Verse 2042-2044

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

असाधारणमेवेदं स्वरूपं चित्तचैत्तयोः ।
संवेदनं ततोऽन्येषां न मुख्यं तत्कथञ्चन ॥ २०४२ ॥
एकसामग्र्यधीनत्वं कार्यकारणतादि च ।
समाश्रित्य भवेन्नाम भाक्तं भूतस्य वेदनम् ॥ २०४३ ॥
नीरूप्यस्य तु भावस्य नैकसामग्र्यधीनता ।
नचान्यत्तेन नैवास्ति गौणमप्यस्य वेदनम् ॥ २०४४ ॥

asādhāraṇamevedaṃ svarūpaṃ cittacaittayoḥ |
saṃvedanaṃ tato'nyeṣāṃ na mukhyaṃ tatkathañcana || 2042 ||
ekasāmagryadhīnatvaṃ kāryakāraṇatādi ca |
samāśritya bhavennāma bhāktaṃ bhūtasya vedanam || 2043 ||
nīrūpyasya tu bhāvasya naikasāmagryadhīnatā |
nacānyattena naivāsti gauṇamapyasya vedanam || 2044 ||

As a matter of fact, the form of the mind and mental effects is not-common (specific); hence there can be no apprehension of other forms in the real (primary) sense of the term; therefore the name ‘apprehension’ could be applicable to the apprehension of objects only in the secondary (figurative) sense, on the basis of such conditions as ‘being dependent upon the same causal circumstances’, ‘the relation of cause and effect’ and so forth. An entity however which has no form, cannot be ‘dependent upon the same form’, nor could the other condition be fulfilled. Hence of such an entity, there can be no ‘apprehension’, even in the figurative sense.”—(2042-2044)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2042-2044 above]

As a matter of fact, of what is non-objective, there can be no ‘Apprehension’ in the primary sense of this term. Because of the Mind and Mental Effects,—the only form or nature that figures in ‘Happiness, etc.’ and which is spoken of as ‘I’, is specific—not-common—and is of the nature of Light; and it is this figuring that constitutes their ‘apprehension’ in the primary sense. Hence of ‘non-objective’ things other than Cognition,—which are not of the nature of Cognition,—there can be no such ‘apprehension’ in the primary sense; simply because they are non-objective.—Nor can the same be there in the secondary sense; because there is no basis for such secondary signification. Because the only possible grounds for secondary signification are—dependence upon the same causal circumstances, the relation of Cause and Effect and similarity of form,—this last being indicated by the term ‘and so forth’ in the text. And none of these is possible in the case of what is non-objective. There can be no other ground for the figurative use of the name ‘Apprehension—What happens therefore, in such cases, is only that through Nescience (Illusion) a Wrong Cognition comes about indicating a non-objective form, which really does not form the objective (of the Cognition at all).—(2042-2044)