Verse 1608-1610

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

दाहादीनां तु यो हेतुः पावकादिः समीक्ष्यते ।
असंशयाविपर्यासं शक्तिः काऽन्या भवेत्ततः ॥ १६०८ ॥
व्यतिरिक्ते तु कार्येषु तस्या एवोपयोगतः ।
भावोऽकारक एव स्यादुपयोगे न भेदिनी ॥ १६०९ ॥
अर्थक्रियासमर्थं हि स्वरूपं शक्तिलक्षणम् ।
एवमात्मा च भावोऽयं प्रत्यक्षाद्व्यवसीयते ॥ १६१० ॥

dāhādīnāṃ tu yo hetuḥ pāvakādiḥ samīkṣyate |
asaṃśayāviparyāsaṃ śaktiḥ kā'nyā bhavettataḥ || 1608 ||
vyatirikte tu kāryeṣu tasyā evopayogataḥ |
bhāvo'kāraka eva syādupayoge na bhedinī || 1609 ||
arthakriyāsamarthaṃ hi svarūpaṃ śaktilakṣaṇam |
evamātmā ca bhāvo'yaṃ pratyakṣādvyavasīyate || 1610 ||

In the case of such phenomena as burning and the rest, their cause is actually perceived in the form of the fire and the rest, and there is nothing wrong or uncertain in this perception; what then could ‘potency’ be, apart from those causes?—If the ‘potency’ is something different (from the said causes), then as that ‘potency’ would be what brings about the effect, the object (cause) itself would not be an active agent at all (in the bringing about of that effect); if, on the other hand, the object does bring about the effect, then the potency would not be anything different; because the characteristic feature of the ‘object’ is that it should be capable of effective action; and that the object is so capable is learnt from perception itself.—(1608-1610)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts point out the objections that are applicable specially to that example of Presumption which has been cited as based upon Perception:—[see verses 1608-1610 above]

‘There is nothing wrong, etc.’—This compound is to be taken as an adverb (modifying the verb ‘perceived’).

If the Potency is regarded to be something different from the object, then,—in the bringing about of the effect (in the shape of the phenomenon cited), the Potency being the effective agent, the object itself would cease to be an active agent; which would mean that the object is a non-entity; as the characteristic of the Entity is that it should be capable of effective action.

If, in order to guard against the object becoming a non-entity, it be admitted that the object does have some action in the bringing about of the effect concerned,—then the ‘Potency’ could not be anything different—from the object.—Why?—Because ‘Potency’ can be only that form—or nature,—which is capable of effective action;—it cannot be anything else.

As regards the verbal expression ‘the Potency of the object’—which implies some sort of a difference between the two,—that is meant to discard the notion of any other kind of difference, and is used in this form only with a view to the enquiry as to what ‘Potency’ is,—and the answer is that it is the object itself.—(1608-1610)