The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 661-663 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 661-663.

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

कुण्डलीति मतिश्चेयं किन्निमित्तोपजायते ।
नरकुण्डलभावान्नो सर्वदा तत्प्रसङ्गतः ॥ ६६१ ॥
अन्यत्र दृष्टभावस्य निषेधोऽन्यत्र युज्यते ।
संयोगश्च भवेद्दृष्टः स कथं प्रतिषिध्यते ॥ ६६२ ॥
चैत्रोऽकुण्डल इत्येवं तस्मादस्त्येव वास्तवः ।
यन्निषेधविधानादि विभागेन प्रवर्त्तते ॥ ६६३ ॥

kuṇḍalīti matiśceyaṃ kinnimittopajāyate |
narakuṇḍalabhāvānno sarvadā tatprasaṅgataḥ || 661 ||
anyatra dṛṣṭabhāvasya niṣedho'nyatra yujyate |
saṃyogaśca bhaveddṛṣṭaḥ sa kathaṃ pratiṣidhyate || 662 ||
caitro'kuṇḍala ityevaṃ tasmādastyeva vāstavaḥ |
yanniṣedhavidhānādi vibhāgena pravarttate || 663 ||

“Then again, on what basis is the notion of ‘the man with earrings’ produced? It could not proceed from the mere presence of the man and the ear-ring; for in that case, the said notion would be there always.—Further, it is only something that has been perceived to be present in one place that is denied in another place. If conjunction has not been perceived, then how does it come to be denied in such expressions as ‘caitra is without ear-rings’? Hence it follows that there is some such real thing in the shape of conjunction, whose affirmation and denial proceed with due distinction.”—(661-663)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“Then again, when there appears the notion that ‘Devadatta is wearing Ear-rings’,—on what basis does it appear? This needs to be explained. The said notion cannot be due to the mere presence of the Man and the Ear-ring; as Devadatta and the Ear-ring being lasting entities, the notion should appear constantly (even when Devadatta would not be wearing the Ear-ring).

“Further, it is only when a certain thing has been perceived to be present in a certain place that the notion of the negation of its presence is found to appear in reference to another place; under the circumstances, if you have never perceived Conjunction to be present, then how could you have the distinct notions of Caitra being ‘with Ear-rings’ and ‘without Ear-rings’? What is denied by the expression ‘Caitra is without Earrings’ is not the Ear-ring, because it having been assumed to be existent in another place and at another time, it could not be denied entirely. Nor can it be the denial of Caitra, the man; as he stands on the same footing as the Ear-ring. Hence what is denied must be Caitra’s contact (Conjunction) with the Ear-ring.—Similarly by the affirmative expression ‘Caitra with the Ear-ring’, what is affirmed is neither the Ear-ring, nor Caitra,—as both these are well-established entities;—hence, by elimination, all that can be affirmed is the Conjunction between these two, which has not been cognised by any other means.—From all this it follows that, there is such a real thing as Conjunction (and Disjunction), by virtue of which there appear such distinct affirmative and negative notions as ‘Caitra with Ear-rings’ and ‘Caitra without Ear-rings

“The term ‘ādi’ is meant to include the notion of ‘qualification’, as pointed out before.”—(661-663)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: