Verse 817-818

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

स्वत एवाशुचित्वं हि श्वमांसादेर्यथा स्थितम् ।
तद्योगादपरेषां तु तथेहापि यदीष्यते ॥ ८१७ ॥
यथा प्रकाशको दीपो घटादेश्च स्वतः स्थितः ।
तत्प्रकाशात्मतायां च नियतोऽयमिदं तथा ॥ ८१८ ॥

svata evāśucitvaṃ hi śvamāṃsāderyathā sthitam |
tadyogādapareṣāṃ tu tathehāpi yadīṣyate || 817 ||
yathā prakāśako dīpo ghaṭādeśca svataḥ sthitaḥ |
tatprakāśātmatāyāṃ ca niyato'yamidaṃ tathā || 818 ||

“Just as the unclean character belongs to the dog’s flesh by itself, and to other things by contact with it,—so in the case in question also—and just as between the jar and the lamp, the lamp, by itself, is always the illuminator of the jar, because it is of the nature of light,—so also in the case in question.”—(817-818)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts anticipate the answer to the above given by Praśastamati—[see verses 817-818 above]

Praśastamati has argued as follows:—“The Dog’s flesh is unclean by its very nature, and other things become unclean by coming into contact with it; in the same manner, the ‘Ultimate Individualities’ by themselves are the basis of exclusive notion—on account of their being of the nature of exclusion,—while Atoms and other things become such basis only through the presence in these of the said Individuality.—Then again, even if a thing may not be of a certain nature, yet its notion may come about through the presence of something else; e.g. the cognition of the Jar is brought about by the Lamp; while the cognition of the Lamp is not brought about by the Jar.—‘Ayam’ stands for the Jar.—‘So also in the case in question’;—that is, the apprehension of distinction among Atoms, etc. is due to the presence of the Ultimate Individualities; while that of the Individualities themselves is due to their very nature.”

This is answered in the following—[see verses 819-822 next]