Verse 1919

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

बाधकानभिधानाच्च सन्दिग्धव्यतिरेकिता ।
शङ्क्यमानविजातीयसद्भावाद्व्यभिचारिता ॥ १९१९ ॥

bādhakānabhidhānācca sandigdhavyatirekitā |
śaṅkyamānavijātīyasadbhāvādvyabhicāritā || 1919 ||

Inasmuch as no argument has been adduced as negativing the contrary,—there is an uncertainty regarding the negative concomitance (of the probans with the probandum); so that, there being a suspicion regarding the presence (of the probans) in the contrary of the pobandum,—the probans remains ‘inconclusive’.—(1919)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Having pointed out the defect in the Corroborative Instance, the Author proceeds to show that the Probans also is open to the charge of being ‘Inconclusive’:—[see verse 1919 above]

‘Inasmuch as, etc. etc.’;—this is the reason for the uncertainty regarding the Negative Concomitance [i.e. there is no certainty as to the Probans being absent whenever the Probandum is absent].

‘There being a suspicion, etc. etc.’.—This is the reason for ‘Inconclusiveness’.

‘Vijātīyasadbhāva’—is presence in the contrary.—“Whose presence?”—of the Probans.

The compound ‘Śaṅkyamāna, etc. etc.’ is to be expounded as ‘whose presence in the contrary is suspected.’

Nor could the contingency of the idea (of Death-Cognition producing another Cognition) being taken to imply the absence of death be taken as serving the purpose of the argument negativing the contrary. Because in reality there is no ‘death’ of anything in the shape of the ‘Soul’ and other things; what really happens is that a dissimilar Chain becomes set up, which brings about the cessation of the condition which gave the name to the particular body; and it is this that is spoken of as ‘Death’ in common parlance and also in scientific treatises.—(1919)