Verse 767-770

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

घटस्य प्रागभावोऽयं घटप्रध्वंस इत्ययम् ।
तद्धस्तूपाधिकानेव धीरभावान्प्रपद्यते ॥ ७६७ ॥
उपाधिगतसामान्यवशादेवानुवृत्तता ।
तस्याः सर्वत्र चेन्नैवं वैलक्षण्यातदाश्रयात् ॥ ७६८ ॥
घट इत्यादिका बुद्धिस्तेभ्यो युक्ताऽनुगाभिनी ।
नाभावो भाव इत्येषा तन्मतिस्तु विलक्षणा ॥ ७६९ ॥
नहि सत्तावशाद्बुद्धिर्गौरश्व इति चेष्यते ।
एकमेवान्यथा कल्प्यं सामान्यं सर्वसाधनम् ॥ ७७० ॥

ghaṭasya prāgabhāvo'yaṃ ghaṭapradhvaṃsa ityayam |
taddhastūpādhikāneva dhīrabhāvānprapadyate || 767 ||
upādhigatasāmānyavaśādevānuvṛttatā |
tasyāḥ sarvatra cennaivaṃ vailakṣaṇyātadāśrayāt || 768 ||
ghaṭa ityādikā buddhistebhyo yuktā'nugābhinī |
nābhāvo bhāva ityeṣā tanmatistu vilakṣaṇā || 769 ||
nahi sattāvaśādbuddhirgauraśva iti ceṣyate |
ekamevānyathā kalpyaṃ sāmānyaṃ sarvasādhanam || 770 ||

“Such motions (of negation) as ‘the previous negation of the jar’, ‘the destruction of the jar’ and the like, apprehend negations with positive entities as their adjuncts; and the comprehensive character of the said notion of ‘negation’ is due to the comprehensive character of those adjuncts”,—if this is urged, then (our answer is that) this cannot be so; (a) because there is disparity and (b) because it cannot rest upon that.—(a) The comprehensive notion of the ‘jar’ may be rightly regarded as being due to that; not so the comprehensive notion of ‘negation’; the notion of ‘presence’ (affirmation) is entirely different from the notion of ‘absence’ (negation). (b) The notion of the ‘cow’ or the’ horse’ is not held to be due to the ‘universal’ being. If it did, then only one ‘universal’ would have to be postulated as accomplishing everything (as being the basis of all notions).—(767-770)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts anticipate and answer Śaṅkarasvāmin’s answer to the Bauddha’s criticisms—[see verses 767-770 above]

Śaṅkarasvāmin has argued thus:—“The notions of Negations are never found to be free from adjuncts [the Negation is always of something]; for instance, in all such notions of Negation as ‘the previous negation of the Jar’, ‘the Destruction of the Jar’ and so forth,—they are found to rest upon Negations associated with certain positive entities as adjuncts; which shows that in all cases the notion of Negation has its comprehensive character dependent upon the ‘Universal’ permeating the said adjuncts; so that there is no ‘fallibility’ in our Premiss”.

‘Tasyāḥ’—of the said notion (of Negation).

The above argument is answered in the words—‘It cannot be so, etc., etc.’—The compound ‘Vailakṣaṇyātadāśrayāt’ may be construed to mean either (a) ‘because there is the fact that it cannot rest upon that, along with the fact that there is disparity’, or as (b) ‘because there is disparity, and also because it cannot rest upon that’.

The first of these two reasons—‘because there is disparity’—is explained in detail, in the words—‘The comprehensive notion of the Jar, etc., etc.’;—it is not right that notions of diverse forms should be based upon one and the same adjunct; as in that case a single ‘Universal’ would serve all purposes, and it would be useless to postulate several ‘Universals’, Thus then notions of positive entities like the ‘Jar’ etc. may be due to the ‘Universal’ ‘Jar’,—how could the notions of ‘Negations’ be based upon those ‘Universals’, being, as they are, entirely different from these latter in character? For example the notion of the universal ‘Cow’ does not proceed on the basis of the ‘Universal’ Being.—(767-770)