Verse 472

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

सामानाधिकरण्यं चेद्बाधित्तं तेषु कल्प्यते ।
विवक्षितेऽपि विस्पष्टा बाधैषा किं न वीक्ष्यते ॥ ४७२ ॥

sāmānādhikaraṇyaṃ cedbādhittaṃ teṣu kalpyate |
vivakṣite'pi vispaṣṭā bādhaiṣā kiṃ na vīkṣyate || 472 ||

If it be held that “in the case of the cognitions of the lamp, the ‘co-extensiveness’ is subsequently annulled”,—then how is it that you do not perceive the clear annulment of the same in your proposed conclusion also?—(472)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“In fact, the qualification—‘while being rightly co-extensive with the Cognition of that thing’—has been added (by Uddyotakara), solely for the purpose of excluding such cases as that of the ‘Cognitions of the Lamp’, as the one-ness of the object of these latter Cognitions is annulled; because the Lamp is at one moment with a high flame, and the next moment with a low flame, it is at one moment very bright and at the next moment, less bright. How then can our Reason be false?”

Such is the sense of what the Opponent says.

In answer to this, the Author adds—‘How is it, etc.’—That is, the qualification also is one that is not admitted. As a matter of fact, even in regard to the character of the Opponent’s intended Probandum, there is annulment;—why is that also not perceived? For instance, in regard to Caitra and other persons, the Cognition of them that is produced is in such diverse forms as ‘infant’, ‘boy’, ‘youth’ and so forth,—in regard to the mountain and such things, the notions are diverse in the shape of ‘cold’, ‘hot’, etc. So that, as in the case of the Lamp, so in the case of these things also, the diversity of the cognised thing is clearly perceived. If it were not so, then, if the same mountain that was cold subsequently became hot,—then under both conditions both cold and heat would be perceptible there; because the said qualified conditions being related to the thing, the qualities would have to be regarded as present there; for instance, when a man tied to a chain is pulled, the chain also becomes pulled. This has been nearly all explained before.—Thus even with the said qualification, the Reason is ‘unproven’, ‘not admitted’,—(472)

The annulment of the Opponent’s argument by Inference also is next shown:—[see verses 473-474 next]