Verse 226

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

स्यातां ह्यत्यन्तनाशेऽस्य कृतनाशाकृतागमौ ।
सुखदुःखादिभोगश्च नैव स्यादेकरूपिणः ॥ २२६ ॥

syātāṃ hyatyantanāśe'sya kṛtanāśākṛtāgamau |
sukhaduḥkhādibhogaśca naiva syādekarūpiṇaḥ || 226 ||

“If there were absolute destruction of the soul, there would be ‘destruction of what is done and the befalling of what is not done’; and if the soul always remained of the same form, then there could be no experiencing of pleasure, pain and the rest.”—(226)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question—Why is the theory of Absolute Exclusion not accepted,—as it is by the Bauddhas, who postulate ‘absolute (traceless) Destruction’ of things,—or even the theory of Absolute Inclusion (all-comprehensiveness), as it is by the Naiyāyīka and others?

The answer is as follows:—[see verse 226 above]

If there were absolute destruction (of the Soul), then there would be destruction (ineffectiveness) of the act done; as the doer would not be there to come into contact with the effect of the act; and there would be ‘befalling of what is not done’; as the Soul experiencing the effect of the act done would be experienced by a Soul who did not do the act.—Further? if the Soul remained of one and the same form, there could be no experiencing of Pleasure, Pain, etc. for it,—just as there is none for Ākāśa; specially as there would be no difference between the ‘state of experiencing’ and the ‘state of not-experiencing’, This has been thus asserted by Kumārila;—‘Thus both the absolute conditions being impossible, the Spirit (Soul) should be held to be of the nature of both Exclusion and Inclusion,—just like the Serpent in the coiled and other forms’, (Ślokavārtika, Ātmavāda, 28).”—(226)