Verse 1928-1930

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

यद्येवं कथमस्तित्वमस्यासु व्यवसीयते ।
पूर्वोपवर्णितादेव हेतोरित्यवगम्यते ॥ १९२८ ॥
स्वप्नमूर्छाद्यवस्थासु चित्तं च यदि नेष्यते ।
मृतिः स्यात्तत्र चोत्पत्तौ मरणाभाव एव वा ॥ १९२९ ॥
स्वतन्त्रा मानसी बुद्धिश्चक्षुराद्यनपेक्षणात् ।
स्वोपादानबलेनैव स्वप्नादाविव वर्त्तते ॥ १९३० ॥

yadyevaṃ kathamastitvamasyāsu vyavasīyate |
pūrvopavarṇitādeva hetorityavagamyate || 1928 ||
svapnamūrchādyavasthāsu cittaṃ ca yadi neṣyate |
mṛtiḥ syāttatra cotpattau maraṇābhāva eva vā || 1929 ||
svatantrā mānasī buddhiścakṣurādyanapekṣaṇāt |
svopādānabalenaiva svapnādāviva varttate || 1930 ||

“If it is so, then how do you postulate the presence of this (consciousness) in these (states)?”—(1928a)

We conclude this from reasons already explained before.—If the presence of consciousness is not admitted during the states of sleep, swoon and the like,—then there should be death; while if another consciousness is produced, then there would be no death at all.—Thus mental (subjective) consciousness must be regarded as independent, as it is not dependent upon the eye, etc. and it is present on the strength of its own cause, just as during dreams, etc.—(1928b-1930)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 1928a]:

Question:—“What proof or authority have you for asserting that Consciousness is present,—where there is doubt regarding the appearance of Remembrance?”

This is the objection urged by the Opponent in the following—[see verse 1928a above]

‘Of this’—of the Consciousness.

‘In these’,—in the states of sleep, etc.—(1928)

Our reason is as follows, as has been explained already:—[see verses 1928b-1930 above]

[verses 1929b-1930]:

The Reason as already explained before is as follows:—On awakening, the first Consciousness that the man has must be regarded as arising from its own. Cause,—because it is Consciousness,—like the Reminiscent Cognition following after experience. The Probans adduced hero is not ‘Inconclusive’; because on the previous occasion it has been shown by the rejection of the possibility of other causes, that the necessary invariable concomitance is there.

Then again, if there were no Consciousness during sleep, etc., then there would be Death.

If, on the other hand, it be held that—“after the Body has become entirely deprived of all Consciousness, another Consciousness is produced (on awakening)”,—then, such appearance of Consciousness would mean that there can be no Death at all; because, as in the case of the man awakening from sleep, so in the case of the dead man also, there would be reappearance of Consciousness. Specially as it is only Mental (subjective) Consciousness that has the capacity to link up the next birth; as has been thus declared—‘Linking up, Dispassion and the rest are admissible only when the subjective Consciousness is there’.

From all this it follows that Subjective Consciousness rests entirely upon the previous Consciousness; this is the idea expressed in the words—

‘Subjective Consciousness must he regarded as independent’.—The reason for this ‘independence’ consists in the fact of its not requiring anything else. In all eases, this Subjective Consciousness proceeds entirely from its own Cause,—because it does not stand in need of any causes other than its own, in the shape of the Eye, etc.;—as is found to be the case during sleep.—(1928-1930)