by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588
This page describes verse 78-79 of the Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita (8th century), including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: both dealing with philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattva-sangraha (aka Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 verses.
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:
अणुसंहतिमात्रं च घटाद्यस्माभिरिष्यते ।
तत्कारकः कुलालादिरणूनामेव कारकः ॥ ७८ ॥
न व्यावृत्तस्ततो धर्मः साध्यत्वेनाभिवाञ्छितः ।
अणूदाहरणादस्माद्वैधर्म्येण प्रकाशितात् ॥ ७९ ॥
aṇusaṃhatimātraṃ ca ghaṭādyasmābhiriṣyate |
tatkārakaḥ kulālādiraṇūnāmeva kārakaḥ || 78 ||
na vyāvṛttastato dharmaḥ sādhyatvenābhivāñchitaḥ |
aṇūdāharaṇādasmādvaidharmyeṇa prakāśitāt || 79 ||
The jar and other things are regarded by us as mere aggregates of atoms; and the potter and other men who make those things are only makers of the atoms; hence the character that you mean to prove (i.e. your probandum) is not excluded (absent) erom the atom which has been cited (by you) as a corroborative instance per dissimilarity.—(78-79)
Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):
It has been asserted (by the Naiyāyika, under Text 48 above) that—“Atoms supply the corroborative Instance per Dissimilarity [in support of the reasoning that ‘the World must have an Intelligent Cause, because it is characterised by a peculiar arrangement of component parts’]”.
The Author proceeds to show in the following Text that the said Instance per Dissimilarity is one from which the character of the Probandum is not excluded:—[see verse 78-79 above]
The ‘Composite’ is going to be denied by us in detail (under Chapter 10); and it has already in a way been denied; hence (there being no such composite whole as the Jar) the Potter must be regarded as the ‘maker’ of Atoms only; and thus the ‘character to be proved’,—that of being made by an Intelligent Maker,—is one that is not excluded from the Atoms, which have been cited as an Instance per dissimilarity; and thus the Corroborative Instance per Dissimilarity that has been cited (by the Theist, in support of his reasoning) is found to be open to the defect that the character of the Probandum is not absent from it [and hence it cannot serve as an instance per dissimilarity].—(78-79)