Verse 648-649

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

दीर्घा प्रासादमालेति महती वेद्यते यथा ।
नहि तत्र यथारूपं परिमाणं प्रकल्पितम् ॥ ६४८ ॥
एकार्थसमवायेन तथा चेद्व्यपदिश्यते ।
न महत्त्वं न दैर्घ्यं च धामस्वस्ति विवक्षितम् ॥ ६४९ ॥

dīrghā prāsādamāleti mahatī vedyate yathā |
nahi tatra yathārūpaṃ parimāṇaṃ prakalpitam || 648 ||
ekārthasamavāyena tathā cedvyapadiśyate |
na mahattvaṃ na dairghyaṃ ca dhāmasvasti vivakṣitam || 649 ||

A line of mansions is conceived of as ‘large’; and yet no ‘dimension’ commensurate with the form of the line is assumed. If it be said that it is spoken of as such on the basis of the quality subsisting in the same object (mansion),—then the answer is that neither ‘largeness’ nor ‘length’ is ever meant to belong to mansions.—(648-649)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Further, inasmuch as the Reason adduced is found even where the Probandum (character to be proved) is absent, its ‘inconclusiveness’ becomes all the more pronounced. This is shown in the following—[see verses 648-649 above]

Even where the ‘Largeness’ as conceived by you is not present,—in such things, for instance, as the Line of Mansions—the notion of ‘largeness’ is found to appear.

It will not be right to assert that—“The largeness subsists in the same Houses wherein the quality of ‘line’ (being in a line) is present, and on the strength of this inherence in the same thing, the Line comes to be spoken of as Large”;—because this would be contrary to the Opponent’s own doctrine. This is what is meant by the words of the Text—‘Neither Length, etc., etc.’.

‘Dhāmasu’—in the Mansions, Palaces;—the Dimension—extending to a mile and so forth,—is not meant (by the Opponent) to be present in the Palaces.—(648-649)

Question:—“Why cannot such Dimension subsist in the Houses?”

Answer:—[see verse 650 next]