The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1802-1803 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 1802-1803.

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

कारित्रं सर्वदा नास्ति सदा धर्मश्च वर्ण्यते ।
धर्मान्नान्यच्च कारित्रं व्यक्तं देवविचेष्टितम् ॥ १८०२ ॥
कारित्रान्तरसापेक्षा तत्राप्यध्वस्थितिर्यदि ।
तुल्यः पर्यनुयोगोऽयं ननु सर्वत्र धावति ॥ १८०३ ॥

kāritraṃ sarvadā nāsti sadā dharmaśca varṇyate |
dharmānnānyacca kāritraṃ vyaktaṃ devaviceṣṭitam || 1802 ||
kāritrāntarasāpekṣā tatrāpyadhvasthitiryadi |
tulyaḥ paryanuyogo'yaṃ nanu sarvatra dhāvati || 1803 ||

Activity is not there always,—and the entity is described as being there at all times,—and yet the activity is said to be non-different from the entity;—certainly this is conduct worthy of a divine being!—Even if it be held that the existence of the states (in the activity itself) is dependent upon other activities,—the same question would be equally well raised against that view also.—(1802-1803)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In the following Texts the Author laughs at the other party for expounding mutually contradictory doctrines:—[see verses 1802-1803 above]

Under the circumstances, it comes to this that the Entities, Colour and the rest, do not exist at all times, as they are non-different from Activity. This is shown in the Text—‘The Entity, etc. etc.’

For the following reason also the Activity must be something different from the Entity—‘And the Activity is non-different, etc. etc.’.

‘Divine Beings’—God and the like; who act and live independently, not minding what is proper and what is improper; and just as their behaviour is unreasonable, so also is the conduct of the philosopher under review.

Then again, if the Activity itself is regarded as ‘future’, without another Activity, then it should not be said that the states are determined by Activity; as that would not be true; inasmuch as in the case of Activity itself its ‘future’ and other states are determined on the basis of its own existence; and in the same manner the ‘future’ and other states of Entities also could be determined on the basis of their own existence.

In order to avoid this objection it might be held that, in the case of Activity also, there would be another Activity, which would be the determining factor.—But in that case also the same question—as to its being different or non-different from the former Activity,—would arise. And this would be open to the further defect that it would involve an infinite regress.—(1802-1803)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: