Verse 667

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

विच्छिन्नमन्यथा चैव जातमेति निमित्तताम् ।
सान्तरानन्तरज्ञाने गेहविन्ध्यहिमाद्रिवत् ॥ ६६७ ॥

vicchinnamanyathā caiva jātameti nimittatām |
sāntarānantarajñāne gehavindhyahimādrivat || 667 ||

When a thing is produced in the detached form, it becomes the basis for the notion op being ‘detached’; on the other hand, when it is produced in the attached form, it becomes the basis of the notion of being ‘attached’;—just as in the case of the house, the vindhya mountain and the himalaya mountain.—(667)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

As a matter of fact, it is a distinct object that is produced in a particular form that becomes the basis of a distinct notion; hence the Reason urged by the Opponent is Inconclusive. This is the upshot of the Text as a whole.

The construction is—‘the thing that is produced in the detached form becomes the basis for the notion of being detached ’,—On the other hand,—i.e. when it is produced as not-detached.

‘Just as in the case of the House, etc, etc.’;—these form examples of the said two notions.—Even under the doctrine of the opposite party, when two Houses have been produced as attached to one another, and are therefore of the nature of Conjunction itself,—there is no other Conjunction which serves as the basis of their being ‘attached’;—similarly when two Houses have been produced as detached, there is no other Disjunction which forms the basis of the notion of their being ‘detached—In the case of the Himalaya and Vindhy a Mountains also, the notion of their being ‘detached’ is not due to any other thing in the shape of ‘Disjunction’,—because your own idea is that ‘Disjunction consists in separation following after Contact’ [and certainly there never has been any contact between the two mountains].—(667)