Verse 51

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

सर्गादौ व्यवहारश्च पुंसामन्योपदेशजः ।
नियतत्वात्प्रबुद्धानां कुमारव्यवहारवत् ॥ ५१ ॥

sargādau vyavahāraśca puṃsāmanyopadeśajaḥ |
niyatatvātprabuddhānāṃ kumāravyavahāravat || 51 ||

“At the beginning of creation, usage among men must have been due to the teaching of other persons;—when they become subsequently awakened to consciousness, it is found to be restricted to particular things,—like the usage of little boys.”—(51)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Praśastamati argues as follows:—“All the usages of men, at the beginning of creation must have been preceded by (dependent upon) the teaching of other persons,—because later on, the usage of enlightened men is found to be restricted to particular things,—as for instance, in the case of little boys who have not yet learnt the use of words, it is found that their usage of words as restricted to particular things is always preceded (and brought about) by the teaching of their mother or other persons;—the phrase ‘the usages of enlightened men are restricted to particular things’ means that the usage of men after enlightenment is found to be so restricted;—that Person to whose teaching usages at the beginning of Creation are due is God, whose superior knowledge does not disappear even at the time of Universal Dissolution”.

It is this view that is shown as fully established,—by the Author in the following Text:—[see verse 51 above]

There are other arguments also put forward by Uddyotakara; these are the following:—“The Manifested World, consisting of the Primary Elemental Substances and the rest, are productive of Pleasure and Pain, only when controlled by an intelligent Cause,—(a) because it is, by itself, insentient, (b) because it is a Product, (c) because it is perishable, and (d) because it is endowed with Colour (or Form) and other qualities,—like the Axe and other things”.^[1]

These are the arguments that are set forth in the following two Texts:—

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This is clearly a brief paraphrase of the arguments stated by Uddyotakara in his Nyāyavārtika, on Sūtra 4.1.21, page 463, lines 11 et seq., Biblio. Ind. Edn., where the words are very nearly the same.