Verse 2271

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

शक्त्यशक्त्योर्नराणां तु भेदात्तत्राविरोधिता ।
न ह्यन्यो दर्शनस्यास्ति सम्बन्धाद्धेतुरत्र हि ॥ २२७१ ॥

śaktyaśaktyornarāṇāṃ tu bhedāttatrāvirodhitā |
na hyanyo darśanasyāsti sambandhāddheturatra hi || 2271 ||

“There is no incompatibility in this case, because there is diversity in the capacity and incapacity of men. in the case in question (of words) also, there is no cause of the perception (of the meaning), other than the connection.”—[Ślokavārtika-—sambandhākṣepaparihāra, 38].—(2271)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

What is meant is as follows:—Mere existence is not the cause of a thing being perceived; the cause of it lies in the capacity of the perceiving man; it is for this reason that even when the thing is existent, its non-perception by some one who is devoid of the capacity to perceive it, does not involve any incongruity; hence ‘non-cognition’ cannot be said to be invariably concomitant with non-existence.

Says the Opponent—If that is so, then, even when the Connection (of the Word and its meaning) is not there, the cognition or non-cognition of the meaning by men would be determined by the presence and absence of the capacity in the men; so that it all stands on the same footing.

The answer to this is—‘There is no cause, etc. etc.’.—That is, the cognition of the meaning always follows from the cognition of the Connection.—‘Other’ goes with ‘cause

‘Of the perception’—i.e. of the apprehension of the meaning of the Word.

‘Darśanasya’—the Genitive is to be construed with ‘hetuḥ’.

In ‘Sambandhāt’, the Ablative is to be construed with ‘anyaḥ’.

‘In the case in question’—i.e. in the matter of the usage relating to Words and their meanings.

Other people take the first half of the text itself as providing the reason demanded by the Opponent, and explain the term ‘Sambandhāt’, as ‘apart from the capacities of men’; and ‘atra’ as standing for the ‘white object’ spoken of above.—(2271)