The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1112-1114 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 1112-1114.

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

अथोत्पलत्वसम्बन्धिरूपत्वेन न चोदयेत् ।
गुणतज्जातिसम्बद्धं द्रव्यं नीलमिति ध्वनिः ॥ १११२ ॥
स्यान्नामोत्पलतायोगिरूपत्वमतदात्मकम् ।
उत्पलत्वेन सम्बद्धं त्वाभ्यां सम्बद्धमेव तत् ॥ १११३ ॥
नीलश्रुत्या च तत्प्रोक्तं शाब्द्यात्र विषयीकृतम् ।
बुद्ध्या सर्वात्मना नांशौस्तदनर्थोत्पलश्रुतिः ॥ १११४ ॥

athotpalatvasambandhirūpatvena na codayet |
guṇatajjātisambaddhaṃ dravyaṃ nīlamiti dhvaniḥ || 1112 ||
syānnāmotpalatāyogirūpatvamatadātmakam |
utpalatvena sambaddhaṃ tvābhyāṃ sambaddhameva tat || 1113 ||
nīlaśrutyā ca tatproktaṃ śābdyātra viṣayīkṛtam |
buddhyā sarvātmanā nāṃśaustadanarthotpalaśrutiḥ || 1114 ||

If the word ‘blue’ does not denote the substance related to the quality and the universal (blue) as related to the universal ‘lotus’,—then the substance as related to the universal ‘lotus’ should be something totally different; as a matter of fact, what is related to the universal ‘lotus’ is that same substance that is related to the other two (quality and universal ‘blue’); and that substance has already been expressed, in its entirety—not in part,—by the word ‘blue’,—and has also been apprehended by the verbal cognition brought about by that word;—so that the word ‘lotus’ would be entirely useless.—(1112-1114)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—“Though the same Substance is denoted by the word ‘blue’, and also by the word ‘Lotus’,—yet the word ‘blue’ denotes the Substance, not as something related to the Universal ‘Lotus’, but as related to the Quality Blue and the Universal ‘Blue’; consequently, the word ‘Lotus’ is used for the purpose of expressing the fact of the substance being related to the Universal ‘Lotus’; and as such it cannot be useless.”

This argument is raised and answered in the following:—[see verses 1112-1114 above]

If the word ‘blue’ does not denote the Substance related to the Quality and the Universal ‘Blue’, as related to the Universal ‘Lotus’,—then (there is the following incongruity).

The substance as related to the UniversalLotus’ is not something entirely different from the substance as related to the Quality and UniversalBlue’,—on the basis whereof on the denotation of the Substance related to the Quality and Universal ‘Blue’, there might be no denotation of the Substance as related to the Universal ‘Lotus As a matter of fact, however, there is no difference between the correlatives in the two cases; and hence the two substances must also be the same; and hence it cannot be right that on the denotation of one there should be no denotation of the other.

Further, even admitting what has been said,—the substance related to the Universal ‘Lotus’ may be different from that related to the Quality and the Universal ‘Blue’; even so the word ‘Lotus’ would be useless. Because that impartiteng which is related to the Universal ‘Lotus’ is exactly what is related to the two factors of the Quality and the Universal ‘Blue’,—it is not anything different from it; and as that thing is impartite, it must have been denoted in its entirety, by the word ‘blue’; and it would also have figured in the Verbal Cognition—brought about by that word hence what would be left there undenoted in the denoting of which the word ‘Lotus’ would have its use?—(1112-1114)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: