Verse 844-845

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

तद्यथा कुण्डदध्नोश्च संयोगैक्येऽपि दृश्यते ।
आधाराधेयनियमस्तथेह नियमो मतः ॥ ८४४ ॥
व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकसामर्थ्यभेदाद्द्रव्यादिजातिषु ।
समवायैकभावेऽपि नैव चेत्स विरुध्यते ॥ ८४५ ॥

tadyathā kuṇḍadadhnośca saṃyogaikye'pi dṛśyate |
ādhārādheyaniyamastatheha niyamo mataḥ || 844 ||
vyaṅgyavyañjakasāmarthyabhedāddravyādijātiṣu |
samavāyaikabhāve'pi naiva cetsa virudhyate || 845 ||

“Even though ‘conjunction’ is one only, yet the- relation of container and contained is restricted to the pit and the curd (placed therein); similarly there would be restriction in the case in question also. so that, even though inherence is one only, yet as there would be diversity in the character of being the manifester and manifested, there would be no incongruity in it at all.”—(844-845)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In answer to the question—How is it that, there is this restriction of the Container and Contained, when the relation (of Inherence) is one and the same?—the following answer is provided (by Praśastamati):—[see verses 844-845 above]

“The notion of ‘subsistence in this’, which is based upon Inherence, is found to appear in all cases in one and the same form, from which it follows that Inherence is one only. However, even though Inherence is one, the notions based upon the Universals ‘Substance’, etc. are found to appear in distinct forms as resting in distinct substrata; and thus they are found to be absent,—not present—in all cases; from this it is concluded that these Universals are distinct and diverse; so that there can be no admixture of the five Categories.”—(842-843)

“Even though Conjunction is one only, yet in the case of the Curd and the Pit, the relation of Container and Contained is restricted;—similarly, in the case of the Universals ‘Substance’, etc., even though Inherence is one only, yet, by reason of the diversity in the capacity of manifester and manifested, there would be restriction regarding the relation of Container and Contained.

“‘In it’—i.e. in the restriction of the relation of Container and Contained.”—(844-845)

The answer to the above arguments (of Praśastamati) is given in the following—[see verses 846-847 next]