Verse 466-467

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

विवादविषया ये च प्रत्ययाः क्रमभाविनः ।
एकार्थविषयास्तेऽपि सर्व इत्यवघोषणा ॥ ४६६ ॥
अबाधैकाश्रयत्वे हि समानोक्तिनिवेशनात् ।
वर्त्तमाने यथैकस्मिन्क्षणे नैकविधा धियः ॥ ४६७ ॥

vivādaviṣayā ye ca pratyayāḥ kramabhāvinaḥ |
ekārthaviṣayāste'pi sarva ityavaghoṣaṇā || 466 ||
abādhaikāśrayatve hi samānoktiniveśanāt |
varttamāne yathaikasminkṣaṇe naikavidhā dhiyaḥ || 467 ||

“Our proclamation is that the cognitions under dispute which appear in succession,—all appertain to one and the same thing,—because the fact of their being based upon one thing is never annulled, and they are all spoken of by the same terms;—just like the cognitions of several men appearing at the present single moment.”—(466-467)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Uddyotakara [in Nyāyavārtika on 3. 2. 14, page 421, Bib. Ind. Edn.] has stated the argument (against Perpetual Flux) as follows:—“The Cognitions under dispute, appearing at diverse times, must appertain to the same thing,—because while being rightly co-extensive with the cognition of that thing, it is expressible by the same terms,—like the present cognition of ang as appearing in various persons”.—Here the term ‘avyutthāyi’ stands for what is not ‘vyutthāyī’, wrong,—i.e. what is right;—the ‘coextensiveness’ is that of the cognitions of the Jar and such things;—and the epithet ‘right’ is meant to qualify this ‘co-extensiveness’; what is meant is that the said co-extensiveness is never sublated or annulled. This qualification has been added in order to avoid the falsity that might attach to it on the basis of the example of the Lamp-light and such things.—‘Expressible by the same terms’—such as ‘Caitra’s Cognition’, ‘Caitra’s Cognition’ and so forth.

This argument of Uddyotakara’s is set forth in the following—[see verses 466-467 above]

‘Proclamation’—our conclusion, declaration.

‘Co-extensiveness’,—the character of subsisting in the same thing—this is not annulled.—Such is the analysis of the compound.—(466-467)

The above argument is answered in the following—[see verse 468 next]