Verse 84

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

प्रलये लुप्तविज्ञानस्मृतयः पुरुषा न नः ।
आभास्वरादिसम्भूतेस्तत एवेह संभवात् ॥ ८४ ॥

pralaye luptavijñānasmṛtayaḥ puruṣā na naḥ |
ābhāsvarādisambhūtestata eveha saṃbhavāt || 84 ||

According to us, at dissolution, persons do not continue to remain with all consciousness and memory completely lost; because they are born in effulgent regions, and from these latter they are born again in this world.—(84)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

As regards the argument (put forward by the Theist under Text 51, above) that—“At the beginning of Creation usage among men must have been due to the teaching of other persons, etc. etc.”—it is answered by the following Text:—[see verse 84 above]

In Text (51) the Theist has used the qualifying phrase, ‘when they become awakened to consciousness’; but such a qualification is absurd. Because under our theory, it is not true that at Dissolution, there remain Persons with all consciousness and memory lost and with all organs enfeebled; what happens is that they are born in Luminous Regions, in celestial bodies, endowed with superior forms of clear consciousness; those however who have still got to expiate their Karmic residue through the fruition of particularly sinful and other deeds become born in other material regions; so that even at the time of the future evolution of the world (following after Dissolution), those same persons fall down from the Luminous and other regions and become born in this world, without losing all consciousness and memory. Hence any such qualification as ‘when they become subsequently awakened to consciousness’ is absurd.

Further, the Reason put forward is also ‘inconclusive’, because its absence from the contrary of the Probandum is doubtful. And if all that is meant to be proved is the fact of ‘being preceded by the teaching of other persons’,—then the argument is ‘Futile’, as all parties are agreed that in the matter of usage, which is beginningless, dependence on mutual teaching is inevitable.—If then what is meant to be proved is the fact of its being ‘preceded by the teaching of the particular person called God’, then the Reason put forward is ‘Inconclusive’,—because as a matter of fact, it is actually possible in other ways also (without such teaching). The Corroborative Instance also, in this case, would be devoid of the Probandum. This has already been urged before as a general defect (in the Theist’s argument).—(84)