Verse 1150-1151

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

निष्पन्नत्वमपोहस्य निरुपाख्यस्य कीदृशम् ।
गगनेन्दीवरादीनां निष्पत्तिर्नहि काचन ॥ ११५० ॥
वस्त्वित्यध्यवसायाच्चेत्सोपाख्यात्वेन भात्यसौ ।
ततः किं तुल्यधर्मत्वं वस्तुभिश्चास्य गम्यते ॥ ११५१ ॥

niṣpannatvamapohasya nirupākhyasya kīdṛśam |
gaganendīvarādīnāṃ niṣpattirnahi kācana || 1150 ||
vastvityadhyavasāyāccetsopākhyātvena bhātyasau |
tataḥ kiṃ tulyadharmatvaṃ vastubhiścāsya gamyate || 1151 ||

Apoha being featureless, what sort of ‘accomplishment’ could there be of it? Certainly there is no ‘accomplishment’ of the ‘sky-lotus’ etc.—If it be urged that “inasmuch as it is apprehended as a thing, it appears as with features”,—then (we ask) what if it is so?—[It may be said that] “From this it would follow that it has the same properties as entities.”—(1150-1151)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued (under Text 976, by Kumārila) that—“the idea of something to be accomplished, as also the idea of the Past, etc. would be baseless”.

This is answered in the following—[see verses 1150-1151 above]

If the Apoha has been apprehended by you as featureless, then how can you say “because it is accomplished”? Certainly there is no accomplishment of such things as the ‘sky-flower’; and that because all such are featureless.

The following might be urged—“Even though Apoha is featureless in reality, yet by deluded persons it is conceived as something external, and hence, it comes to appear as with features”.

The answer to this is—What if it is so? That is, even if the Apoha appears to be with features, how does that help you in the present context?

The other party replies—“In that case, etc. etc.;—that is, what follows from it is that, just as the positive entity is apprehended in accomplished form, so Apoha also, being cognised as having the same properties as positive entities, is apprehended as something accomplished; hence the assertion that ‘it is accomplished’ is quite right”.—(1150-1151)

The answer to the above argument of the opponent is that, if it is as just explained, then you yourself have shown the basis of the notion of ‘being accomplished’ and of that of ‘past’ and so forth, and consequently you should not say that all this becomes baseless.

This is what is shown in the following—[see verse 1152 next]