Verse 110

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

सर्वहेतुनिराशंसं भावानां जन्म वर्ण्यते ।
स्वभाववादिभिस्ते हि नाहुः स्वमपि कारणम् ॥ ११० ॥

sarvahetunirāśaṃsaṃ bhāvānāṃ janma varṇyate |
svabhāvavādibhiste hi nāhuḥ svamapi kāraṇam || 110 ||

The propounders of the doctrine of the ‘thing- by itself’ describe the origination of things as being independent of all causes. they do not declare even the thing itself to be its own ‘cause—(110)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The opening verses of the Text have spoken of ‘other entities’, which includes the doctrine of those philosophers who hold that the origination of the world is due to its ‘own nature’ (or constitution); this is the doctrine that is taken up now for refutation, even out of its proper sequence, because there is little to be said regarding it,—by the following Text:—[see verse 110 above]

Though the Doctrine of the ‘Thing by Itself’ has nowhere been directly promulgated in so many words, yet it is implied by the doctrine that the Things are produced by themselves (as detailed in Texts 106 et seq.).—Those who assert thatngs are born out of themselves have been silenced by the words (in Text 107)—‘The operation of a thing upon itself is a contradiction in terms’;—now the upholders of the doctrine of ‘the Thing by Itself’ are going to be silenced.

These philosophers assert as follows:—“The origination ofngs does not proceed either from themselves or from any other thing; in fact, it is independent of all Causes;—i.e. it does not depend on the action of any ‘Cause’ at all.”

Questions— “What is the difference between these people and those who ascribe the origination of things to themselves?”

Answer—They do not, etc.—‘They’—i.e. the upholders of the ‘Thing by Itself’;—the thing itself,—i.e. its own form (prior to origination);—‘even’—this implies that they do not accept the form of any other thing to-be the ‘Cause’; the difference thus is that while the previous people hold the nature of the thing itself to be its ‘Cause’, these other people do not accept even that as the ‘Cause’,—(110)