Verse 1780-1783

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

इत्येतदपि नो युक्तमसामान्याश्रयत्वतः ।
उत्पादस्थितिभङ्गानामेकार्थाश्रयता न हि ॥ १७८० ॥
समानकालताप्राप्तेः परस्परविरोधिनाम् ।
इदं तु क्षुणभङ्गित्वे सति सर्वमनाकुलम् ॥ १७८१ ॥
वर्द्धमानकभावस्य कलधौतात्मनः कथम् ।
अनन्वये विनाशे हि कस्यचिच्छोकसम्भवः ॥ १७८२ ॥
सर्वथा पूर्वरूपस्य रुचकस्य तदात्मनः ।
जन्मन्युत्पद्यते प्रीतिर्नावस्थानं तु कस्यचित् ॥ १७८३ ॥

ityetadapi no yuktamasāmānyāśrayatvataḥ |
utpādasthitibhaṅgānāmekārthāśrayatā na hi || 1780 ||
samānakālatāprāpteḥ parasparavirodhinām |
idaṃ tu kṣuṇabhaṅgitve sati sarvamanākulam || 1781 ||
varddhamānakabhāvasya kaladhautātmanaḥ katham |
ananvaye vināśe hi kasyacicchokasambhavaḥ || 1782 ||
sarvathā pūrvarūpasya rucakasya tadātmanaḥ |
janmanyutpadyate prītirnāvasthānaṃ tu kasyacit || 1783 ||

This is not right; because of the absence of a common substratum; production, continuance and destruction cannot have the same substratum; for if they had, it would involve the presence at the same time of all these mutually contradictory properties. All this would be free from difficulties under the doctrine of ‘perpetual flux’; for why should any man be sorry at the absolute destruction of gold in the form of the pot? Why too should there be any joy at the production of the gold in the new form of the dish? As for continuance, there is none, of anything at all.—(1780—1783).

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The principal sentence is ‘because of the absence of a common substratum’; this is explained in what follows—‘Production, Continuance, etc. etc.’—If a single entity had the three aspects of Production and the rest,—then it would mean that all these three—Production, Continuance and Destruction—are there in the thing at one and the same time; and yet it cannot be possible for these mutually contradictory properties to be present in anything at one and the same time; as otherwise, they would not be contradictories at all.

Question—“How then can there be the three notions described?”

In answer to this the Text shows how this is possible—‘All this, etc. etc.’

When the Gold in the shape of the Pol is destroyed by itself—why should any man so wanting it be sorry for it? Why too, on the production of a new thing in the shape of the Dish out of the Gold, should one be happy? As for continuance, there can be no such thing for anything of the nature of Gold; as both Production and Destruction are absolute without any connection with anything (past or future).—(1780-1783)

Question:—“If that be so, then how is there the feeling of Indifference?” Answer:—[see verses 1784-1785 next]