The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 2156-2157 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 2156-2157.

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

ननु नादैरभिव्यक्तिर्न शब्दस्योपपद्यते ।
सा हि स्याच्छब्दसंस्कारादिन्द्रियस्योभयस्य वा ॥ २१५६ ॥
तत्रततः सर्वैः प्रतीयेत शब्दः संस्क्रियते यदि ।
निर्भागस्य विभोर्न स्यादेकदेशे हि संस्क्रिया ॥ २१५७ ॥

nanu nādairabhivyaktirna śabdasyopapadyate |
sā hi syācchabdasaṃskārādindriyasyobhayasya vā || 2156 ||
tatratataḥ sarvaiḥ pratīyeta śabdaḥ saṃskriyate yadi |
nirbhāgasya vibhorna syādekadeśe hi saṃskriyā || 2157 ||

The manifestation of word-sound by articulation is not possible: that manifestation could be due to the embellishment either of the sound itself, or of the sense-organ concerned, or of both. if it were the sound that was embellished, then it would be cognised by all as so embellished; and it being impartite and all-pervading, there could be no embellishment of it in any parts.—(2156-2157)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

If there were manifestation of the Word-Sound by the conjunctions and disjunctions of Air, it could be through the embellishment of the Sound itself, or through the embellishment of the Sense-organ, or through the embellishment of both—of the Sound and also of the Sense-organ.—If there were embellishment of the Sound, then when embellished at one place—at Pāṭaliputra for instance,—it would become apprehended by people in all places; as it goes everywhere simultaneously.

It might be said that only a part of the Sound becomes embellished.

The answer to that is that it is impartite,—not made up of parts, being incorporeal; hence, even though it is all-pervading, it being without parts, how could there be any embellishment in part?—(2156-2157)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: