Verse 2082-2084

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

विज्ञानत्वं प्रकाशत्वं तच्च ग्राह्ये निरास्पदम् ।
अनिर्भासाद्ययोगेन व्याप्तिस्तेनास्य निश्चिता ॥ २०८२ ॥
शक्तावनन्तरे ज्ञाने ग्राह्यांशे विषयस्थितिः ।
तात्विकी नेष्यतेऽस्माभिस्तेन मानं समर्थ्यते ॥ २०८३ ॥
विज्ञाप्तिमात्रतासिद्धिर्धीमद्भिर्विमलीकृता ।
अस्माभिस्तद्दिशा यातं परमार्थविनिश्चये ॥ २०८४ ॥

vijñānatvaṃ prakāśatvaṃ tacca grāhye nirāspadam |
anirbhāsādyayogena vyāptistenāsya niścitā || 2082 ||
śaktāvanantare jñāne grāhyāṃśe viṣayasthitiḥ |
tātvikī neṣyate'smābhistena mānaṃ samarthyate || 2083 ||
vijñāptimātratāsiddhirdhīmadbhirvimalīkṛtā |
asmābhistaddiśā yātaṃ paramārthaviniścaye || 2084 ||

‘Being cognition’ is ‘luminousness’; and that can have no place in the ‘apprehended object’,—because it has no connection with the characters of ‘not envisaging a form’ and the rest;—hence its invariable concomitance has been duly ascertained.—(2082)

The subsistence of the object in the apprehended aspect of the potency of the immediately following cognition is not regarded by us to be real. that is why the idea is supported.—The fact of the cognition being the only entity has been clearly established by clever writers. we also have trodden the same path for the ascertainment of truth.—(2083-2084)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2082]:

The requisite invariable concomitance has already been established under Text 1999 above—‘Not envisaging a form, or envisaging a form or envisaging something else, the Cognition cannot apprehend any external thing’. Consequently, the Reason put forward here cannot be regarded as ‘Inconclusive’.

The Revered Teacher Diṅnāga, for the purpose of determining the ‘basic cause’, has declared as follows:—‘When that which is cognisable only in the internal (subjective) form appears as if it were external, that object must be regarded as existing in the form of the Cognition, and also as forming its basic cause’.—This serves to determine the objective element in that aspect of the Cognition which is apprehended.

The same Teacher has said again—‘Or, it may be that by transferring the potency, the apprehension of the Object, in due course, brings about, for the bringing about of an effect similar to itself, a potency in the Cognition; so there is no incompatibility’.—This establishes the fact that the said Apprehension (of the Object) transfers to the immediately subsequent Cognition, the potency tending to produce an effect similar to itself, and thus becomes the cause.—(2082)

In connection with this, the same Bhadanta (Śubhagupta) argues as follows:—“Though the apprehended element may be the instrument of Sense-cognition, yet, inasmuch as that cannot figure in the Cognition itself, it could not be the object of the Sense-cognition”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2083-2084 above]

[verses 2083-2084]:

‘Śaktau anantare jñāne’;—the two Locative endings are not to be taken in co-ordination.

‘Immediately following Cognition’,—in the form of the ‘Ālayavijñāna’ (Recumbent Cognition).

‘Potency’,—of forming the basic cause of the said idea of the object.

‘Is not held to be real’;—because it is not possible for anything apart from Atoms, etc. to be the objective basis,—as has been established in detail. This has also been asserted by the Revered Teacher, in the following words:—‘The absolute denial of the objective basis may involve incompatibility with a fact of direct experience; and there may be incompatibility with the doctrine enunciated in the Sūtra’—‘There are four kinds of causal factors—basic, dominant, immediate antecedent and causal link’;—in order to show that there is no incompatibility, it has been explained what sort of Basic Cause is meant in this Sūtra and also in ordinary experience. But all this has been done on the plane of ‘Illusion’, not of Reality; as in reality all Cognitions are entirely devoid of objective basis.

End of Chapter on the External World.