Verse 362

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

नाशनाम्ना पदार्थेन भावो नाश्यत इत्यसत् ।
अन्यत्वादिविकल्पानां तत्राप्यर्थानुवृत्तितः ॥ ३६२ ॥

nāśanāmnā padārthena bhāvo nāśyata ityasat |
anyatvādivikalpānāṃ tatrāpyarthānuvṛttitaḥ || 362 ||

It is not true to assert that “the thing is destroyed by another thing named ‘destruction’”,—because the arguments based upon the alternatives of its being ‘different’ or ‘non-different’ and so forth are applicable, by implication, to such an assertion also.—(362)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following argument might be urged;—“It is not possible for the thing (whose destruction has been brought about) to bring about its apprehension and other phenomena; because the destruction of the thing—being different from it,—has destroyed it.”

This is answered in the following—[see verse 362 above]

When the Destruction destroys the thing,—is the thing destroyed different or not-difîerent (from the Destruction)? Or again, if it be asserted that ‘it brings about that destruction of the thing which consists of its annihilation, like the Bludgeon and otherngs’, the same alternatives may be put forward. And the objections urged above would all become applicable; as is going to be explained later on. This is what is meant by the sentence ‘the arguments based, etc. etc.’; i.e. even against the assertion that what is called ‘destruction’ brings about another destruction. ‘Are applicable by implication’, i.e. the alternatives of being different or non-different and so forth are applicable to this also.

Thus it is established that the Destruction of ang cannot be an entity, [the first alternative put forward above, under Text 358].—(362)