Verse 80

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

बुद्धिमत्पूर्वकत्वं च सामान्येन यदीष्यते ।
तत्र नैव विवादो नो वैश्वरूप्यं हि कर्मजम् ॥ ८० ॥

buddhimatpūrvakatvaṃ ca sāmānyena yadīṣyate |
tatra naiva vivādo no vaiśvarūpyaṃ hi karmajam || 80 ||

If the character of ‘being produced by an intelligent cause’ is meant to be proved only in a general form, then we have no dispute with you; as all diversity is due to actions.—(80)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—“If what we had desired to prove were the particular phase of any character, then the Corroborative Instance per Similarity cited by us (in the form of the Jar) might have been open to the defect of being devoid of the character sought to be proved (Probandum); as it is however, what we are seeking to prove is only the general character of ‘being produced by an Intelligent Cause’; and when that General thesis has been proved, then, by implication, God becomes proved as the Cause (Maker) of the Tree and other things. Potter, etc. cannot be the maker of these things, as they are of the Jar and such other things; because the General character is further specified by a particular characteristic. For instance, in the case of such things as the Tree and the like, it is not possible that there should be any other Maker; and the implication of this recognised fact is that, even without the specific mention of a particular character (of the Maker), it is God alone that comes to be recognised as the Maker of these things.”

The answer to this is supplied in the following Text:—[see verse 80 above]

If it is as you now explain, then your argument is open to the objection of being futile—seeking to prove what is already admitted by all parties.—“How so?”—Because all diversity,—i.e. the diverse character of the world that exists,—is due to Actions,—i.e. brought about by common and uncommon,, good and bad, deeds. Hence men performing the good and bad actions, who are all intelligent beings, become the cause of all this. And (in this form we also accept the general proposition that ‘Things are produced by Intelligent Causes’); so your argument becomes ‘futile’,—(80)