Verse 1269

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

विशेषोऽस्पृष्टसामान्यो न च कश्चन विद्यते ।
ग्रहणे चेत्तदस्पष्टं विभावत्वान्न गृह्यते ॥ १२६९ ॥

viśeṣo'spṛṣṭasāmānyo na ca kaścana vidyate |
grahaṇe cettadaspaṣṭaṃ vibhāvatvānna gṛhyate || 1269 ||

“There is no particular (or individual) without a touch of the universal. if this is not touched in the apprehension, then the particular, becoming devoid of being, cannot be apprehended.”—(1269)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following argument might be urged against Sumati:—‘There is no such thing as the Thing itself which could be apprehended as qualified by a character; what there is is, only that qualified thing which is held by you, and also by me, to be the Particular (or Individual); it is this only that exists and is apprehended’.

To this Sumati makes the following answer:—[see verse 1269 above]

“The term ‘mātra’, ‘itself’, in the Opponent’s statements stands for the Universal, that which is called ‘Being’; and absolutely independent of this Universal, there is no Particular (or Individual) which could be apprehended.—It might be said—‘Under your view there may be such a Universal, but this is not touched at all at the time of the apprehension’.—Our answer to that is—If this is not quite char in the apprehension, that is due to its having become devoid of Being;—that is, if, at the time of apprehension, the said Universal ‘Being’ is not touched by Sense-perception,—and the Particular (or Individual) alone is apprehended,—then this Particular by itself, if apprehended at all, would be devoid of existence, as devoid of the character known as ‘Being’;—and thus it could become characterless; and as such could not be apprehended by Sense-perception, because it would be devoid of Being,—having lost its Being or Existence, and become like the ‘sky-flower’.”—(1269)