Verse 1807-1809

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

तत्त्वान्यत्वप्रकाराभ्यामवाच्यमथ वर्ण्यते ।
सन्तानादीव कारित्रं स्यादेवं सांवृतं ननु ॥ १८०७ ॥
अतश्च कल्पितत्वेन तत्क्वचिन्नोपयुज्यते ।
कार्ये सन्ततिवद्यस्माद्वस्त्वेवार्थक्रियाक्षमम् ॥ १८०८ ॥
सन्निधानं च तस्येदं भाविकं नेति तत्कृतम् ।
अध्वत्रयव्यवस्थानं तात्विकं नोपपद्यते ॥ १८०९ ॥

tattvānyatvaprakārābhyāmavācyamatha varṇyate |
santānādīva kāritraṃ syādevaṃ sāṃvṛtaṃ nanu || 1807 ||
ataśca kalpitatvena tatkvacinnopayujyate |
kārye santativadyasmādvastvevārthakriyākṣamam || 1808 ||
sannidhānaṃ ca tasyedaṃ bhāvikaṃ neti tatkṛtam |
adhvatrayavyavasthānaṃ tātvikaṃ nopapadyate || 1809 ||

If the ‘activity’ is described as ‘neither same nor different’, like the ‘chain’, etc.,—then it becomes purely ‘illusory’; and thus being purely imaginary, like the ‘chain’, it could serve no useful purpose in regard to any effect; as it is only a real entity that is capable of effective action. Thus then, as the presence of the ‘activity’ would not be real, any determining of the states based upon that ‘activity’ could not be real.—(1807-1809)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The same writer (Bhadanta-Sahantabhadra) has argued as follows:—“Activity is not something different from the Entity,—as it is not found to have any nature apart from that.—Nor is it the Entity only; because even though it forms its very nature, yet it is non-existent at times.—Nor is it a particular (form of it), as the Activity has had no previous existence. In fact, the ‘Activity’ is like the ‘Chain’ (Series); the consecutive birth of the Entity is called the ‘Chain’ (or Series),—and yet it is not something different from the Entity, as it is always apprehended as not-separate from it; nor is it the Entity only, as in that ease even a single ‘Moment’ would have to be regarded as the ‘Chain’;—and yet with all this, it cannot be said that the Chain does not exist; because its effects are found to exist.—[Similar is the case with ‘Activity’].—Ail this has been thus asserted—‘It is admitted that there are effects of the Chain,—and yet the Chain, as such, is nowhere existent (by itself, apart from the Entity); similar should be understood to-be the case with ‘Activity as bringing about the states’.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 1807-1809 above]

‘Like the Chain, etc.’—the ‘etc.’ is meant to include the ‘Aggregate’ and such things.—The ‘Chain’ is incapable of being spoken of as either different or non-different from the links of the chain; hence, like the ‘Pudgala’ (Body) it is featureless, devoid of form;—in the same way the ‘Activity’ in question also would be featureless;—when there is some feature (or form), it is necessary that it should be either different or non-different. Thus then, the Activity in question being purely imaginary, it could not serve any useful purpose in the bringing about of any effect; just like the ‘Chain’, The ‘Chain’, which is purely a creature of fancy, does not serve any useful purpose towards any effect, because it is featureless; and the appearance of an effect is inseparably connected with some feature (or character). Hence it is only an entity_r which has the form of a ‘link in the chain’ that is capable of effective action,—not the imaginary ‘Chain’, From this it follows that the ‘Activity’ in question having a purely imaginary existence,—there can be no real presence of it, either before or after anything, and consequently any notions of the distinct ‘states’ determined upon the basis of such Activity must also be imaginary, not real.—(1807-1809)