however, there can be nothing that cannot be secured, nor anything that cannot be got rid of; hence the whole world would be without desire for anything; so that ultimately there would be total cessation of all worldly activities.—(27)