The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 945 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 945.

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

गव्यसिद्धे त्वगौर्नास्ति तदभावे तु गौः कुतः ।
नाधाराधेयवृत्त्यादिसम्बन्धश्चाप्यभावयोः ॥ ९४५ ॥

gavyasiddhe tvagaurnāsti tadabhāve tu gauḥ kutaḥ |
nādhārādheyavṛttyādisambandhaścāpyabhāvayoḥ || 945 ||

“Unless the cow is established, there can be no non-cow; and if there is no non-cow, how can the cow be there? Between two negations, there can be no such relation as that of the container and the contained and the like.”—[Ślokavārtika-Apoha 85]—(945)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text sums up the same mutual Interdependence:—[see verse 945 above]

For the purpose of proving the relation of qualification and qualified (between the two), the Teacher Diṅnāga has declared as follows:—‘Such terms as Blue Lotus and the like signify things qualified by the negation of other things’.

The Opponent shows the impropriety of this view, in the words—

Between two negations, etc. etc.’—When between two things, a real relationship is known to exist, then it may be correct to say that one is qualified by the other; in the case of the Blue-Lotus however, inasmuch as the two are of the nature of the negation of Blue and negation of Lotus, which are mere negations, and hence devoid of any form,—there cannot be any such relation between them as that of Container and Contained and the like.

The term ‘and the rest’, includes such relations as those of Conjunction, Inherence, Inherence in a common substratum and so forth.

In the absence of any real relation, it is not right that there should be a notion of one being qualified by the other. If it were so, then there would be an incongruity.—(945)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: