Verse 35

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

अन्यच्चेत्कथमन्यस्य भावेऽभक्त्यान्यदुच्यते ।
नहि सत्वस्य सद्भावः सद्भावो दुःखमोहयोः ॥ ३५ ॥

anyaccetkathamanyasya bhāve'bhaktyānyaducyate |
nahi satvasya sadbhāvaḥ sadbhāvo duḥkhamohayoḥ || 35 ||

If it is something different (from the effect), then the existence of one thing cannot be spoken of as that of another, except figuratively. (for example) the existence of the (attribute of) ‘harmony’ is not spoken of as the existence of ‘pain’ and ‘delusion—(35)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[The other alternative that it is something different is taken up in the following Text]:—[see verse 35 above]

If the other alternative is accepted—viz. that the ‘Potency’ is something different from the ‘Effect’,—then the view that ‘the Effect subsists in the form of the Cause’ becomes abandoned; because you admit the existence of an entity different from the Effect, in the shape of ‘Potency’, For instance, when something becomes manifested in a form endowed with particular qualities resulting from the development of the particular taste and potency,—then it is called an ‘Effect’, like the Curd for instance; and this Curd-effect is spoken of as ‘non-existent’ in the state of Milk, because it is not capable of being perceived. As regards ‘Potency’, which (you say) is something different from this ‘Effect’,—it cannot thus be an ‘Effect’; for the simple reason that the existence of one thing (Potency) cannot mean the existence of another (Effect); for if it did, then it would be all confusion.

“But we have such expressions as Butter is longevity, where Butter is found to be spoken of as longevity, which is a totally different thing, and Damp Reed is foot-disease, where Damp Reed is spoken of as foot-disease, a totally different thing.”

In answer to this, the Text has added the phrase ‘except figuratively’;—i.e. there can be no such expressions except in figurative language. Longevity is spoken of as Butter only figuratively, through attributing the character of the Effect (Longevity) to its Cause (Butter); and such expressions are not possible in their literal sense. If, when you say that ‘the Effect is existent in the Cause’, you are using only figurative language, then there is no difference between our views; there is difference however if you intend the assertion to be taken in its literal sense.—This is what the Text shows by means of an example—The existence of Harmony, etc.—Even you (Sāṃkhya) do not hold that the form of ‘Pain’ (Rajas-Attribute) and ‘Delusion’, (Tamas-Attribute) is the same as that of ‘Harmony’ (Sattva-Attribute); as each one of these has been held to have a distinct character of its own.—(35)