by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588
This page contains verse 1843 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 1843.
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:
हेतवो भावधर्मास्तु नासिद्धे सिद्धिभागिनः ।
वर्त्तमानत्वसिद्धेर्वा विरुद्धा धर्मिबाधनात् ॥ १८४३ ॥
hetavo bhāvadharmāstu nāsiddhe siddhibhāginaḥ |
varttamānatvasiddhervā viruddhā dharmibādhanāt || 1843 ||
As regards the reasons that have been adduced, they must reside in things; and until these things are established, the reasons cannot be admitted.—Or else, on account of the ‘present’ character being established, the said reasons are ‘contradictory’,—as going against the nature of the subject.—(1843)
Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):
Having thus adduced arguments in favour of the view that the ‘Past’ and the ‘Future’ do not exist, the author proceeds to refute the arguments that have been put forward in support of the view that they do exist;—[see verse 1843 above]
The ‘Reasons’ meant here are those adduced by the other party, under the Text 1790; these are ‘Inadmissible in regard to their substratum’; because the things in which they are said to reside are the Past and Future things, and it has been shown that these do not exist; as has been said—‘if the thing is not there, its property cannot be there’.
Even if the said things existed, as they have been proved to have the ‘Present’ character, the Reasons in question would be proving something contrary to the very nature of the Subject; and as such, they would be ‘Contradictory’,—(1843)
Question:—“If that is so, then how is it that Buddhist writers have declared the Past and Future Forms, etc. to be included among the ‘states’? The Past and Future character of non-entities like the Hare’s Horns is never tried to be determined”.
Answer:—[see verses 1844-1845 next]