The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 610-611 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 610-611.

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

तत्संबद्धस्वभावस्य ह्यतद्देशेऽपि वृत्तितः ।
प्राप्तं तदेकदेशत्वमैकात्म्यं चाविभागतः ॥ ६१० ॥
अन्येनैवात्मना वृत्तौ नैकोऽनेकव्यवस्थितः ।
सिद्ध्येत्स्वभावभेदस्य वस्तुभेदात्मकत्वतः ॥ ६११ ॥

tatsaṃbaddhasvabhāvasya hyataddeśe'pi vṛttitaḥ |
prāptaṃ tadekadeśatvamaikātmyaṃ cāvibhāgataḥ || 610 ||
anyenaivātmanā vṛttau naiko'nekavyavasthitaḥ |
siddhyetsvabhāvabhedasya vastubhedātmakatvataḥ || 611 ||

If the composite essentially related to one component subsisted in some other component occupying a place other than that of the said component,—then it would mean that the two components occupy the same place and are essentially one and the same, because they are not differentiated if, on the other hand, the composite subsisted in the other component in another form,—then as occupying two places, the composite could not be one; specially as difference in form (and character) must constitute difference in the thing itself.—(610-611)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

If the composite substance, which has its form and character connected with one Component, subsisted in another Component which occupies another point in space,—then the components in question would have to be regarded as occupying the same point in space; which would mean that they are essentially one and the same, being of the same nature.

“Why so?”

Because they are not differentiated;—because they exist without being differentiated from one another.—Otherwise,—if they existed in their differentiated forms,—they could not occupy the same point in space.

If the second alternative is accepted,—i.e. the Composite subsists in the second component in a different form,—then it means that one thing subsists in several components,—which would be inadmissible; because, as a matter of fact, when oneng differs from another in its nature, it must be different from this latter; as difference in things is always of the nature of difference in their character (and form).—(610-611)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: