The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 1872-1877 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 1872-1877.

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

तदत्र परलोकोऽयं नान्यः कश्चन विद्यते ।
उपादानतदादेयभूतज्ञानादिसन्ततेः ॥ १८७२ ॥
काचिन्नियतमर्यादाऽवस्थैव परिकीर्त्यते ।
तस्याश्चानाद्यनन्तायाः परः पूर्व इहेति च ॥ १८७३ ॥
दृष्टमात्रसुखासक्तैर्यथैतावति कल्प्यते ।
परलोकोऽन्यदेशादिस्तथाऽत्रास्माभिरुच्यते ॥ १८७४ ॥
यदि तद्व्यतिरिक्तस्तु परलोको निषिध्यते ।
तदा साधनवैफल्यं तदसत्त्वे विवादतः ॥ १८७५ ॥
सन्ततेर्नन्ववस्तुत्वान्नावस्थान्तरसम्भवः ।
तत्रावस्थापितो लोकः परो वा तात्त्विकः कथम् ॥ १८७६ ॥
नैव सन्ततिशब्देन क्षणाः सन्तानिनो हि ते ।
सामस्त्येन प्रकाश्यन्ते लाघवाय वनादिवत् ॥ १८७७ ॥

tadatra paraloko'yaṃ nānyaḥ kaścana vidyate |
upādānatadādeyabhūtajñānādisantateḥ || 1872 ||
kācinniyatamaryādā'vasthaiva parikīrtyate |
tasyāścānādyanantāyāḥ paraḥ pūrva iheti ca || 1873 ||
dṛṣṭamātrasukhāsaktairyathaitāvati kalpyate |
paraloko'nyadeśādistathā'trāsmābhirucyate || 1874 ||
yadi tadvyatiriktastu paraloko niṣidhyate |
tadā sādhanavaiphalyaṃ tadasattve vivādataḥ || 1875 ||
santaternanvavastutvānnāvasthāntarasambhavaḥ |
tatrāvasthāpito lokaḥ paro vā tāttvikaḥ katham || 1876 ||
naiva santatiśabdena kṣaṇāḥ santānino hi te |
sāmastyena prakāśyante lāghavāya vanādivat || 1877 ||

As regards the ‘other world’, there is no such ‘other world’, apart from the ‘chain of causes and effects, in the form of cognition and the rest what is spoken of as ‘the other world’ or ‘this world’, that is only by way of a certain limit placed upon the said ‘chain’ which is beginningless and endless.—We regard it to be thus, in the same way as people addicted to the pleasures of the perceptible only assume the ‘other world’ to consist in some other part of the country.—If what you are denying is the ‘other world’ different from those just mentioned,—then the attempt to prove that denial is futile; as there is no dispute (between us) regarding the non-existence of such ‘other world’.—Objection—“the chain being a non-entity, it cannot have different states; how then can the ‘other world’ consisting of these, be anything real?”—Answer—there is nothing in this; what are denoted by the term ‘chain’ are the members of the chain, spoken of collectively by that term for the sake of brevity;—just like such terms as ‘forest’ and the like.—(1872-1877)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts answer the above arguments (of the Materialist):—[see verses 1869-1871 above]

What is the ‘other world’ which yon are denying? Is it something different from the Chain of causes and effects, consisting of Cognition and the other four ‘Phases’ (Skandhas)? Or is it this same Chain?

The former cannot be right; as no such ‘other world’ has been admitted. In fact, there is nothing apart from the Chain of Causes and Effects, in the shape of Cognition and the rest,—which could be accepted. What is actually regarded as the ‘other world’, or ‘this world’, or the ‘previous world’,—is only by way of a certain limit,—in the form of a hundred years or so—placed upon the said Chain of Cognition, etc., which is without beginning and without end. This is exactly as you (Materialists), who are addicted to merely perceptible pleasures, apply the name ‘other world’ to some other part of this same visible world; as is declared in such assertions as ‘The Man is only so much as is perceptible of the senses’; and again, ‘The other world consists in another place, or another time or another state’.

If, on the other hand, the ‘other world’ that is denied is something different from the said Chain of causes and effects in the shape of Cognition, etc.,—then, as such a conclusion is already admitted (by both parties), any proving of it would be futile; as no such ‘other world’ is postulated by us.

An objection is raised—“The Chain being a non-entity, any State that is attributed to it must also be a non-entity; under the circumstances, the ‘other world’ based upon such limitation could not be real”.

Answer—This does not affect our position. What the term ‘Chain’ denotes are the members of the chain, which are entities;—these being spoken of, for the sake of brevity, and expressed collectively and simultaneously, by the one name ‘Chain’; just in the same way as the Dhava and other trees (which are real) are spoken of collectively as ‘Forest’ (though the Forest as such is not a real entity).—(1872-1877)

Question:—“If it is so, then how was it that the Chain was spoken of as a non-entity under Text 1807, where the Chain or Series has been declared to be ‘illusory’ (unreal)?”

Answer:—[see verses 1878-1885 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: