Verse 1980-1983

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

तुल्यं रूपं यदा ग्राह्यमतुल्यं नैव गृह्यते ।
अणूनां द्वयरूपत्वे तदा किं नोपपद्यते ॥ १९८० ॥
तत्सामान्यविशेषात्मरूपत्वात्सर्ववस्तुनः ।
तुल्यातुल्यस्वरूपत्वाद्द्विरूपा अणवः स्मृताः ॥ १९८१ ॥
समानं तत्र यद्रूपं तदक्षज्ञानगोचरम् ।
एकाकारमतो ज्ञानमणुष्वेवोपपद्यते ॥ १९८२ ॥
असमानं तु यद्रूपं योगिप्रत्यक्षमिष्यते ।
इति दुर्मतयः केचित्कल्पयन्ति समाकुलम् ॥ १९८३ ॥

tulyaṃ rūpaṃ yadā grāhyamatulyaṃ naiva gṛhyate |
aṇūnāṃ dvayarūpatve tadā kiṃ nopapadyate || 1980 ||
tatsāmānyaviśeṣātmarūpatvātsarvavastunaḥ |
tulyātulyasvarūpatvāddvirūpā aṇavaḥ smṛtāḥ || 1981 ||
samānaṃ tatra yadrūpaṃ tadakṣajñānagocaram |
ekākāramato jñānamaṇuṣvevopapadyate || 1982 ||
asamānaṃ tu yadrūpaṃ yogipratyakṣamiṣyate |
iti durmatayaḥ kecitkalpayanti samākulam || 1983 ||

“Atoms having two forms, similar (common) and dissimilar (uncommon),—when the common form is the thing apprehended, then the uncommon form is not apprehended; such being the case, what is it that is not possible?—In fact, all things exist in two forms, the ‘universal’ and the ‘particular’; hence atoms are declared to have two forms—the common and the uncommon. Of these, it is the common form that is amenable to sense-cognition, hence it is only in reference to atoms that there can be cognition of only one form. That form of the atoms which is uncommon is held to be amenable to mystic perception—such are the confounded assumptions of some dull-witted persons.—(1980-1983)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following texts urge the defect of ‘inadmissibility’ in the Probans adduced by the Buddhist,—‘because it is not recognised in consciousness’,—from the view-point of Sumati, the Digambara (Jaina):—[see verses 1980-1983 above]

Sumati has argued as follows:—All things have two aspects—the Universal and. the Particular; consequently Atoms exist in two forms—the common and the uncommon; of these, it is the Common form that is apprehended by the Senses, not the uncommon form. In this way there is nothing incongruous in there being one uniform Cognition apprehending all Atoms; and thus it is by Perception that Atoms become established.

‘Confounded’—indefinite; in as much as it implies no one definite form.—(1980-1983)