Verse 859

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

एकसम्बन्धिनाशेऽपि समवायोऽवतिष्ठते ।
अन्यसम्बन्धिसद्भावाद्योगो नो चेन्न भेदतः ॥ ८५९ ॥

ekasambandhināśe'pi samavāyo'vatiṣṭhate |
anyasambandhisadbhāvādyogo no cenna bhedataḥ || 859 ||

“Even on the destruction of one relative, the inherence continues to exist, because the other relative is still there.—nor would the same be the case with conjunction; because there is difference.”—(859)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

What the Opponent means is as follows:—“In the first Reason (adduced by the Buddhist), if what is meant is the destruction of all Relatives,—then it is partly ‘unproven’, ‘not admitted’; because the destruction of all Relatives is not possible; as even at Universal Dissolution, the Atoms remain.—If then the Reason is put forward with a view to some sort of Relatives having ceased to exist, then it is Inconclusive; because even when a certain Relative may have ceased to exist, other Relatives would still be there.—It might be urged against the Opponent that, ‘by the same reasoning process, Conjunction also should have to be regarded as eternal’,—Anticipating this, the Opponent says—It cannot be so, because there is difference; that is to say, Conjunction varies with each conjunct object; hence it is only right to regard it as evanescent; Inherence, on the other hand, is only one in the whole world, because its basis, in the shape of the notion of ‘subsistence herein’, remains always the same; hence it cannot be right to regard Inherence as evanescent; as it is always perceptible in another Relative (even on the cessation of one Relative).”—(859)

The above argument is answered in the following:—[see verses 860-864 next]