The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 1791-1793 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 1791-1793.

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

नचैवमिह मन्तव्यमध्वभेदः कुतो न्वयम् ।
कारित्रेण विभागोऽयमध्वनां यत्प्रकल्प्यते ॥ १७९१ ॥
कारित्रे वर्त्तते यो हि वर्त्तमानः स उच्यते ।
कारित्रात्प्रच्युतोऽतीतस्तदप्राप्तस्त्वनागतः ॥ १७९२ ॥
फलाक्षेपश्च कारित्रं धर्माणां जनकं न तु ।
न वाक्षेपोस्त्यतीतानां नातः कारित्रसम्भवः ॥ १७९३ ॥

nacaivamiha mantavyamadhvabhedaḥ kuto nvayam |
kāritreṇa vibhāgo'yamadhvanāṃ yatprakalpyate || 1791 ||
kāritre varttate yo hi varttamānaḥ sa ucyate |
kāritrātpracyuto'tītastadaprāptastvanāgataḥ || 1792 ||
phalākṣepaśca kāritraṃ dharmāṇāṃ janakaṃ na tu |
na vākṣepostyatītānāṃ nātaḥ kāritrasambhavaḥ || 1793 ||

“In this connection, there should be no such cogitation as to how this diversity in the states comes about. Because this distinction among the states is conceived on the basis of activity. that which is engaged in activity is called ‘present’; that which has ceased from activity is called ‘past’; and that which has not yet attained activity is called ‘future’.—The ‘activity’ of things serves only to ‘project’ the result, not to produce it. As there can be no such ‘projecting’ in the case of past things, there is no possibility of activity in them.”—(1791-1793)


Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged:—‘Like Ākāśa, all things are always existent; hence there can be no idea of the Past, etc.’

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1791-1793 above]

The various states are determined through activity; that which is engaged in activity is ‘Present’; that of which the activity has ceased is ‘Past’ and that which has not yet attained Activity is ‘future’.

Objection:—“What is it that is meant by ‘Kāritra’, ‘Activity’, in this connection?—If it is operation, in the shape of seeing and the rest,—e.g. seeing and the rest are the ‘activity’ of the Eye and other organs,—since the Eye sees, the Ear hears, the Nose smells, the Tongue tastes,—and Cognition also is the Cogniser, as it is that which cognises things; and thus Colour, etc. become perceptible by the Senses;—if this is what is meant by ‘activity’, then, even when the Man has been born, if the Eye, which shares the fate of the body, has no activity, the man (or the Eye)—could not be regarded as ‘present’.—Secondly, activity may be held to consist in the giving (producing) and receiving of the fruit,—for instance, the caste and other properties of man, which are born along with the Eye, are the result (fruit) of human effort; the Visual organ (Eye) or the supervising Deity, or Vibration brings about human effort; and it is by reason of bringing about this result that the Eye becomes a cause, and hence comes to be spoken of as ‘present’,—Under this definition of ‘activity’, even Past things, being held to be productive of all-embracing results sharing the same fate, would have to be regarded as ‘Present’.—Thirdly, it may be held that the ‘Activity’ meant here is that which gives and takes all sorts of results.—In that case, the Past, being the cause of some part of such results, would have to be regarded as ‘Half-present’.”

In view of this objection, Ācārya Sahantabhadra has offered the following explanation:—What is called the ‘activity’ of things is the potency of projecting the Result,—not of producing it; the Past and other things, which are only partial causes, do not project the result; it is only in the ‘present’ state that the Result is projected (thrown out) by its cause. Nor can there be ‘projection’ of what has been already projected, as that would lead to an infinite regress. Thus there being no ‘activity’ possible in what is ‘past’, there can be no confusion in the character of these (Past, Future and Present).—(1791-1793)

The following Texts answer the above arguments (of the Realist Buddhist):— [see verses 1794-1796 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: