Verse 1284-1285

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

अतदात्मकमेवेदं वैशिष्ट्यं वस्तुनोऽपि हि ।
नासद्रूपं च सामान्यं तद्विशिष्टं न ते कथम् ॥ १२८४ ॥
तस्मात्स्वलक्षणे ज्ञानं यत्किंचित्संप्रवर्त्तते ।
वाक्पथातीतविषयं सर्वं तन्निर्विकल्पकम् ॥ १२८५ ॥

atadātmakamevedaṃ vaiśiṣṭyaṃ vastuno'pi hi |
nāsadrūpaṃ ca sāmānyaṃ tadviśiṣṭaṃ na te katham || 1284 ||
tasmātsvalakṣaṇe jñānaṃ yatkiṃcitsaṃpravarttate |
vākpathātītaviṣayaṃ sarvaṃ tannirvikalpakam || 1285 ||

As a matter of fact, in the case of the entity also, being ‘distinguished’ consists in not being that same; and as the universal is not the same as the non-entity, why can you not regard it as being ‘distinguished’ from the non-entity?—(1284)

From all this it follows that whatever cognition appears in regard to the ‘specific individuality’ of things appertains to what is beyond the range of words and is hence non-conceptual.—(1285)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In the case of the entity also, when it is ‘distinguished’ from Non-entity, this ‘being distinguished’ is not anything different; it is only the negation of sameness; the meaning being that it is not the same as the other; and this can be equally so in the case of the Universal also, in relation to the Nonentity, like the Hare’s Horn. Because the Hare’s Horn is a non-entity in the sense that it is not capable of any action whatever;—the Universal on the other hand is not regarded as so incapable;—so that its being distinguished from the Non-entity is quite clear. That there should be the distinction of the Universal from the Non-entity, and yet the Non-entity does not become an entity,—that is nothing very important.

As regards the Non-entity, the assertion (made by Sumati) that it is nothing different from Entity and so forth,—it is clear that the writer has not pondered over the meaning of his own assertion: Because when it is said that ‘an Entity is not found to be another entity’, the fact of its being ‘distinguished’ from it becomes asserted; because it speaks of its preclusion from it.—All that has been urged, therefore, is only the effect of blindness. Hence we desist from further argumentation.—(1284)

The upshot of his whole argument is stated by the Author in the following—[see verse 1285 above]