Verse 727-729

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

कार्यमात्रोपयोगित्वविवक्षायां च सच्छ्रुतेः ।
समयः क्रियते तेषु यद्वान्यस्या यथारुचि ॥ ७२७ ॥
वाहदोहादिरूपेण कार्यभेदोपयोगिनि ।
गवादिश्रुतिसङ्केतः क्रियते व्यवहर्तृभिः ॥ ७२८ ॥
तत्सङ्केतमनस्कारात्सदादिप्रत्यया इमे ।
जायमानास्तु लक्ष्यन्ते नाक्षव्यापृत्यनन्तरम् ॥ ७२९ ॥

kāryamātropayogitvavivakṣāyāṃ ca sacchruteḥ |
samayaḥ kriyate teṣu yadvānyasyā yathāruci || 727 ||
vāhadohādirūpeṇa kāryabhedopayogini |
gavādiśrutisaṅketaḥ kriyate vyavahartṛbhiḥ || 728 ||
tatsaṅketamanaskārātsadādipratyayā ime |
jāyamānāstu lakṣyante nākṣavyāpṛtyanantaram || 729 ||

All that the expression ‘being’ (existence) is meant to convey is only the idea of capacity for action; it is in this sense that the convention is established, in regard to the things in question, or to any other thing, according to the whim (of people).—Persons using the term ‘go’ (‘ox’ or ‘cow’) establish the convention in regard to the term as applicable to things serving such diverse purposes as carrying, yielding milk and so forth.—Thus it is that all these notions of ‘being’ and the rest are found to proceed from the conception of these conventions, and not immediately after the functioning of the sense-organs.—(727-729)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The question being—“How is it proved that ‘the Body of Conventions’ comes between (the functioning of the Senses and the appearance of the notions of Names, etc.)?”—

The Answer is provided in the following—[see verses 727-729 above]

The notions of ‘Being’ and the rest can never appear in persons who are not cognisant of the Conventions bearing upon those terms; if they did, then there would be no use in establishing the Conventions at all. Thus it is that the makers of Convention apply the term ‘existent’ (Being), on noticing a certain identity (among things) indicated by the fact of their performing similar functions; and it is in regard to such things that the notion of ‘Being’ appears.

‘Or to any other thing’;—i.e. of the expression ‘Entity’.

Similarly in the case of the terms ‘go’ (‘Ox’ or ‘Cow’) and the rest, the Convention bearing upon them is made upon their capacity for such actions as carrying and the like. Hence, after the Convention has been made, when people come to use the term,—even when the Ox is seen, the previous Convention steps in and the name ‘Ox’ comes to the mind; and the idea that it ‘exists⁵ comes only later in a clear form. In some cases, through repeated use, the whole process passes through the mind so quickly that every step in it is not fully realised; but it is quite clearly distinguished by persons who have used the term for only a short time.

The whole matter is thus summed up:—From all this, it follows that on account of the intervention of the body of Conventions, the notions in question cannot be said to be directly perceptible; because it is not reasonable to regard as ‘perceived’ things that are cognised only indirectly; as such a process would lead to absurdities.—(727-729)