Verse 305-306

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

चैतन्ये चात्मशब्दस्य निवेशेऽपि न नः क्षतिः ।
नित्यत्वं तस्य दुःसाध्यमक्ष्यादेः सफलत्वतः ॥ ३०५ ॥
अक्ष्यर्थाद्यफलं तु स्याच्चैतन्यं शाश्वतं यदि ।
न भवेदिन्धनेनार्थो यदि स्याच्छाश्वतोऽनलः ॥ ३०६ ॥

caitanye cātmaśabdasya niveśe'pi na naḥ kṣatiḥ |
nityatvaṃ tasya duḥsādhyamakṣyādeḥ saphalatvataḥ || 305 ||
akṣyarthādyaphalaṃ tu syāccaitanyaṃ śāśvataṃ yadi |
na bhavedindhanenārtho yadi syācchāśvato'nalaḥ || 306 ||

There is no harm done to us by the mere application of the term ‘spirit’ to sentience; what we assert is that its eternality is difficult to prove; because the eye and other things serve a fruitful purpose. if sentience were everlasting, then all such things as the eye and the rest would be useless; e.g. there would be no use for the fuel if fire were everlasting.—(305-306)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be argued that—“There may be non-difference between Cosmic Intellect and Sentience; even so the fact of its being Spirit remains undenied”—The answer to this is given in the following:—[see verses 305-306 above]

What we deny is not merely the applying of the same ‘Spirit’ to Sentience; what we do deny is the property of ‘eternality’ that is imposed upon it.—‘Why?’—Because such things as the Eye, the Light, the Mind and the like serve a fruitful purpose. Otherwise, if Sentience were everlasting—eternal—then the Eye and the rest would be entirely useless; as the only purpose served by these is the bringing about of Sentience (Cognition); and there can be no bringing about of what is eternal.—An example is cited.—There would be etc.;—i.e. if fire were everlasting, then people would not fetch fuel for the lighting of fire.

From all this it follows that Sentience cannot be Eternal. (305-306)