Verse 1724-1725

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

सत्यप्येकस्वभावत्वे धर्मभेदोऽत्र सिद्ध्यति ।
भेदसंस्था(ऽ)विरोधश्च यथा कारकशक्तिषु ॥ १७२४ ॥
न दृष्टेऽनुपपन्नं च यत्सामान्यविशेषयोः ।
ऐकात्म्येऽपीक्ष्यते भेदलोकयात्रानुवर्त्तनम् ॥ १७२५ ॥

satyapyekasvabhāvatve dharmabhedo'tra siddhyati |
bhedasaṃsthā(')virodhaśca yathā kārakaśaktiṣu || 1724 ||
na dṛṣṭe'nupapannaṃ ca yatsāmānyaviśeṣayoḥ |
aikātmye'pīkṣyate bhedalokayātrānuvarttanam || 1725 ||

“Though the entity may be of one nature only, yet it can have different properties; there could be no incongruity in the presence of different states (of the same thing); which is found, for example, in the case of the potencies of the active agencies;—nor can there be any incongruity in what is actually seen; and it is actually seen that even though the general and the particular are aspects of one and the same thing, yet in actual practical life there is difference between them.”—(1724-1725)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts put forward the view of Sumati (a Jaina writer of the Digambara School):—[see verses 1724-1725 above]

Sumati has offered the following explanation in connection with the objection urged against the Jaina doctrine:—“It has been urged that if the General and the Particular were not regarded as different, there would be confusion.—But this does not affect the case at all. Though, by reason of their being of the same nature there may be confusion,—there can be difference in their properties,—as is found to be the case with the potencies of Active Agencies. For instance, there are such expressions as ‘Balāhako vidyotate’, ‘The Cloud flashes’ (where the Cloud appears as the active Agent), and ‘Balāhakādvidyotate’, ‘flashes from the Clouds’ (where the Cloud appears as the Source, the Ablative); in such cases we find the potencies of the active agencies varying through the diversity of their effects; even though they being all of the nature of ‘substance’ there is a certain amount of confusion. If this is not admitted., that would be quite contrary to common experience as well as scientific (Grammatical) principles.

Then again, there can be no incongruity urged against what is actually seen. For instance, in the case of the General and the Particular, though they are aspects of one and the same thing, and are quite distinct and never confounded, yet, all practical business is actually found to be carried on on the basis of their difference.—The compound ‘bhedalokayātrā’ is to be expounded as ‘Practical business on the basis of difference’; and this is carried On, though the entity is one only embracing both the aspects.—The argument may be formulated as follows:—When any one thing is treated as diverse, it is on the basis of the diversity of its properties,—as in the case of the Potencies of active agencies;—the idea of the General and Particular being aspects of one and the same thing involves treatment of the thing as diverse;—tins is a Reason based upon the nature of things,—(1724-1725)

The above argument is answered in the following:—[see verse 1726 next]