Verse 280-281

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

ज्ञातरि प्रत्यभिज्ञानं वासना कर्तुमर्हति ।
नातस्मिन्स इति प्रज्ञां न ह्यसौ भ्रान्तिकारणम् ॥ २८० ॥
तन्नाहंप्रत्ययो भ्रान्तिरिष्टश्चेद्बाधवर्जनात् ।
नानन्तरोक्तया युक्त्या तस्य बाधोपदर्शनात् ॥ २८१ ॥

jñātari pratyabhijñānaṃ vāsanā kartumarhati |
nātasminsa iti prajñāṃ na hyasau bhrāntikāraṇam || 280 ||
tannāhaṃpratyayo bhrāntiriṣṭaścedbādhavarjanāt |
nānantaroktayā yuktyā tasya bādhopadarśanāt || 281 ||

“What the disposition can do is to bring about the recognition of the cogniser; it cannot bring about the cognition of a thing as what it is not; because it cannot be the cause of illusion (wrong cognition).—Thus the ‘I-notion’ cannot be regarded as an illusion; as there is nothing to annul it (and hence prove it to be wrong)”;—[Ślokavārtika, page 720]—if this is urged [then the answer is as given in the following text].—(280-281a)

What has been urged is hot right; as the reasoning adduced above is clearly found to be subversive of the said idea.—(281b)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

What the Disposition can do is to bring about the Recognition of the Cogniser, and not the Cognition of a thing—Cogniser—as what it is not,—i.e. as not-Cogniser; the construction is that Disposition cannot bring about this latter Cognition.—“why?”—because it cannot be the cause of Illusion; in fact it always brings about the Cognition of a thing exactly as it had been cognised on the previous occasion, and not a wrong Cognition.—Thus then, because this I-notion is produced from Dispositions, and because there is no valid reason for annulling it, it cannot be regarded as an Illusion.

The term ‘chet’, ‘if this be urged should be construed away from its place,—after the end of the sentence.—(280-281)

The following Text answers this argument:—[see verse 281b above]

‘Adduced above’—under Text 278.—(281b)