Verse 92-93a

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

यथोक्तदोषदुष्टानि माभूवन्साधनानि वा ।
तथाऽपि कर्तुर्नैकत्वं व्यभिचारोपदर्शनात् ॥ ९२ ॥
एककर्तुरसिद्धौ च सर्वज्ञत्वं किमाश्रयम् ।

yathoktadoṣaduṣṭāni mābhūvansādhanāni vā |
tathā'pi karturnaikatvaṃ vyabhicāropadarśanāt || 92 ||
ekakarturasiddhau ca sarvajñatvaṃ kimāśrayam |

Your reasonings may not be beset with the defects urged above; and yet the creator cannot be one, because the falsity of such a proposition has been shown above; and when the oneness of the creator is not proved, wherein could ‘omniscience’ subsist?—(92-93a)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Admitting (for argument’s sake) the validity of the Theist’s arguments, the following Texts proceed to point out another objection:—[see verse 92-93a above]

The defects urged above—ending with ‘being contrary to Inference’ (Text 86).

The upshot of the whole is as follows:—Though it may be true that the reasonings put forward succeed in establishing an Intelligent Creator of such things as the Body, Mountains and so forth,—yet it is by no means certain that the Creator of one particular thing is the same as that of another thing; because it is quite possible that each effect may have its own separate Cause (Creator); in fact, in the case of such things as the House and the like, it is found that they are made by many persons; hence it is not possible to establish that there is only one Creator for all things. And under the circumstances, how can ‘omniscience’ be regarded as proved?

Praśastamati has put forward the following argument for proving a single Creator:—All beings, from Brahmā down to the Piśāca must have over them a single All-Superior Being,—because among themselves there are found to be of varying grades of superiority;—in the ordinary world it is found that where there are several persons of varying grades of superiority, they are always under the sway of one Superior Being; e.g. the controllers of the House, the village, the city and the province are all under one Sovereign Emperor of the entire world; and all such beings as serpents, Rākṣasas, Yakṣas and such other beings are possessed of varying grades of superiority among themselves;—from these facts we are led to think that all these also are under one Controller in the shape of God

If what is meant to be proved is that all these Beings are ‘controlled’ by God,—then the Reason put forward is ‘Inconclusive’; as there is no valid reason for precluding the contrary conclusion; specially as no Invariable Concomitance is admitted. The Corroborative Instance also is found to be devoid of the Probandum.—If from the mere fact of there being a Controller, it is meant to prove that the Control is actually there,—then the argument is futile; as we also accept the fact that the ‘Enlightened One’ (Buddha), who was the crest-jewel of the entire universe, did actually control the entire world, through His mercy; by virtue of which all good men of the present day also attain prosperity and Ultimate Good.

The same writer (Praśastamati) has adduced the following further argument:—“All the Seven Worlds must have been created by the intelligence of a single Being,—because they are all included under one ‘Entity’,—just like the several rooms of a House; we find that all the rooms of a House are built by the intelligence of a single architect; in the same way all the seven worlds are included under the one universe; hence it is concluded that these must be the creation of the Intelligence of a single Creator; and the one Being by whose intelligence all these have been created is the Blessed Lord, the one Architect of the whole universe

The Probans of this reasoning is ‘unproven’ (not admitted); there is no such thing as a ‘single universe’ or a ‘single house’; such names have been given to certain things only for the purpose of simplifying business-transactions.—For this same reason the Corroborative Instance that has been cited is devoid of the Probans. Further, as a matter of fact, the several rooms in a house are actually found to be built by several architects (and masons);—hence the Probans is ‘inconclusive’ (Doubtful) also.

Objections to other Theistic arguments also may be set forth in the aforesaid manner.—(92-93a)