Verse 1662-1664

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

अस्तु वाऽपरिणामोऽस्य तथापि व्यभिचारिता ।
स्वापमूर्च्छाद्यवस्थासु तद्भावेऽप्यर्थसम्भवात् ॥ १६६२ ॥
प्रत्ययान्तरसद्भावे तद्विविक्तान्यदर्शनात् ।
घटज्ञानादिरूपेण तस्यासाविष्यते यदि ॥ १६६३ ॥
द्वितीयादस्य कः पक्षाद्विशेषोऽभिहितस्तदा ।
यद्विकल्पेन निर्दिष्टं पक्षद्वयमिदं त्वया ॥ १६६४ ॥

astu vā'pariṇāmo'sya tathāpi vyabhicāritā |
svāpamūrcchādyavasthāsu tadbhāve'pyarthasambhavāt || 1662 ||
pratyayāntarasadbhāve tadviviktānyadarśanāt |
ghaṭajñānādirūpeṇa tasyāsāviṣyate yadi || 1663 ||
dvitīyādasya kaḥ pakṣādviśeṣo'bhihitastadā |
yadvikalpena nirdiṣṭaṃ pakṣadvayamidaṃ tvayā || 1664 ||

Or, there may be ‘non-modification’ of the soul. Even so, the definition is wrong. Because in the state of sleep, swoon and the like, even though this (non-modification of soul) is there, the objects (of cognition) are there. If then, the ‘non-modification of the soul’ be held to be in reference to the jar and other things, on the ground that when there are other cognitions, the place concerned is seen to be devoid of those things,—then, even by this explanation, what more has been said in addition to what is said in the second definition (of negation) that has been suggested,—in view whereof the two definitions have been put forward as alternatives?—(1662-1664)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In the following Texts, the possibility of ‘non-modification’ is taken for-granted, and then it is shown that the definition is too wide:—[see verses 1662-1664 above]

‘Wrong’—Too wide.

‘Swoon and the like—‘And the like’ is meant to include those conditions where there is interception, or the thing is behind one’s back.

‘Even though this is there’—i.e, even though the Soul is there, not-modified into the form of the Cognition of the Jar and other things.

[Says the Opponent]—“Even though cognition other than those based on real objects are there, this is cognition of the place as devoid of the Jar and such real substances,—and it is this that is meant by ‘non-modification’; as the Soul (under the states) is not modified into the form of the cognition of the Jar, etc. [and thus this precludes the cases of sleep, swoon and the like].—‘Tasya’ stands for the Soul—‘Asau’ stands for non-modification”.

If this is what is meant (by the first definition), then there would be nothing said (in the first definition) which differentiated this definition from the second definition (put forward in Text 1649) to the effect that ‘Negation is the cognition of some other object’; so that the putting forward of two alternative views would be useless.—(1662-1664)