The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 689-690 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 689-690.

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

नान्यथोदयवानेष कस्यासौ स्थापकस्ततः ।
नचास्य दृष्टं हेतुत्वं संस्कारोऽन्योऽपि वा भवेत् ॥ ६८९ ॥
उत्पन्नस्यैव चेष्टोऽयं वस्त्रादेः स्थापको गुणः ।
गुणसंस्कारनामैवं सर्वथापि न संभवी ॥ ६९० ॥

nānyathodayavāneṣa kasyāsau sthāpakastataḥ |
nacāsya dṛṣṭaṃ hetutvaṃ saṃskāro'nyo'pi vā bhavet || 689 ||
utpannasyaiva ceṣṭo'yaṃ vastrādeḥ sthāpako guṇaḥ |
guṇasaṃskāranāmaivaṃ sarvathāpi na saṃbhavī || 690 ||

[What is not-momentary] does not appear in any other form;—of what then could the momentum be the ‘establisher’?—Nor has this momentum been found to have causal character; the cause then may consist of this momentum or something else. Further, the momentum in question has been held to be a quality that re-establishes what has been already produced,—such for example, as the cloth.—What therefore has been called a ‘quality’ and ‘momentum’ is not possible.—(689-690)


Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the Opponent—“Well then, the Momentum in question would establish what is not-momentary”.

Answer:—[see verses 689-690 above]

It has been already pointed out that the thing that is not-momentary can never become otherwise than it is, and hence its status is there always,—so that there would be nothing to be established by the quality in question, establisher of status, Elasticity.

It might be argued that—“The Quality may not be the establisher; it may be the producer of the Moment itself”.

The answer to this is that this Momentum has not been found to have causal character; the conviction regarding the reality of the truth aboutngs is always dependent upon the Means of Right Cognition; and as a matter of fact the causal character of Momentum,—as something different from well-known causes—is not definitely recognised in things like the Cloth, by Perception and Non-apprehension,—or as something different from the ordinary effects, as in the organs like the eyes; hence the notion in question cannot be based upon any such character.

If it be argued that—“even though its causal potency has not been perceived, yet the fact of its being the Cause might be presumed”.

If that be so, then Momentum, or anything else, like the Parrot, the Crane, etc., might be the Cause,—i.e. presumed to be as such. The fact of its not being perceived does not constitute a positive peculiar feature, by virtue of which it could be only by presuming the Momentum,—and nothing also,—even though its potency has not been perceived,—that you should be satisfied.

As a matter of fact, the Momentum in question has not been held by you to be the cause of production; in fact it is held to be a quality in a thing—e.g, the Cloth is already produced, which re-establishes its former status; and in this it is of no use, as already explained above.—And it is on admitting (for argument’s sake) the possibility of its being the cause of production, that the above objection has been urged; the idea being that there may be some one who may cross beyond the limits of even his own doctrine.

The last sentence—‘What therefore, etc. etc.’—sums up all that has been said above.—(689-690)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: