Verse 653

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

यौ संयोगविभागौ च द्रव्येषु नियतौ परैः ।
संयुक्तादिधियो हेतू कल्पितौ तावनर्थकौ ॥ ६५३ ॥

yau saṃyogavibhāgau ca dravyeṣu niyatau paraiḥ |
saṃyuktādidhiyo hetū kalpitau tāvanarthakau || 653 ||

Conjunction and disjunction as restricted to substances have been postulated by others as causes of the notions of ‘being joined’ and the like; these are entirely useless.—(653)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author next proceeds to criticise the qualities of Conjunction and Disjunction:—[see verse 653 above]

The Opponent’s scheme is that—“Conjunction and Disjunction are the bases, respectively, of the notions of ‘being joined’ and ‘being disjoined’; they consist in the contact of what has not been in contact, and the ceasing of contact of what has been in contact;—and that they are brought about by the action of either one or of both, as also by Conjunction and Disjunction”.

All this is a mere scheme; and there is no proof for the idea that these are real entities; hence they have been needlessly postulated by the other philosophers.

This argument may be formulated as follows:—That in support of which there is no proof (no means of Cognition) can never be regarded by intelligent persons as ‘existing e.g. ‘the Son of the Barren Woman’ the other party have no proof in support of ‘Conjunction’ and ‘Disjunction’; hence there is non-perception of the wider condition (which makes the less extensive conclusion impossible).—(653)