Verse 1917-1918

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

ये चेह सुधियः केचिदप्रतिष्ठितनिर्वृतीन् ।
जिनांस्तद्याननिष्ठत्वं यानयोश्च प्रचक्षते ॥ १९१७ ॥
तान्प्रत्ययमसिद्धश्च साध्यधर्मसमन्वितः ।
दृष्टान्तः प्रतिवादीष्टसिद्धान्ताश्रयणेऽपि ते ॥ १९१८ ॥

ye ceha sudhiyaḥ kecidapratiṣṭhitanirvṛtīn |
jināṃstadyānaniṣṭhatvaṃ yānayośca pracakṣate || 1917 ||
tānpratyayamasiddhaśca sādhyadharmasamanvitaḥ |
dṛṣṭāntaḥ prativādīṣṭasiddhāntāśrayaṇe'pi te || 1918 ||

As regards this matter, there are some wise persons who describe the Jinas (Buddhas) as ‘beings’ whose ‘nirvāṇa’ is not ‘absolute and final’,—and the two paths as aiming at that same path.—For these people the instance cited cannot be admitted to be endowed with the probandum;—even though it has been cited (by the materialist) on the basis of the doctrine of the other disputant.—(1917-1918)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Even though the statement may be made on the basis of the Buddhist doctrine, yet there are some Buddhists who cannot admit the Corroborative Instance (of the Arhats) to be endowed with the Probandum (not bringing about further consciousness).—This is what is shown in the following—[see verses 1917-1918 above]

‘This matter’,—the doctrine of the Buddhists.

‘Some wise persons’,—the Mahāyānist-Mādhyamikas.

These people have declared that the ‘Nirvāṇa’ of the Buddhas consists in the absence of absolute finality; on the ground that both ‘Birth-Cycle’ and ‘cessation of conscious existence’ are neither final nor absolute for them.—As regards the Neo-phyte and the Prospective Buddha, these also have the same ‘path of the Buddha’ as their goal; as is clear from such statements as—‘There is only one Path, that of the Mahāyāna’,—(1917-1918)