Verse 439-440

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

सन्तानोच्छेदरूपस्तु विनाशो यो न हेतुमान् ।
तस्यान्तेऽपि न भावोऽस्ति तथा जन्म तु वार्यते ॥ ४३९ ॥
विलक्षणकपालादेरुत्पादस्तु सहेतुकः ।
सोऽप्यादौ जायते नैव तदा हेतोरसम्भवात् ॥ ४४० ॥

santānocchedarūpastu vināśo yo na hetumān |
tasyānte'pi na bhāvo'sti tathā janma tu vāryate || 439 ||
vilakṣaṇakapālāderutpādastu sahetukaḥ |
so'pyādau jāyate naiva tadā hetorasambhavāt || 440 ||

It is ‘destruction’ in the shape of the ‘breaking up of the series’ which is without cause; and this does not come about even at the end;—what is denied is its coming into existence in that form. As for the coming into existence of such dissimilar things (series) as the potsherd and the like,—this certainly has a cause; but this also is not produced at the beginning, because at that time its cause is not there.—(439-440)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued by the opponent (under Text 433, above) that “if the Destruction were without cause, it should come about at the very beginning”;—this is answered in the following:—[see verses 439-440 above]

‘Destruction’ is of two kinds—(1) in the form of the ‘Breaking up of the series’, and (2) in the form of the coming into existence of a ‘dissimilar series’,—If then what has been urged refers to ‘Destruction’ in the form of the ‘Breaking up of the series’,—then that cannot be right; as such ‘Destruction’ does not come about even at the end; for the simple reason that it has no form; then what do you mean when you ask ‘How does it come about at the end?’ Thus then, inasmuch as we do not admit of its coming into existence at any time, the argument based upon its presence or absence at the beginning or at the end is entirely irrelevant. All that is done by us is that its coming into existence in that form is denied;—‘in that form’,—i.e. by the appearance of another similar series. When it is said that ‘there is destruction of the Jar’, what is meant is that ‘another similar Series does not come into existence’; and there is no affirmation of anything.

If the ‘Destruction’ meant by the opponent is that in the form of ‘the coming into existence of a dissimilar series’,—then the fact of its being without cause is one that is not admitted (by anyone); because it is not admitted by any one that the stroke of the Bludgeon produces anything of the nature of a positive entity. That is the reason why it cannot come into existence even at the beginning; as at that time its cause, in the shape of the Bludgeon, is not there.—(439-440)