The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 480-481 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 480-481.

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

नैरात्म्यवादपक्षे तु पूर्वमेवावबुध्यते ।
मद्विनाशात्फलं न स्यान्मत्तोन्यस्यापि वा भवेत् ॥ ४८० ॥
इति नैव प्रवर्त्तेत प्रेक्षावान्फललिप्सया ।
शुभाशुभक्रियारम्भे दूरतस्तु फलं स्थितम् ॥ ४८१ ॥

nairātmyavādapakṣe tu pūrvamevāvabudhyate |
madvināśātphalaṃ na syānmattonyasyāpi vā bhavet || 480 ||
iti naiva pravartteta prekṣāvānphalalipsayā |
śubhāśubhakriyārambhe dūratastu phalaṃ sthitam || 481 ||

“As a matter of fact, under the doctrine of ‘no-soul’, the doer of an act would know, beforehand, that, ‘as i am going to perish immediately, there would be no result from this act, or it would come to some one other than myself’; and knowing this, the intelligent man would not undertake the performance of any act, good or bad, for the purpose of securing its result; as for the result, it would be still further removed.”—(480-481)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The anomaly of ‘the loss of what is done and the befalling of what is not done’ has been pointed out, on the acceptance of the view that ‘activity’ is possible; the Opponent next proceeds to show—from Kumārila’s standpoint,—that activity itself is not possible (under the Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Flux’):—[see verses 480-481 above]

Under the Doctrine of ‘Perpetual Flux’, it would be held that all things are devoid of ‘Soul’; as all things being dependent upon their cause (in the ‘Causal Chain’), nothing can be independent (self-sufficient). Under the circumstances, the intelligent agent must know,—be conscious of the fact,—“what?”—that ‘after my destruction, the result could not accrue to me, as I would not be there at the time that the Result comes about; even if the Result comes about, it would come to a Moment other than myself’, Knowing this, the intelligent person would not undertake the act at all; how then could there be any result which can follow only from an act preceded by the activity (of an active agent)? Such Result would be ‘still further removed’, as absolutely impossible.—(480-481)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: