Verse 855-856

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

स्वारम्भकविभागाद्वा यदि वा तद्विनाशतः ।
ते नश्यन्ति क्रियाद्या (दीव) योगादेरिति चेन्न तत् ॥ ८५५ ॥
स्वाधारैस्समवायो हि तेषामपि सदा मतः ।
तेषां विनाशभावे तु नियताऽस्यापि नाशिता ॥ ८५६ ॥

svārambhakavibhāgādvā yadi vā tadvināśataḥ |
te naśyanti kriyādyā (dīva) yogāderiti cenna tat || 855 ||
svādhāraissamavāyo hi teṣāmapi sadā mataḥ |
teṣāṃ vināśabhāve tu niyatā'syāpi nāśitā || 856 ||

“Things become destroyed either through the disruption of their components, or through the destruction of these,—just like action,—on account of conjunction and such other causes”;—if this is urged, then, that cannot be so; because the inherence of these components also in their substratum is held to be eternal. if these came to destruction, then inherence also would become destructible.”—(855-856)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might he urged by the Opponent:—“The Jar and other things become destroyed either through the disruption of their component parts or through the destruction of the parts; just as, while the Jar is in the state of being whirled or baked, its action (motion) becomes destroyed by the contact of a solid substance. This has been thus declared—‘By the contact of solid substances, the action becomes destroyed, as also the action unfavourable to the production of the effect Similarly one Cognition becomes destroyed through another Cognition; one Sound becomes destroyed through another Sound.”

Such is the Opponent’s scheme. What he means is that, even though the Inherence may be there as the basis of the object’s continued existence, if other auxiliary causes are absent, and contrary circumstances become operative, the Jar cannot remain for ever.

This is answered in the words—‘That cannot be so’,—What has been urged cannot be right; because of the said components also there are components wherein their Inherence lies for ever; how then could there be any destruction or disruption?

This is so not only in regard to the substances composed of those components; it is so in regard to Action, etc. also; this is what is indicated by the particle ‘api’.

If it be admitted that there is destruction of the components of the object, then the Inherence also would have to be regarded as liable to destruction.—(855-856)

“Why so?”

Answer:—[see verses 857-858 next]