by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588
This page contains verse 1852 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 1852.
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:
उच्छेददृष्टिनाशाय चैवं शास्त्रा प्रकाशितम् ।
अन्यथा शून्यतासूत्रे देशना नीयते कथम् ॥ १८५२ ॥
ucchedadṛṣṭināśāya caivaṃ śāstrā prakāśitam |
anyathā śūnyatāsūtre deśanā nīyate katham || 1852 ||
The matter has been explained in this way by the teacher, for the purpose of removing the notion of the utter annihilation (of past acts). Otherwise, how could he explain the teaching imparted in the aphorism declaring the ‘void’?—(1852)
Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):
Question “What was the purpose for which the Teaching was given in figurative language?”
Answer:—[see verse 1852 above]
If it were declared that ‘the Past act does not exist’, it might be understood that there is non-existence of that potency to produce the fruit which had been set going by the past act; and the disciples would come to take up the view of the utter annihilation of the Past and its Effects; it is in view of this possibility that the Lord has said that ‘the Act persists’.
‘Otherwise’—if the Past really persisted,—then how could we explain the teaching in the aphorism where we are taught that ‘in reality all is void’?
As a matter of fact, when the Eye is produced, it does not come from anywhere; similarly when it is destroyed, it does not go away to any other place; what happens is that after having been not in existence, it comes into existence, and having come into existence, it again becomes non-existent.—It might be urged that—“in the Present state, it comes into existence, after having not been in existence”—That is not so; because the ‘State’ is not anything different from the entity (Eye); as is clear from the assertion that these same (things) are the ‘States’ and they exist as such.—If it be meant that—“not having been itself, it becomes itself”;—then it would be established that there can be no ‘future’ Eye.—Further, if the Modifications are always there, the Cause and Effect would not be there; which would mean that there is no fixed Truth; and this would imply the absence of the two paths of ‘Repression’ (Purification) also; and thus the four Truths being non-existent, there would be no possibility of True Knowledge, Renunciation, Direct Intuition and Meditation. These being not there, there would be non-existence also of the Pudgalas (Bodies) which are near about the regions where the Fruit of Acts come about. This would put an end to all Teaching,—From all this it follows that the assumption of ‘Past’ and ‘Future’ things is not wholesome.—(1852)