Verse 1651-1654

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

क्षीरे दध्यादि यन्नास्ति प्रागभावः स कल्प्यते ।
नास्तिता पयसो दध्नि प्रध्वंसाभावलक्षणम् ॥ १६५१ ॥
गवि योऽश्वाद्यभावश्च सोऽन्योन्याभाव उच्यते ।
पररूपं न तस्यास्ति नास्तिताऽस्यात्मना ततः ॥ १६५२ ॥
शिरसोऽवयवा निम्ना वृद्धिकाठिन्यवर्जिताः ।
शशशृङ्गादिरूपेण सोऽत्यन्ताभाव इष्यते ॥ १६५३ ॥
न च स्याद्व्यवहारोऽयं कारणादिविभागशः ।
प्रागभावादिभेदेन नाभावो विद्यते यदि ॥ १६५४ ॥

kṣīre dadhyādi yannāsti prāgabhāvaḥ sa kalpyate |
nāstitā payaso dadhni pradhvaṃsābhāvalakṣaṇam || 1651 ||
gavi yo'śvādyabhāvaśca so'nyonyābhāva ucyate |
pararūpaṃ na tasyāsti nāstitā'syātmanā tataḥ || 1652 ||
śiraso'vayavā nimnā vṛddhikāṭhinyavarjitāḥ |
śaśaśṛṅgādirūpeṇa so'tyantābhāva iṣyate || 1653 ||
na ca syādvyavahāro'yaṃ kāraṇādivibhāgaśaḥ |
prāgabhāvādibhedena nābhāvo vidyate yadi || 1654 ||

“(1) ‘That the curd is not in the milk’ is a case of ‘previous negation’;—(2) ‘that the milk is not in the curd’ is a case of ‘destruction’ (3) ‘the non-existence of the horse in the cow’ is a case of ‘mutual negation’”—[Ślokavārtika-negation, 2-3].—

In this last case, the cow does not have the form of the other, and hence this negative character belongs to it by itself.^[1]—

(4) The flat portion of the hare’s head, being devoid of hardness and height, and hence there being no horns in the hare,—this is a case of absolute negation—[Ślokavārtika-negation, 4].—

If there were no such entity as ‘negation’ classed under these several heads of ‘previous negation’ and the rest,—then there could be no usage based upon the differentiation of causes and effects—[Ślokavārtika—negation, 7].—(165.1—1654)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

When in reference to the cause—such as Clay or Milk,—people have the idea of the effect—the Jar or the Curd—not being there,—this is called ‘Previous Negation’, If this ‘Previous Negation’ were not an entity, the product, Curd, would always be there in the Milk.

In the same way, when in reference to the Curd, there is the idea of the Milk being no longer there,—it is called ‘Destruction’. If this Negation were not an entity then the Milk would still be there in the Curd.

In reference to the Cow, there is the idea of its not being the Horse; this is called ‘Mutual Negation’. Because the Cow does not have the form of the other,—the Horse—therefore this is called ‘Mutual Negation’, If this Mutual Negation were not an entity, then the Horse would be there in the Cow.

When the flat parts of the Hare’s head are found to be devoid of growth and hardness,—and entirely non-existent in the form of Horns,—it is called ‘Absolute Negation’.—Even though here also, in so far as the nature of the things is concerned, we have a case of ‘Mutual Negation’. [The flat Head not being the Horn], yet, it has been cited as an example of ‘Absolute Negation’, in accordance with the popular notion of it. In common parlance whenever ‘Mutual Negation’ is spoken of, the two things are mentioned in the co-ordinated form—‘This is a Cow, not a horse’; in the case of the negation of the Hare’s Horn, however, they do not say—‘This is the Hare, not the Horn’, If ‘absolute Negation’ were not an entity, then the Hare’s Horn would be there. As says Kumārila [in Ślokavārtika—Negation, 2-4]—‘If Negation were not a Means of valid Cognition, then there would be Curd in the Milk,—Milk in the Curd,—the Cloth in the Jar,—the Horn in the Hare,—sentience in the Earth and other substances,—Corporeality in the Soul,—Odour in Water,—Taste in Eire,—and both Odour and Taste along with Colour, in Air,—Touch and the other qualities’ in Ākāśa.—Here ‘sentience’ stands for the soul; ‘Corporeality’ for solidity;—‘those two’—Odour and Taste—along with Colour, would be there in Air;—and Colour, Taste and Odour, along with Touch would be there in Ākāśa.

Further, there could be no differentiation into Causes and Effects in the transactions of the ordinary world,—if Negation did not exist in its various forms of ‘Previous Negation’ and the rest. For instance, one who wants Curd, obtains Milk,—but one who wants Milk does not seek to obtain Curd; similarly one who wants the Cow does not secure the Horse; nor does the man who wants the Horse secure the Cow. It is in this way that business is carried oil in the world.—(1651-1654)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This sentence is not a quotation from the Ślokavārtika.