Verse 1937-1938

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

केवलाऽपि मनोबुद्धिर्यदैवमविरोधिनी ।
नातोऽन्यदेहसद्भावसिद्धये यत्निनो वयम् ॥ १९३७ ॥
नच शक्यनिषेधोऽसावदृष्टावपि संश्रयात् ।
स्यादेषा मन्दनेत्रस्य स्वच्छ(ल्प ?)धूमाद्यदृष्टिवत् ॥ १९३८ ॥

kevalā'pi manobuddhiryadaivamavirodhinī |
nāto'nyadehasadbhāvasiddhaye yatnino vayam || 1937 ||
naca śakyaniṣedho'sāvadṛṣṭāvapi saṃśrayāt |
syādeṣā mandanetrasya svaccha(lpa ?)dhūmādyadṛṣṭivat || 1938 ||

When there is no incongruity in subjective consciousness by itself, we are not eager to prove the existence of another body.—But, even though not seen, such a body cannot be denied; because the non-perception may be due only to uncertainty in the man with defective eyesight,—as in the case of scanty smoke.—(1937-1938)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued above (under Text 1869) that—“when the other body has not been seen, how can it be understood that the required substratum is the Body that is born subsequently?”

The answer to that is as follows:—[see verses 1937-1938 above]

What is meant is as follows:—What is meant to be proved is the existence of the ‘other world’; and how can it be proved?—It can be proved if it is shown that Consciousness is without beginning and without end; as it is only an aspect of Consciousness that figures in the Idea of the ‘other world’; this Idea cannot subsist in the Body, which is a material object with a shape; as the ‘other world’ is held to be there even when the Body is not there. If the ‘Chain of Cognitions’ is proved to be without beginning and without end, then the existence of our ‘other World’ also becomes proved. Hence we do not put forth any effort towards proving the existence of the other Body; as it would be useless.

Simply because the other body is not seen, it cannot be denied; as this not-seeing may be due to the absence of necessary attention, as happens in the case of the man with defective eyesight,—even though the body may be there all right; as it happens when there is a scanty line of smoke; so that mere non-perception does not prove non-existence. In fact a subsequent body is described as actually perceived by persons of pure birth and super-normal vision.

For these same reasons, there can be no denial of the ‘migratory body’ (Liṅgaśarīra) postulated by the Sāṃkhya.

In the case of the previously-born body also, it is just possible that, there may be non-perception due to the remoteness of place;—due either to its being produced at a remote place, or to the difference in its character, as in the case of Ghosts and Goblins. Even when the bodies are not remote, people with normal vision can never cognise with certainty that it is such and such a being who has become born as a bird; just as there is no recognition in cases where the body is changed by means of the use of medicines with unthinkable potency.—(1937-1938)

Question:—“How is it then that Cognitions appearing in different substrata are spoken of as belonging to the same Chain?”

Answer:—[see verses 1939-1941 next]