Verse 1221

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

हेयोपादेयविषयकथनाय द्वयोक्तितः ।
परापरप्रसिद्धेयं कल्पना द्विविधोदिता ॥ १२२१ ॥

heyopādeyaviṣayakathanāya dvayoktitaḥ |
parāparaprasiddheyaṃ kalpanā dvividhoditā || 1221 ||

Two kinds of conceptual content have been mentioned in the two assertions, in order to set forth the two views that have been held by persons belonging to our own party and by those belonging to other parties,—in order to show which is to be accepted and which to be rejected—(1221)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

“If then the Conceptual Content in the form of association with the Universal is not possible, then, how is it that the propounder of the definition (Diṅnāga in his Nyāyamukha) has asserted that ‘Conceptual Content’ consists in connection with Name, Universal and so forth’?”

The Answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 1221 above]

What is to be rejected is the Conceptual Content in the form of connection with the Universal, etc. which is the view accepted by the other party; and what is to be accepted is the view of our own party that it consists in association with name. In order to set forth this distinction, both views relating to Conceptual Content have been asserted.

Question:—“How do you know that it is so?”

Answer:—‘By the two assertions’ that is the words used by the Teacher are ‘nāmajātyādiyojanā’,—‘connection or association with Name and Universal, etc.’, where both the Name and the Universal, etc. have been mentioned, as representing tho two views. If this were not intended, then the expression used would have been either ‘association with Name, etc.’ or ‘association with the Universal, etc.’ Nor is the enumeration meant to be exhaustive; as in that case the addition of ‘etcetera’ would be meaningless.—(1221)