Verse 1417-1418

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

कर्माहारादिहेतूनां सर्वथापि विशेषतः ।
सम्भाव्यतेऽन्यथाभावस्तत्पुत्रत्वेऽपि तस्य हि ॥ १४१७ ॥
नायं स्वभावः कार्यं वा दृश्यस्यादृष्टिरेव वा ।
नच तद्व्यतिरिक्तस्य भवत्यव्यभिचारिता ॥ १४१८ ॥

karmāhārādihetūnāṃ sarvathāpi viśeṣataḥ |
sambhāvyate'nyathābhāvastatputratve'pi tasya hi || 1417 ||
nāyaṃ svabhāvaḥ kāryaṃ vā dṛśyasyādṛṣṭireva vā |
naca tadvyatiriktasya bhavatyavyabhicāritā || 1418 ||

Even when the child is born of a certain person, there is always a likelihood of diversity in its features, by reason of the peculiarities of such causes as the ‘destiny’ (of the child) and food (of the parents) and so forth.—Further, (a) what is cited as the probans does not constitute the nature (of the probandum); (b) nor is that its effect; (c) nor is it of the nature of ‘the non-perception of the perceptible’;—and apart from these (three) there is nothing that can make the probans ‘infallible’ (true).—(1417-1418)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—“Certainly there is incompatibility; even when there is no difference in the cause, if there were difference in the effect,—then the effect would be causeless”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1417-1418 above]

Through such causes as the peculiarity of past good deeds (Destiny) and eating of hot food and other diverse circumstances, diversity in the features of the child—such as fairness and the like—are possible; wherefore then can there be any incompatibility where a diversity in the causes is well known?

Then again, the Premiss—‘Because he is the son of so and so’—is not a ‘natural’ Reason,—as ‘being a product’ is (in the proving of non-eternality); in the latter case, ‘being a product’ can have no other character save that of non-eternality; while in the case in question it is not that there is no other character for ‘being his son’; because the appellation of ‘his son’ is applied,—not on the ground of the son being dark, but—on the basis of the aggregate of five ingredients (of which the body of the child consists).—Nor is the Probans one based on ‘effect’; as there is no causal relation known to subsist (between Being his son and Darkness).—Nor (lastly), is it of the nature of the ‘non-perception of the perceptible’, as what is cited is in the positive form; also because there being no incongruity between the two, the Probans cannot prove the negation of complexions other than the Dark.

Apart from these three there can be no Inferential Indicative,—because of the absence of ‘Invariable Concomitance’ (in all other cases); without Invariable Concomitance, there can be no proper ‘indicative’ character; for, if there were, it would lead to absurdities.

Thus then, what has been cited is neither a ‘Probans’, nor is it ‘three-featured How then could there be ‘Infallibility’ in it?

‘Non-perception of the perceptible’—is the non-apprehension of something which fulfils all the conditions of apprehensibility,—(1417-1418)