Verse 1920-1922

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

कललादिषु विज्ञानमस्तीत्येतन्न साहसम् ।
असञ्जातेन्द्रियत्वेऽपि ज्ञानं तत्र न किं भवेत् ॥ १९२० ॥
इन्द्रियार्थबलोद्भूतं सर्वं विज्ञानमित्यदः ।
साहसं वेद्यते यस्मात्स्वप्नादावन्यथाऽपि तत् ॥ १९२१ ॥
रूपमर्थगतेरन्यदप्यस्य व्यवसीयते ।
मूर्छादावपि तेनास्य सद्भाव उपपद्यते ॥ १९२२ ॥

kalalādiṣu vijñānamastītyetanna sāhasam |
asañjātendriyatve'pi jñānaṃ tatra na kiṃ bhavet || 1920 ||
indriyārthabalodbhūtaṃ sarvaṃ vijñānamityadaḥ |
sāhasaṃ vedyate yasmātsvapnādāvanyathā'pi tat || 1921 ||
rūpamarthagateranyadapyasya vyavasīyate |
mūrchādāvapi tenāsya sadbhāva upapadyate || 1922 ||

There is no audacity in asserting that ‘there is consciousness in the foetus’; even though the sense-organs have not appeared in it, why cannot cognition be there?—In fact the assertion that does involve audacity is that ‘all cognition proceeds from sense-organs and objects’; because the contrary is found to be the case during dreams.—In reality, cognition is apprehended also in a form which is distinct from that of the object, as is found in the case of swoon. from this it is clear that consciousness can be there in the foetus.—(1920-1922)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued above (under Text 1805) that—“it is sheer audacity to assert that there is Consciousness in the Foetus, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows;—[see verses 1920-1922 above]

If all Cognition wore apprehended only through the Sense-organs and the Objects,—then our assertion would have been an audacious one; as a matter of fact, however, in Dreams and other states there appears Subjective Consciousness envisaging the Blue and other objects, which Subjective Consciousness is apprehended even when there is no Sense-organ nor any Object in the shape of Colour, etc.—Nor can it be said that at that time the substratum of the Consciousness consists of the Sense-organ in the body; because what‘figures in the Consciousness is the Blue Object (which is not present in the body); and every bodily Cognition apprehends only tangible objects. Hence it is not right to say that ‘all Cognition is in the form of the apprehension of things’, It is thus that there is nothing incongruous in asserting the presence of Cognition in the state of swoon and similar conditions.—(1920-1922)