Verse 2071-2073

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

न स्मरामि मया कोऽपि गृहीतोऽर्थस्तदेति च ।
स्मरन्ति ग्राहकोत्पादं ग्राह्यरूपविवर्जितम् ॥ २०७१ ॥
तस्मादभिन्नतायां च ग्राह्येऽपि स्मरणं भवेत् ।
ग्राहकस्मृतिसद्भावे तत्र त्वेवैष गृह्यते ॥ २०७२ ॥
अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां सिद्धैवं भिन्नता तयोः ।
एवं च हेतवोऽप्येते प्रसिद्धाः साध्यधर्मिणि ॥ २०७३ ॥

na smarāmi mayā ko'pi gṛhīto'rthastadeti ca |
smaranti grāhakotpādaṃ grāhyarūpavivarjitam || 2071 ||
tasmādabhinnatāyāṃ ca grāhye'pi smaraṇaṃ bhavet |
grāhakasmṛtisadbhāve tatra tvevaiṣa gṛhyate || 2072 ||
anvayavyatirekābhyāṃ siddhaivaṃ bhinnatā tayoḥ |
evaṃ ca hetavo'pyete prasiddhāḥ sādhyadharmiṇi || 2073 ||

“As a matter of fact, people have such notions as ‘I do not remember if any object was apprehended by me at the time’, which shows that they remember the appearance of the apprehending cognition, without any idea of the apprehended object. If the two were non-different, there would be remembrance of the apprehended object also, when there is remembrance of the apprehending cognition;—as a matter of fact however, there is idea of the apprehending cognition only. Thus the difference between the two becomes proved by positive and negative concomitance.—thus all these reasons become established as residing in the minor term.”—[Ślokavārtika-śūnyavāda, 83-85].—(2071-2073)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—How are the second and subsequent Reasons (urged under Texts 2065 et. seq.) proved and admissible?

Answer:—[see verses 2071-2073 above]

The Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition is found to appear even without the remembrance of the Apprehended Object;—if there were absolute non-difference between the two, then there would be remembrance of the Apprehended Object also,—just as there is, of the Apprehending Cognition;—hence as they do not share the same fate, the Apprehended Object and the Apprehending Cognition must be different from one another.

It might be urged that—‘there is remembrance of the Apprehended Object also’,—The answer to that is—‘As a matter of fact, however, etc. etc.’.

‘Tatra’—At the time that there is Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition.—‘Eṣa eva’,—i.e. the Apprehending Cognition alone,—not the Apprehended Object. The particle ‘eva’ is misplaced.

‘By positive and negative concomitance’—as between the presence and absence of the Remembrances of the Apprehended Object and the Apprehending Cognition; as there is absence of the Remembrance of the Apprehended Object even when there is presence of the Remembrance of the Apprehending Cognition.—(2071-2073)