The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1192-1194 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 1192-1194.

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

अन्यार्थविनिवृत्तिं च साक्षाच्छब्दः करोति नः ।
कृते स्वार्थाभिधाने तु सामर्थ्यात्साऽवगम्यते ॥ ११९२ ॥
न तदात्मा परात्मेति विस्तरेणोपपादितम् ।
परपक्षानभिज्ञेन तस्मादेतदिहोच्यते ॥ ११९३ ॥
केन ह्यगोत्वमासक्तं गोर्येनैतदपोह्यते ।
इति नैवाभिमुख्येन शब्देनैतदपोह्यते ॥ ११९४ ॥

anyārthavinivṛttiṃ ca sākṣācchabdaḥ karoti naḥ |
kṛte svārthābhidhāne tu sāmarthyātsā'vagamyate || 1192 ||
na tadātmā parātmeti vistareṇopapāditam |
parapakṣānabhijñena tasmādetadihocyate || 1193 ||
kena hyagotvamāsaktaṃ goryenaitadapohyate |
iti naivābhimukhyena śabdenaitadapohyate || 1194 ||

For us the word does the ‘negativing of other things’ directly; and after the negativing has been done by the word, it becomes apprehended through its own force,—in the form ‘its nature is not the nature of anything else’,—as has been explained in detail (under text 1013); hence what is urged on the present occasion—‘who has attributed the character of the non-cow to the cow, that it has to be negatived?—Is through ignorance of the view of the other party. As a matter of fact, this is not what is held to be ‘negatived’ by the word directly.—(1192-1194)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been asked (under Text 989)—“Who has attributed the character of the Non-Cow to the Cow, that it has to be ‘negatived’ (by the Apoha)?” The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1192-1194 above]

What has been urged would have been true only if the Word had expressed ‘the negation of others’ primarily; as a matter of fact, however, what the Word produces, first of all, is only the Reflected Image of the Thing (spoken of); and it is only after that has been comprehended that, through the force of its implication, the said ‘negation’ (exclusion) becomes comprehended. Apparently this doctrine of ours is not known to the other party, and what he has urged is something insignificant, beneath notice. Such is the upshot of the Text. The rest is easy.—(1192-1194)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: