Verse 607-608

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

तद्ध्येकवृत्तिभाजैव रूपेणावयवान्तरे ।
वर्त्तेत यदि वाऽन्येन न प्रकारान्तरं यतः ॥ ६०७ ॥
तत्र तेनैव नान्यत्र वृत्तिरस्यावकल्पते ।
तेन क्रोडीकृतत्वेन नान्यथा तत्र वृत्तिमत् ॥ ६०८ ॥

taddhyekavṛttibhājaiva rūpeṇāvayavāntare |
vartteta yadi vā'nyena na prakārāntaraṃ yataḥ || 607 ||
tatra tenaiva nānyatra vṛttirasyāvakalpate |
tena kroḍīkṛtatvena nānyathā tatra vṛttimat || 608 ||

[If the composite subsisted in the components] it could subsist in one component, either exactly in the form in which it subsists in another component, or in some other form. No third way is possible.—It is not possible for it to subsist in one exactly in the form in which it subsists in another; because it is already embraced within its fold by the latter. If it were not so, then it would not be subsisting in that either.—(607-608)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

When the one Composite which is embraced—subsists—in one of its components—in one form,—is it in the same form that it subsists in another of its components? Or in some other form?—There are only these two alternatives possible; in fact in any case, there can be no other alternative than the thing being one or the other.—The former alternative cannot be accepted; as it is entirely embraced within the folds of the first component,—how can it have any opportunity of subsisting in the other component at the same time? Otherwise, if it subsisted at the same time in the other component also, then it could not have subsisted in the first component in its entirety. It can have no other form in which it could subsist in the other component also; because in that case, it could not be regarded as ‘one—(607-608)

The following Text formulates the argument:—[see verse 609 next]