Verse 736-737

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

क्रियागुणव्यपदेशाभावो हेतुश्च वर्ण्यते ।
अभावप्रत्ययस्येति विशेषणमनर्थकम् ॥ ७३६ ॥
तदप्ययुक्तं हेतुत्वे वस्तुता शक्तितोऽपि च ।
अभावप्रत्ययः प्राप्तः सत्तादिष्वविशेषतः ॥ ७३७ ॥

kriyāguṇavyapadeśābhāvo hetuśca varṇyate |
abhāvapratyayasyeti viśeṣaṇamanarthakam || 736 ||
tadapyayuktaṃ hetutve vastutā śaktito'pi ca |
abhāvapratyayaḥ prāptaḥ sattādiṣvaviśeṣataḥ || 737 ||

‘The negation of action, quality and name’ is also described (by you) as the cause of the notion of ‘non-existence’; hence the qualification serves no useful purpose.—The said description (of the cause of the notion of non-existence) also is not right; because if it is a cause, then it must be a positive entity, as possessing a definite potency. Lastly, the notion of ‘non-existence’ would be applicable to ‘being’ and such ‘universals’ also.—(736-737)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Of the notion of ‘non-existence’ also, the ‘Negation of action, quality and name’ has been described as the Cause.—This cannot be right; because what has been said to constitute the character of the ‘Cause’ is the potency to produce the effect;—this Potency can reside only in a Positive Entity; as the Positive Entity alone is characterised by the said Potency. If then, Negation also had the said Potency imposed upon it, how could it not attain the character of the Positive Entity? As the presence of that Potency alone constitutes the nature of the Positive Entity. In this way the Negation would lose its negative character itself. As ‘negation’ consists only in the cessation of the character of the ‘Positive Entity

Then again, if ‘the negation of Action, Quality and Name’ were the Cause of the notion of Non-existence, then the notion of being ‘non-existent’ would apply to ‘Being’ and other Universals also; as therein also is present ‘the negation of Action, Quality and Name’—just as much as in such nonentities as the ‘Hare’s Horns—(736-737)

The following Text shows that the Reason cited (by the Opponent under Text 716) is ‘unproven’ (not admitted):—[see verse 738 next]