Verse 82

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

एतदेव यथायोग्यमवशिष्टेषु हेतुषु ।
योज्यं दूषणमन्यच्च किञ्चिन्मात्रं प्रकाश्यते ॥ ८२ ॥

etadeva yathāyogyamavaśiṣṭeṣu hetuṣu |
yojyaṃ dūṣaṇamanyacca kiñcinmātraṃ prakāśyate || 82 ||

Against the other reasonings (of the theist) also, this same criticism may be urged mutatis mutandis; some other criticism also is now being briefly set forth.—(82)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been asserted (by the Theist, above, under Text 49) that “The material Cause of the Tree and other things is controlled by an Intelligent Being, etc. etc.”

The answer to these arguments is given in the following Text:—[see verse 82 above]

As against the reason ‘Because they have colour, etc.’, this same criticism may be urged: This same,—as follows:—(a) It is Unproven; (b) as there is no Invariable Concomitance, it is Inconclusive; (c) if there is Invariable Concomitance, it is Contradictory; (d) the Instance is devoid of the Probandum; (e) if the Conclusion is meant to be genera’, it is futile, and so forth.—For instance, that presence of Colour, etc. which is controlled by an Intelligent Controller is not admitted as being present in the Tree, etc.;—mere ‘presence of Colour’ by itself is not invariably concomitant (with the Probandum); hence the Probans is Inconclusive; if there is invariable concomitance, then, it becomes contradictory, as proving a conclusion contrary to the one desired;—the Corroborative Instance per similarity is devoid of the Probandum, as no concomitance is admitted with the character of ‘being controlled by an eternal and one Intelligent Being’;—if the conclusion is meant to be in the general form, then the argument is futile; if it is meant to be specific, then it is inconclusive (Doubtful), the contrary being found to be the case with such things as the Jar and the like.—In this same manner, the criticism may be applied to the other reasonings also.—(82)