The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1804-1805 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 1804-1805.

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

स्वरूपाद्व्यतिरिक्तोऽपि दृष्टः सप्रतिघत्ववत् ।
विशेषश्चेदिदं नैव प्रकृतस्योपकारकम् ॥ १८०४ ॥
नहि सप्रतिघत्वादिः पदार्थस्यानुगामिनः ।
कादाचित्को मतः कश्चिद्भावस्यैव तथोद्भवात् ॥ १८०५ ॥

svarūpādvyatirikto'pi dṛṣṭaḥ sapratighatvavat |
viśeṣaścedidaṃ naiva prakṛtasyopakārakam || 1804 ||
nahi sapratighatvādiḥ padārthasyānugāminaḥ |
kādācitko mataḥ kaścidbhāvasyaiva tathodbhavāt || 1805 ||

“Properties distinct from the entity have also been found to qualify it; for instance, the quality of ‘resistance’”,—if this is urged, this cannot help the matter under discussion; such characters as that of resistance and the like are not present in the entity at all times; they have been regarded as occasional; because the entity itself is produced in that way.—(1804-1805)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been pointed out that if the Activity is non-different from the Entity, it must be there at all times,—like the form or nature of the Entity itself.—Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra has offered an answer to that, which is anticipated and answered in the following—[see verses 1804-1805 above]

“As a matter of fact, Properties distinct from the Entity and yet qualifying it have been found; for example, the character of Resistance and the like found in Earth and other things. These things—Earth, etc,—as Categories,—are all the same; and yet these are found to be ‘resistant’ and ‘non-resistant’, ‘similar’ and ‘dissimilar’,—thus being qualified by properties which are distinct from the form of the things themselves. In the same manner, the Entity could be qualified by Activity, which may be different from the Entity itself.”

This explanation will not help the present topic. The topic under consideration is this—If the Activity is regarded as non-different from the Thing,—then there can be no distinction in the Activity which, being of the same nature as the Entity, could not serve to determine the distinction among the states (as ‘Past’, etc.).—As regards Earth and the other things (that have been cited by Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra),—they are distinct from

one another by reason of their being associated with mutually divergent characters,—and hence it is that while some are ‘resistant’, others are ‘non-resistant’; as is found in the case of ‘Sensation’, etc.; but it is not that those same are ‘non-resistant’ which are ‘resistant’; and this for the same reason that there is no comprehensive entity in the form of ‘Category’, by virtue of which the qualities of ‘Resistance’, etc. could be occasional. In fact, what happens is that the Entity itself, which is impartite, and is ‘excluded from like and unlike things’,—is produced in that way. For these reasons it is not right that any property, other than the form of the Entity itself, should distinguish any single Entity.—(1804-1805)

Question:—“How then is it that there is such an expression as ‘Rūpasya sapratighatvam,’, ‘Resistance of the Form’, where the two appear as different from one another,—if a property non-different from a thing cannot serve to distinguish it?”

Answer:—[see verse 1806 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: