The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 56 (refutation of the doctrine of ‘god’ or theism) 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 56 (refutation of the doctrine of ‘god’ or theism).

Verse 56 (refutation of the Doctrine of ‘God’ or Theism)

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

तदत्रासिद्धता हेतोः प्रथमे साधने यतः ।
सन्निवेशो न योगाख्यः सिद्धो नावयवी तथा ॥ ५६ ॥

tadatrāsiddhatā hetoḥ prathame sādhane yataḥ |
sanniveśo na yogākhyaḥ siddho nāvayavī tathā || 56 ||

The first argument (propounded by the naiyāyika) is open to the fallacy of being ‘unproven, inadmissible’; because the existence of any such ‘arrangement’ as ‘conjunction’ is not proven, nor that of the ‘composite—(56)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

(B) Refutation of the Doctrine of ‘God’ (Theism).

The text now proceeds to supply the answer to the above arguments—[see verse 56 above]

In the arguments set forth (under Text 47) in the form ‘What is insentient cannot produce its effect without a controller’,—the Probans (‘because it is characterised by a peculiar arrangement of component parts’) is one which, without any valid objection, could be cited as proving the contrary of the Probandum (for proving which it has been put forward); and thus its presence in the contrary of the Probandum being suspected, it becomes ‘inconclusive’;—this is what the Text means.

Then again, the Probans that has been put forward in the first argument—‘Because it is characterised by a peculiar arrangement of its component parts’,—is ‘unproven’ and Inadmissible also. How this is so is explained in the next sentence—Because, etc.;—what is meant by the expression ‘arrangement of component parts’ is a particular kind of Conjunction; and the character of being characterised by this Conjunction is attributed to the substance called ‘Composite’; now both these,—the said Conjunction and also the Composite that it characterises,—are yet ‘unproven’, ‘unknown’ (to at least one of party to the Discussion, the Buddhist, who denies:both); hence the Probans cited is doubly ‘unproven Inadmissible—(56)

Question—“In what way are the two unproven?”

The Answer is supplied by the following Text:—[see verse 57 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: