Verse 66

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

ननु जात्युत्तरमिदं धर्मभेदविकल्पनात् ।
सामान्यमेव कार्यादि साधनं प्रतिपादितम् ॥ ६६ ॥

nanu jātyuttaramidaṃ dharmabhedavikalpanāt |
sāmānyameva kāryādi sādhanaṃ pratipāditam || 66 ||

“What has been put forward (by you) is only a ‘futile rejoinder’, as it is based upon the assumption op a particular character; while what has been put forward (by us, the naiyāyika) is only the general character of ‘effects’.”—(66)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In the following Text the Opponent urges that what the Buddhist has put forward is only a ‘Futile Rejoinder’:—

“What you have urged is only a ‘Futile Rejoinder’, that particular form of it which is put forward ‘per parity of the character of effect’, For instance, when it is argued that ‘Sound is non-eternal, because it is produced’, the man putting forward the Futile Rejoinder says—‘The character of being produced that you put forward as the Reason,—do you mean this character as; (1) subsisting in such things as the Jar? (2) Or as subsisting in Sound? Or (3) as subsisting in both (Jar and Sound)? The first alternative is not possible, as the subsistence of this Reason in the subject (of your syllogism, Sound) would be ‘unproven’; in fact the character of one thing (the Jar) cannot subsist in another thing (Sound). The second alternative also cannot be accepted, as there would be no Corroborative Instance fulfilling the conditions of the Reason. The third alternative also would be open to both these objections. This has been explained to be an example of that Futile Rejoinder which is named ‘Per Parity of the character of the effect’; as stated in the following words:—‘When the Conclusion is shown to be not-proved on the basis of even the slightest deviation from the character of the Effect, it is Futile Rejoinder’.

“In the case under consideration the inference of non-eternality is sought to be proved on the basis of the generic character of the ‘Effect’, not on any particular aspect of it. Hence if a Rejoinder is put forward on the basis of the assumption of a particular character (or aspect),—when the Reason or Probans has been put forward by the other party on the basis of its general character,—this is a Futile Rejoinder, named ‘per Parity of the character of Effect’, In short, this is based upon the assumption of a different character and hence is a Futile Rejoinder.”—(66)

The above is answered by the following Text:—[see verse 67 next]