Verse 2325-2328

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

आहुः स्वभावसिद्धं हि ते विनाशमहेतुकम् ।
भवति ह्यग्निसम्बन्धात्काष्ठादङ्गारसन्ततिः ॥ २३२५ ॥
स्वाभाविको विनाशस्तु जातिमात्रप्रतिष्ठितः ।
सूक्ष्मः सदृशसन्तानवृत्तेरनुपलक्षितः ॥ २३२६ ॥
यदा विलक्षणो हेतुः पतेत्सदृशसन्ततौ ।
विलक्षणेन कार्येण स्थूलोऽभिव्यज्यते तदा ॥ २३२७ ॥
तेनासदृशसन्तानो हेतोः संजायते यतः ।
तेनैवाक्रियमाणोऽपि(नाशोऽ)भिव्यज्यते स्फुटः ॥ २३२८ ॥

āhuḥ svabhāvasiddhaṃ hi te vināśamahetukam |
bhavati hyagnisambandhātkāṣṭhādaṅgārasantatiḥ || 2325 ||
svābhāviko vināśastu jātimātrapratiṣṭhitaḥ |
sūkṣmaḥ sadṛśasantānavṛtteranupalakṣitaḥ || 2326 ||
yadā vilakṣaṇo hetuḥ patetsadṛśasantatau |
vilakṣaṇena kāryeṇa sthūlo'bhivyajyate tadā || 2327 ||
tenāsadṛśasantāno hetoḥ saṃjāyate yataḥ |
tenaivākriyamāṇo'pi(nāśo')bhivyajyate sphuṭaḥ || 2328 ||

“They declare that ‘destruction’ is brought about by itself, and is without cause... When fuel comes into contact with fire, there proceeds a series of fiery embers.—Destruction is natural, and inherent in everything that is born; it is subtle, and merged in a homogeneous ‘series’; it is not perceived; when however a peculiar cause operates upon the homogeneous ‘series then, through a peculiar effect, the destruction becomes manifested in its gross form. Thus, that same cause from which the heterogeneous ‘series’ has been produced, also serves to manifest the destruction, though this destruction is not produced by that cause,”—[vide Ślokavārtika—eternality of words, 24-29].—(2325-2328)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

How these two Destructions are ‘uncaused’ and ‘eternal’ and how they subsist in the Probans,—is pointed out in the following Texts,—from the point of view of the Opponent (Bauddha):—[see verses 2325-2328 above]

‘They’—Buddhists.

Says the Opponent—As a matter of fact, we find the wood being burnt by fire, and the Jar smashed by the bludgeon; where there are causes of Destruction; how then can Destruction be without came?

Answer;—‘When fuel comes into contact, etc. etc.’—In this ease what the Fire is the cause of is not Destruction, but the fiery embers,—as is ascertained through positive and negative concomitance; specially as Destruction exists by its very nature.

Question:—If Destruction is something that exists by its very nature,—how is it that it is not preceived there prior to the contact of such causes, as the Fire and the like?

Answer;—‘It is subtle’—Being deceived by the appearance of the several similar factors in the ‘homogeneous series’, people fail to perceive the Destruction in its subtle form; in fact by the perception of the homogeneous series, they are led to imagine that the object is ‘undestroyed’.

‘Peculiar cause’—in the shape of the Bludgeon.

‘Peculiar effect’—in the shape of the Potsherds.

It is under these conditions that the grossness of the Destruction becomes manifested.

‘Thus, etc. etc.’—sums up the argument.

‘Heterogeneous series’,—of a different character.

‘Hetoḥ’ is to be conducted with ‘yataḥ’,—‘Tena’—by that same cause,—which has been referred to by the pronoun in ‘yataḥ’—is the Destruction manifested.—Such is the construction with the preceding clause.—(2325-2328)