Verse 1970-1971

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

साहित्येनापि जातास्ते स्वरूपेणैव भासिनः ।
त्यजन्त्यनंशरूपत्वं न चेत्ता(नच ता ?) सुदशास्वमी ॥ १९७० ॥
लब्धापचयपर्यन्तं रूपं नैषांतेषां समस्ति चेत् ।
कथं नाम न तेऽमूर्त्ताते मूर्त्ता भवेयुर्वेदनादिवत् ॥ १९७१ ॥

sāhityenāpi jātāste svarūpeṇaiva bhāsinaḥ |
tyajantyanaṃśarūpatvaṃ na cettā(naca tā ?) sudaśāsvamī || 1970 ||
labdhāpacayaparyantaṃ rūpaṃ naiṣāṃteṣāṃ samasti cet |
kathaṃ nāma na te'mūrttāte mūrttā bhaveyurvedanādivat || 1971 ||

Even if they come into existence in the aggregated form, the atoms should appear in their own form (in the cognition); because even under those conditions they do not abandon their impartite form.—If it be said that—“their form is one that has reached the lowest limit of dimunition (smallness)”,—then, why should not they be regarded as incorporeal, like sensation, etc.?—(1970-1971)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—“In as much as we hold the doctrine that the Atoms are always produced, and also perish, in the aggregated form,—there can be no appearance of the Atoms singly; as has been asserted by Bhadanta-Śubhagupta—‘Atoms cannot come about one by one, each independently by itself; that also is the reason why they do not appear singly in consciousness’.”

The following Text shows that this is no answer to the argument urged, above (under 1967 et seq.).—[see verses 1970-1971 above]

‘Under those conditions’—in the aggregated form.

Further, if the Atoms are impartite (indivisible), then they should not bo regarded as corporeal; so that the present assertion of the Opponent involves a self-contradiction.—This is what is shown by the words “If it be said, etc. etc.’—‘Labdhāpa, etc.’ means ‘that form or character which has reached the lowest limit of dimunition’. That is to say, if the Atoms are not liable to dimunition through the diminishing contacts of component parts,—i.e. if they are indivisible, without parts,—they must be regarded as ‘incorporeal’, like Sensations and Feelings,—as there would be no distinction between them.—(1970-1971)

The following Text anticipates the answer that may be given by Bhadanta-Śubhagupta:—[see verse 1972 next]