The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 33 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 33.

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

यदिदं वस्तुनो रूपमेकानन्तरमीक्ष्यते ।
प्रागासीन्नेति तद्बीजं प्राग्भूते त्विदमस्ति न ॥ ३३ ॥

yadidaṃ vastuno rūpamekānantaramīkṣyate |
prāgāsīnneti tadbījaṃ prāgbhūte tvidamasti na || 33 ||

The basis (of the said conception) lies in the fact that the form of a thing perceived in immediate sequence to another thing did not exist before. if the said thing had existed previously, then this basis would not be there (for the said assumption).—(33)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question—“What is the basis of tins ‘conception’ on which the said Idea is supposed to rest?”

The answer is supplied by the following:—[see verse 33 above]

When the previously unperceived form of a particularng is perceived in immediate sequence to another thing,—the said form is one that did not exist before—i.e. prior to its own ‘middlemost state’[1]—for the simple reason that it is not apprehended as fulfilling the conditions of being perceived. Hence this forms the basis for the conception that the thing that is produced is one that did not exist before.—“How so?”—If the said thing, etc.;—i.e. prior to its ‘middlemost state’, if the form of the thing, this middlemost state, had existed, there could be no room for the said ‘basis’ of the Conception that ‘what was non-existent has become produced Because the term ‘becomes produced’ connotes that particular state of the thing which appears in its ‘middlemost state’; and if this were present even previously (to that state), then this would set aside the notion that the ‘form’ of the thing consists in that particular form of it which appears during the ‘middlemost state’ only. As (ex hypothesi), it would be as all-pervading as Ākāśa, and as such it could not have any ‘previous’ or ‘middlemost’ or ‘subsequent’ states at all. Under the circumstances, it would be possible to assert that ‘allngs are produced at all times’, as there would be no grounds for differentiation.—(33)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Each object has three momentary ‘States’: (1) moment of non-existence, prior to coming into existence, (2) moment of existence, and (3) moment of non-existence, cessation, destruction.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: