The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 928 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 928.

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

ननु चाश्वादिभेदेन भेदोऽपोहस्य सेत्स्यति ।
न विशेषः स्वतस्तस्य परतश्चोपजायते ॥ ९२८ ॥

nanu cāśvādibhedena bhedo'pohasya setsyati |
na viśeṣaḥ svatastasya parataścopajāyate || 928 ||

There would certainly be difference among Apohas, based upon the difference among the horse and other things.—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 47]—(928a)

“In fact, there can be no distinction among Apohas—either by themselves, or through others.”—[ibid.]—(928b)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

This argument has been thus stated:—‘They are diverse, through the diversity of the things excluded; but they are absolutely inert in the matter of difference among themselves’, So that, even though there is no difference among the Apohas themselves, yet, as there is difference in the Horse and other things excluded (by the Apoha denoted by the word ‘Cow’),—there would be difference among the Apohas also, which are of the form of the exclusion of non-cows (and non-cows are many and diverse); thus they could not all be synonymous.—(928)

This answer is rejected in the following—[see verse 928b above]

There can be no diversity or plurality in the Apoha itself,—because it is of the essence of mere negation. If it were diverse through others,—then this could be only imaginary, not real. Because it is not right that a nature that does not belong to a thing by itself should come to it through others.—(928)

Why should not this be right?

Answer:—[see verse 929 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: