Verse 61-62

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

सन्निवेशविशिष्टत्वं यादृग्देवकुलादिषु ।
कर्त्तर्यनुपलब्धेऽपि यद्दृष्टौ बुद्धिमद्गतिः ॥ ६१ ॥
तादृगेव यदीक्ष्येत तन्वगादिषु धर्मिषु ।
युक्तं तत्साधनादस्माद्यथाऽभीष्टस्य साधनम् ॥ ६२ ॥

sanniveśaviśiṣṭatvaṃ yādṛgdevakulādiṣu |
karttaryanupalabdhe'pi yaddṛṣṭau buddhimadgatiḥ || 61 ||
tādṛgeva yadīkṣyeta tanvagādiṣu dharmiṣu |
yuktaṃ tatsādhanādasmādyathā'bhīṣṭasya sādhanam || 62 ||

In the case of temples and such things, the presence of a peculiar arrangement (of component parts) is distinctly perceived,—from which perception follows the cognition (inferential) of an intelligent builder,—even when no such builder is actually seen; if, in the case of such objects as the body, the mountain and the like, a similar peculiar arrangement of parts were distinctly perceived, then it would be correct to deduce from this perception as the reason, the conclusion that is desired (by the Naiyāyika).—(61-62)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Thus it has been shown that the Reason (put forward by the Naiyāyika) is ‘unproven’ in three ways—‘unproven’ regarding its qualified (subject), ‘unproven’ regarding the qualification of that subject, and ‘unproven’ regarding its substratum; the following Text proceeds to show a fourth kind of ‘unproven-ness’ as pointed out by the Teacher:—[see verse 61-62 above]

That ‘peculiar arrangement of parts’ which is known,—through affirmative and negative concomitance,—as produced by the operations of an intelligent builder, in the case of such things as the Temple and the like;—on the perception of such a peculiar arrangement of parts, the notion is deduced that the Temple has had an intelligent builder, even though no such Builder is actually seen at the time;—if a similar ‘arrangement of parts’ were put forward in connection with such ‘subjects’ as the Body, the Mountain and so forth,—then your desired conclusion might have been proved. Because when the affirmative and negative concomitance between a Cause and an Effect has been duly discussed, that Effect can never fail to be produced by that Cause; for if it did, it would cease to be the Cause,—As a matter of fact however, no such ‘peculiar arrangement of parts’ is so well known as regards the Tree, the Mountain and such things; all that is known is only the bare babbling that ‘there is an arrangement A certain character which, by its very nature, stands as something distinct, does not cease to be so distinct by mere assertion; and if brought forward as a Reason or ‘Probans’, such a character cannot he sufficient to prove the desired conclusion; as the presence of such a character would not be incompatible even with the contrary of that conclusion. As for example, when the character of ‘being a product of Olay’ is brought forward as a Reason for proving that the Anthill has been ‘built by the Potter—Such is the meaning of the Text taken as a whole.

The meaning of the words of the Text is now explained:—From which perception follows the cognition of an intelligent builder,—i.e. from the perception of which ‘peculiar arrangement’ there would follow the inference of an intelligent cause.—In the case of such objects as the Body, etc. etc,;—‘Tanu’ is Body; ‘Aga’ is mountain, or Tree; the phrase ‘and the like’ includes such things as the Ocean and so forth.—The conclusion that is desired,——i.e. the fact of being the work of an intelligent maker.—‘Sādhana’ is proof.—(61-62)

Question—“In what way would it be correct” (to draw the desired conclusion)?

The Answer is provided by the following Text.—[see verse 63-65 next]