Verse 1328-1329

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

यद्याकारमनादृत्य प्रामाण्यं च प्रकल्प्यते ।
अर्थक्रियाऽविसंवादात्तद्रूपो ह्यर्थनिश्चयः ॥ १३२८ ॥
इत्यादिगदितं सर्वं कथं न व्याहतं भवेत् ।
वासनापाकहेतूत्थस्तस्मात्संवादसम्भवः ॥ १३२९ ॥

yadyākāramanādṛtya prāmāṇyaṃ ca prakalpyate |
arthakriyā'visaṃvādāttadrūpo hyarthaniścayaḥ || 1328 ||
ityādigaditaṃ sarvaṃ kathaṃ na vyāhataṃ bhavet |
vāsanāpākahetūtthastasmātsaṃvādasambhavaḥ || 1329 ||

If, without regard to the form of things, validity were presumed on the ground of mere compatibility with fruitful action,—then how would this not contradict such assertions (of yours) as that ‘the definite cognition of the thing is in the form of the thing’?—as regards the possibility of ‘compatibility’ (in the case of the notion of the ‘yellow conch-shell’), that can only be the result of the impression (of a previous cognition).—1328-1329)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author now sums up his arguments:—[see verses 1328-1329 above]

Validity cannot be presumed merely on the basis of the compatibility of effective action, without regard to the form; as in that case the cognition in the form of the thing itself might have to be regarded as invalid.

‘In the form of the thing’—i.e. in the form that appears in the cognition.

‘Such assertions as’;—this is meant to show that the presumption in question would go against such assertions of the Teacher as—‘As the form of the thing figures in the Cognition, in that form is the thing rightly cognised’, As regards ‘compatibility with effective action’, (in the case) in question, it should be understood to be the result of the Impression left by previous apprehensions. That is to say, the idea of the ‘yellow conch-shell’ is the effect of the Impression left by a previous apprehension of the ‘white conch-shell And the ‘compatibility with effective action’ (that has been said to be present in the case) is due to this Impression.—(1328-1329)