The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1127-1130 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 1127-1130.

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

उत्पादः प्रसवश्चैषां नाशः संस्त्यानमिष्यते ।
आत्मरूपं तु भावानां स्थितिरित्यभिधीयते ॥ ११२७ ॥
तत्रोत्पादे न नाशोऽस्ति तत्किमुत्पत्तिरुच्यते ।
नात्माकारा स्थितिश्चास्ति तत्कथं जन्म गीयते ॥ ११२८ ॥
संस्त्याने न द्वयं चान्यत्तत्कथं व्यपदिश्यते ।
तिरोभावश्च नाशश्च तिरोभवनमित्यपि ॥ ११२९ ॥
स्थितौ स्थितिः स्वभावश्च हेतुना केन वोच्यते ।
अथाविभक्तमेवैषां रूपं स्यादेकलिङ्गता ॥ ११३० ॥

utpādaḥ prasavaścaiṣāṃ nāśaḥ saṃstyānamiṣyate |
ātmarūpaṃ tu bhāvānāṃ sthitirityabhidhīyate || 1127 ||
tatrotpāde na nāśo'sti tatkimutpattirucyate |
nātmākārā sthitiścāsti tatkathaṃ janma gīyate || 1128 ||
saṃstyāne na dvayaṃ cānyattatkathaṃ vyapadiśyate |
tirobhāvaśca nāśaśca tirobhavanamityapi || 1129 ||
sthitau sthitiḥ svabhāvaśca hetunā kena vocyate |
athāvibhaktamevaiṣāṃ rūpaṃ syādekaliṅgatā || 1130 ||

Of things,—‘appearance’ is birth; ‘destruction’ is perishing; and ‘continuance’ is the thing in its own form. now in birth there is no perishing; why then is it spoken of as ‘utpattiḥ’ (feminine)? Nor is there existence in its own form; why then is it spoken of as ‘janma’ (neuter)? In destruction also, the other two states are not there; why then is it spoken of as ‘tirobhāvaḥ’ (masculine), ‘nāśaḥ’ (masculine) and ‘tirobhavanam’ (neuter)? As regards continuance also, on what ground is it spoken of as ‘sthitiḥ’ (feminine) and ‘svabhāvaḥ’ (masculine)?—If the form of these is not differentiated, then they should always be in one and the same gender.—(1127-1130)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

For the following reason, the explanation provided is too narrow.—Because in connection with the same said states of Continuance and the rest, it is found that to each of these, words of all the three genders are applied. For instance, Appearance is spoken of as ‘utpādaḥ’ (Birth, Masculine); Destruction is spoken of as ‘nāśaḥ’ (Perishing, Masculine); Continuance is spoken of as ‘ātmasvarūpam’ (its own form, Neuter).—Now as regards Appearance, there can be no ‘continuance’ or ‘destruction’ in it; how then could such words as ‘utpattiḥ’ (Feminine) and ‘janma’ (Neuter) foe applied to it? Similarly as regards Destruction, there can foe no ‘continuance’ or ‘appearance’ in it; how then could it foe spoken of by such terms as ‘tirobhāvaḥ’ (Masculine), ‘vināśaḥ’ (Masculine) and ‘tirobhavanam’ (Neuter)?—The particle ‘api’ in the Text serves to show that Destruction itself could not foe spoken of by that same word.—Similarly, as regards Continuance, Destruction and Appearance being impossible therein,—it has to foe explained on what grounds it is spoken of as ‘sthitiḥ’ (Feminine) and ‘Svabhāvaḥ’ (Masculine).

It might be said that—“inasmuch as these, Continuance and the rest, are not differentiated among themselves, each of them may be capable of taking all the three Genders”.

The answer to this is stated in the words—‘If the form of these, etc. etc.’;—that is, if the form of these is not differentiated from each other, then there should, in reality, foe only one, not three, Genders.—(1127-1130)

The other party says:—“The Feminine, Masculine and Neuter are so many different Universals, like the Universal ‘Cow’, and the like.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1131 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: