Verse 581-583

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

एककार्योपयोगित्वज्ञापनाय पृथक्श्रुतौ ।
गौरवाशक्तिवैफल्यदोषत्यागाभिवाञ्छया ॥ ५८१ ॥
साकल्येनाभिधानेन व्यवहारस्य लाघवम् ।
मन्यमानैः कृता येषु वागेका व्यवहर्तृभिः ॥ ५८२ ॥
तेभ्यः समानकालस्तु पटो नैव प्रसिद्ध्यति ।
विभिन्नकर्तृसामर्थ्यपरिमाणादिधर्मवान् ॥ ५८३ ॥

ekakāryopayogitvajñāpanāya pṛthakśrutau |
gauravāśaktivaiphalyadoṣatyāgābhivāñchayā || 581 ||
sākalyenābhidhānena vyavahārasya lāghavam |
manyamānaiḥ kṛtā yeṣu vāgekā vyavahartṛbhiḥ || 582 ||
tebhyaḥ samānakālastu paṭo naiva prasiddhyati |
vibhinnakartṛsāmarthyaparimāṇādidharmavān || 583 ||

The intention being to indicate their use in the accomplishment of a single purpose,—if each yarn were spoken of separately, then there would be the defects of (a) prolixity, (b) incapacity, and (c) futility with a view to avoid these, thinking that there would be simplicity of usage if all the yarns were mentioned by a single name, people making use of words have brought forth the single term and applied it to the yarns,—but these (yarns) do not serve to prove the cloth, which is synchronous with those yarns, as having a different maker and different potencies and different size.—(581-583)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

If the Cloth existing at the same time as the yarns were at the time actually known as something different from the yarns, then, in comparison with the yarns, it might be recognised as having the characters of having a different maker and the rest (which have been put forward by the other party); as it is, however, that Cloth itself is not known as something different from the yarns; as it is this very difference that the other party has proceeded to establish. The mere presence of the two different names—‘Cloth’ and ‘Yarns’—does not necessarily prove the two things to be different, as different names may be applied to the same thing for various other purposes. For instance, some particular yarns, having reached a certain condition, become capable of accomplishing the useful purpose of keeping off cold; and there may be other yarns—which, for instance, have just left the hands of the spinning women,—which are not so capable. And with a view to indicate that the former yarns are capable of accomplishing a single purpose, the single term ‘Cloth’ is applied to them by people speaking of them, specially for the purpose of avoiding confusion; even though, in reality the Cloth is not anything different from the yarns.

Question:—“Why, then, is a single term applied at all?”

Answer If each of the yarns were spoken of separately,—i.e. if each yarn were spoken of one by one,—then, there would be the following defects:—(a) Prolixity; i.e. as many words will have to be used as there are things capable of accomplishing the same purpose; and this would be too prolix; (b) Incapacity; it will not be possible to ascertain the specific forms of each individual; this is what is meant by incapacity;—(c) Futility: speaking of them as having some imaginary common form, it is better to speak of them by a single word; and hence there is no use in speaking of each of them separately.—On the other hand, if they are all spoken of as a whole, there is the distinct advantage that usage becomes simplified. Just as single comprehensive words are used in speaking of all things by such all-comprehensive names as ‘World’, ‘Three-Worlds’, ‘Universe’ and so forth. Exactly of the same kind is the name ‘Cloth’ (as comprehending all the yarns).

The compound ‘vibhinna, etc.’ is to be expounded by making a copulative compound between ‘Kartṛ’ and ‘Sāmarthya, etc.’, and then taking this copulative compound as qualified by the term ‘vibhinna’.—(581-583)