Verse 1036-1037

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

घटादीनां च यत्कार्यं जलादेर्धारणादिकम् ।
यच्च तद्विषयं ज्ञानं भिन्नं यद्यपि तद्द्वयम् ॥ १०३६ ॥
एकप्रत्यवमर्शस्य हेतुत्वादेकमुच्यते ।
ज्ञानं तथापि तद्धेतुभावादर्था अभेदिनः ॥ १०३७ ॥

ghaṭādīnāṃ ca yatkāryaṃ jalāderdhāraṇādikam |
yacca tadviṣayaṃ jñānaṃ bhinnaṃ yadyapi taddvayam || 1036 ||
ekapratyavamarśasya hetutvādekamucyate |
jñānaṃ tathāpi taddhetubhāvādarthā abhedinaḥ || 1037 ||

Though the action of the jar and other things, in the shape of holding water, etc.,—and also the cognition of those things,—are different (diverse),—yet, as it forms the basis of a single (comprehensive) conception, the cognition is said to be one only; and as this cognition forms the basis, the things also are spoken of as not-diverse (one).—(1036-1037)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the Opponent:—“How can the Jar and such things be spoken of as performing the same function—when, their actions, in the shape of holding water and the rest,—as also the Cognitions apprehending them,—differ from one another, on the ground of the difference among their ‘Specific Individualities’?”

Answer:—[see verses 1036-1037 above]

Even though the effects differ on account of the difference in their ‘Specific Individualities’, yet, the effect in the form of Cognition,—inasmuch as it serves as the basis of the single comprehensive conception,—is spoken of as one; and on account of this one Cognition being the basis, the things,—in the shape of the Holding of Honey, Water, etc,, and in the shape of the individual Jar, etc.,—also are spoken of as one.—This is what is meant by the text—‘And as this cognition, etc. etc.’.

The previous singular form ‘ucyate’ has, in construing, to be changed into the plural form ‘ucyante’.

The particle ‘api’ is to be construed after ‘arthāḥ’.

In the way shown, it is quite reasonable to regard these as ‘performing the same fruitful function’,

Objection:—“But in this way there would be infinite regress. The said Conception also would be diverse on account of the diversity of the Specific Individualities; so that that also could not be accepted as one; hence for establishing the oneness of that, it would be necessary to postulate a further comprehensive conception, and so on and on, there would be an infinite regress, So that there being no single effect or action, it would not be possible to apply a single name to several things,”

Answer:—It is not so; the oneness of the comprehensive conception is not attributed to the performance of a single function; it is based upon the fact of its apprehending the same thing. So that there will be no infinite regress. Because all comprehensive conceptions by their very nature apprehend one and the same thing. The meaning of this therefore comes to be this Inasmuch as it is the basis of one uniform comprehensive conception, the effect in the shape of Cognition is spoken of as one; and because of its being the basis again, the things—Jar, etc.—also come to be spoken of as ‘one—(1036-1037)