Verse 1993-1997

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

अपेतभागभेदश्च यः परैरणुरिष्यते ।
तत्रैवेयं कृताचिन्ता नानिष्टासम्भवस्ततः ॥ १९९३ ॥
भागानां परमाणुत्व मङ्गीकुर्वन्ति ते यदा ।
स्वप्रतिज्ञाच्युतिस्तेषां तदाऽवश्यं प्रसज्यते ॥ १९९४ ॥
प्रसङ्गसाधनत्वेन नाश्रयासिद्धतेह च ।
पराभ्युपेतयोगादिबलादैक्यं ह्यपोह्यते ॥ १९९५ ॥
तदेवं सर्वपक्षेषु नैवैकात्मा स युज्यते ।
एकानिष्पत्तितोऽनेकस्वभावोऽपि न सम्भवी ॥ १९९६ ॥
असन्निश्चययोग्योऽतः परमाणुर्विपश्चिताम् ।
एकानेकस्वभावेन शून्यत्वाद्वियदब्जवत् ॥ १९९७ ॥

apetabhāgabhedaśca yaḥ parairaṇuriṣyate |
tatraiveyaṃ kṛtācintā nāniṣṭāsambhavastataḥ || 1993 ||
bhāgānāṃ paramāṇutva maṅgīkurvanti te yadā |
svapratijñācyutisteṣāṃ tadā'vaśyaṃ prasajyate || 1994 ||
prasaṅgasādhanatvena nāśrayāsiddhateha ca |
parābhyupetayogādibalādaikyaṃ hyapohyate || 1995 ||
tadevaṃ sarvapakṣeṣu naivaikātmā sa yujyate |
ekāniṣpattito'nekasvabhāvo'pi na sambhavī || 1996 ||
asanniścayayogyo'taḥ paramāṇurvipaścitām |
ekānekasvabhāvena śūnyatvādviyadabjavat || 1997 ||

As a matter of fact, what we have been considering is the atom which has been regarded by other people as devoid of di vision into parts; and it is not improbable that this may lead to something un desirable.—When these people accept the fact of the parts themselves being ‘atoms’,—then this certainly involves a deviation from their own doctrine.—The argument that has been set forth (by us) is only in the form of a reductio ad absurdum; this is not open to the charge of ‘inadmissibility’ regarding its substratum.—The unity of the atom also becomes discarded by the conjunction, etc. that the other party admits.—Thus under all views, the atom cannot be regarded as being essentially one. And when it cannot be one, it cannot be many either.—Thus, for all wise people, the atom is only capable of forming the object of the definite idea that it is non-existent,—because it has the nature of neither one nor many,—like the sky-lotus.—(1993-1997)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

On this subject, some people argue as follows:—“Under the circumstances, Atoms may be regarded as being minuter points of Space itself; and if parts of these would have to be assumed, those parts again would consist in the still minuter points of Space; even though this may involve an infinite regress. But in no ease does it seem to be justifiable to regard Atoms as mere ideal (subjective) entities, for fear of having to regard them as with parts.—Even if they are mere subjective entities, it is necessary to postulate a cause for that Idea; and. that which is the cause of that Idea would itself be the Atom.—If what you are seeking to prove is that Atoms do not exist at ah,—even so, the Reason adduced—-‘Because there is diversity of facings’—is ‘inadmissible’, Because mere non-entities—like the ‘Horns of the Ass’—do not have the diverse facings towards the East and other directions.—Nor can your argument be treated as a Redactio ad Absurdum; because ‘the diversity of facings’ is not admitted by us The answer to this is given in the following—[see verses 1993-1997 above]

The man who postulates the ‘Atom’ must hold that it is a certain entity with a well-defined form. Otherwise, if there were an indefinite Infinite Regress, the form of the ‘Atom’ could not be determined; and in that case our Opponent would himself have established the fact that it is something ‘indescribable’, ‘indefinite’, ‘indeterminate’; and thus he would have established what is desired by Ins Opponent, For these reasons, that same well-defined entity which you would prove to be the ‘Atom’, without having recourse to an Infinite Regress,—if with regard to that same entity an investigation is carried on, why should there be an Infinite Regress? Specially so when the Infinite Regress would lead to the subversion of your doctrine. But that would not bring about a situation undesirable for your Opponent.—And as this would be enough to prove what is desired by your Opponent, the argument that we have put forward is only by way of a Reductio ad Absurdum.

Our Reason cannot be regarded as ‘inadmissible’. Because the other party has accepted the view.that. Atoms are in conjunction with one another,—that there is no intervening space between them,—and that each Atom is surrounded by Atoms distinct from one another; if it were not so, how could there be any Cognition of it? Thus though it has not been admitted in so many words that there is ‘diversity of facings’ in Atoms,—yet it follows from the acceptance of their being in conjunction and so forth. Unless there is diversity of ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ parts, there cannot be any Conjunction, etc.,—as there is none in the case of the Mind and Mental Effects;—this has been explained before.

It has been argued that—“It is necessary to admit a Cause for the Idea of the Atom, and that which is the Cause of that Idea is the Atom”,—The answer to that is that there is already a cause for the illusory idea of ‘Atom’,—in the shape of the notion of the dust-particles coming in through the hole,—this notion resulting from the fruition of the Impressions left by the contemplation of wrong teachings. It cannot be right to regard the Atom itself as the cause of its own Idea; as in that case, the Atom would not have a purely subjective existence. If it were not so, then the cause of the Idea of the So til would consist of the Soul itself, -and not of the ‘Thought-phases’ (Skandhas) In this way, as of the Atom, so of the Soul also, there could be no denial.

Thus it is established that Atoms cannot be one; and as there can no longer be any doubt oil this point, our Reason cannot be regarded as ‘inadmissible’ for proving the fact of Atoms being non-existent.—(1993—1997)