The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 620-621 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 620-621.

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

कृत्स्नैकदेशशब्दाभ्यामयं चार्थः प्रकाश्यते ।
नैरंश्येनास्य किं वृत्तिः किं वा तस्यान्यथैव सा ॥ ६२० ॥
यथा पात्रादिसंस्थस्य श्रीफलादेर्यथाऽथवा ।
अनेकासनसंस्थस्य चैत्रादेरुपलक्षिता ॥ ६२१ ॥

kṛtsnaikadeśaśabdābhyāmayaṃ cārthaḥ prakāśyate |
nairaṃśyenāsya kiṃ vṛttiḥ kiṃ vā tasyānyathaiva sā || 620 ||
yathā pātrādisaṃsthasya śrīphalāderyathā'thavā |
anekāsanasaṃsthasya caitrāderupalakṣitā || 621 ||

What is meant by (the question containing) the terms ‘in entirety’ and ‘in part’ is—does the substance subsist as an impartite whole,—in the way in which the bilva-fruit lies in a dish? Or does it subsist in some other way—as a certain person, caitra, does when lying down on several seats?—(620-621)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued (under Text 615 above) that “subsistence either in entirety or in part has not been perceived by you, etc. etc.”—This is answered in the following—[see verses 620-621 above]

What is meant by the term ‘in entirety’ is—whether the substance subsists in all its Components in its impartite form,—as is found in the case of the Bilva-fruit lying in a dish? or in some other way?—in the way, for instance, in which a person like Caitra lies down upon more than one couch. This is what is meant by subsistence ‘in part’.

This is only by the way.

Uddyotakara has argued as follows [in Nyāyavārtika on 2, 1. 32, page 216, Bib. Ind.):—“Inasmuch as the terms entire and a part cannot be applied to one and the same Composite, the question raised—as to whether it subsists in its entirety or in part—is an improper one; as a matter of fact, the term ‘entire’ stands for all, excepting nothing, while the term ‘a part’ stands for one among several; as such, these two terms cannot be rightly applied to any one Composite”.

This argument becomes rejected by what has been said in the Text. As a matter of fact, in common parlance, the terms whole and in part are found to be applied to such things as the Foot and the like, in such expressions as ‘Does the whole foot lie in the pond, or only in part?’—Nor can it be right to say that such use is figurative; because it is never found to fail or falter; as has been pointed out before.—(620-621)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: