Verse 819-822

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

ननु चाशुचिभावोऽऽयं सांवृतो न तु तात्त्विकः ।
तत्स्वयं परतो वाऽयं कथं नाम भविष्यति ॥ ८१९ ॥
अथवा भाविकत्वेऽपि श्वमांसादिवशादिमे ।
जायन्तेऽशुचयो भावा नैव नित्या अजन्मतः ॥ ८२० ॥
प्रदीपादिप्रभावाच्च ज्ञानोत्पादस्वरूपताम् ।
लभन्ते क्षणिका ह्यर्थाः कलशाभरणादयः ॥ ८२१ ॥
न विवादास्पदीभूतविशेषबलभाविनी ।
वैलक्षण्यमतिस्तेषु क्रमोत्पत्तेः सुखादिवत् ॥ ८२२ ॥

nanu cāśucibhāvo''yaṃ sāṃvṛto na tu tāttvikaḥ |
tatsvayaṃ parato vā'yaṃ kathaṃ nāma bhaviṣyati || 819 ||
athavā bhāvikatve'pi śvamāṃsādivaśādime |
jāyante'śucayo bhāvā naiva nityā ajanmataḥ || 820 ||
pradīpādiprabhāvācca jñānotpādasvarūpatām |
labhante kṣaṇikā hyarthāḥ kalaśābharaṇādayaḥ || 821 ||
na vivādāspadībhūtaviśeṣabalabhāvinī |
vailakṣaṇyamatisteṣu kramotpatteḥ sukhādivat || 822 ||

As a matter of fact, this ‘unclean character’ is something purely illusory, not real; how then could it be there either ‘by itself’ or ‘through something else’?—Or, even if the unclean character be something real, it may be that other things become ‘unclean’ through contact with the dog’s flesh; nothing like this is possible in the case of eternal substances, because there can be no ‘becoming’ (being born) for them.—Through the influence of the lamp, momentary objects,—like the jar, the ornament and so forth,—become the cause of the production of cognitions; but the apprehension of distinction cannot come about through the influence of the ‘ultimate individualities’ in question,—because it comes about in succession,—like pleasure and the rest.—(819-822)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

As a matter of fact, the ‘Unclean Character’ of things is purely illusory, hypothetical, and not real; because it does not remain fixed; for instance, one and the same substance may appear to be ‘unclean’ for a Vedic scholar, but quite clean to the Hunter; and it cannot be possible for one and the same thing to combine within itself two mutually contradictory characters; as it would, in that case, cease to be one and the same.

Or, the ‘Unclean Character’ of things may be something real. Even so, it cannot serve as a Corroborative Instance; because what happens in the case of such things as food-grains and the like is that when they come into contact with an unclean thing, like the Dog’s flesh, they abandon their previous clean character and become born again as endowed with the unclean character; hence it is right that in their case the unclean character is adventitious, due to something else. There is however no such basis in the case of Atoms and other eternal substances; by virtue of which any such adventitious distinctive feature could come into them; because they are eternal and hence they cannot be born with the new character.

Similarly, in the case of the Lamp also, the character of being the cause of cognitions, as found in the Jar, may be held to be adventitious, due to something else (in the shape of the Lamp).

The last text sets forth the argument against any such explanation in the case of Ultimate Individualities. The exact form of this Inference and the Premiss upon which it is based may be stated in the manner indicated above.—(819-822)

End of Chapter XIV.