Verse 824-826

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

तस्याभावे स चेत्किं हि मतेरस्या निबन्धनम् ।
न विशेषमतिर्दृष्टा निमित्तान्तरवर्जिता ॥ ८२४ ॥
इहबुद्ध्यविशेषाच्च योगवन्न विभिद्यते ।
सर्वस्मिन्भाववत्त्वेष एक एव प्रतीयते ॥ ८२५ ॥
कारणानुपलब्धेश्च नित्यो भाववदेव सः ।
न ह्यस्य कारणं किञ्चित्प्रमाणेनोपलभ्यते ॥ ८२६ ॥

tasyābhāve sa cetkiṃ hi materasyā nibandhanam |
na viśeṣamatirdṛṣṭā nimittāntaravarjitā || 824 ||
ihabuddhyaviśeṣācca yogavanna vibhidyate |
sarvasminbhāvavattveṣa eka eva pratīyate || 825 ||
kāraṇānupalabdheśca nityo bhāvavadeva saḥ |
na hyasya kāraṇaṃ kiñcitpramāṇenopalabhyate || 826 ||

“If there were no such thing (as inherence), what would be the basis of the said notion? no particular notion is found to appear without a particular cause.—inasmuch as the same notion of ‘subsisting herein’ is equally present in all cases, inherence does not vary, like conjunction. in fact it is perceived in all things as one and the same, just like ‘existence’.—inasmuch as its cause is never apprehended, it is eternal,—like ‘existence by no means of valid cognition is its cause apprehended.”—(824-826)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author proceeds to explain the character of this Inherence;—[see verse 824-826 above]

“Unless there is some basis for the notion, the notion of ‘existence.’, etc. would always be there;—this is the Inferential argument subversive of your doctrine.

“Thus under the theory of the Vaiśeṣika, ‘Inherence’ is inferred from the presence of the notion of ‘subsisting in this’; while according to the Naiyāyika, it is directly perceived in the notion of ‘subsisting in this’. That is to say, when the sense-organ is functioning, there appears the perception that ‘the Cloth subsists in these yams’, and on the basis of this, they declare this notion to be ‘Perception

“This Inherence (which is a form of Relation) does not vary with the various correlatives,—as Conjunction does; in fact, like ‘Existence’.

‘Being’—it is one and the same everywhere; for the simple reason that its indicative feature,—the notion of ‘subsisting in this’,—is everywhere the same.

“‘Like Conjunction’—is an Instance per dissimilarity.

“Having no cause,—Inherence is eternal,—again like ‘existence’. The fact of its having no cause is proved by the fact of no Cause of it being cognised by any means of Cognition.”—(824-826)