Verse 2510-2512

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

कादाचित्के हि संस्कारे सत्येव ज्ञानसम्भवः ।
कादाचिदिति शोभेत संस्कारपरिकल्पना ॥ २५१० ॥
ज्ञानकार्यावसेयश्च संस्कारः शक्तिलक्षणः ।
तच्च ज्ञानं सदाभावि यदि वा भावि सर्वदा ॥ २५११ ॥
कादाचित्कं कथं नाम संस्कारं तस्य सूचयेत् ।
उत्तरं श्रोत्रसंस्कारान्नातः साधु प्रकाशितम् ॥ २५१२ ॥

kādācitke hi saṃskāre satyeva jñānasambhavaḥ |
kādāciditi śobheta saṃskāraparikalpanā || 2510 ||
jñānakāryāvaseyaśca saṃskāraḥ śaktilakṣaṇaḥ |
tacca jñānaṃ sadābhāvi yadi vā bhāvi sarvadā || 2511 ||
kādācitkaṃ kathaṃ nāma saṃskāraṃ tasya sūcayet |
uttaraṃ śrotrasaṃskārānnātaḥ sādhu prakāśitam || 2512 ||

Cognition would be possible only if the embellishment were occasional; the idea of the ‘embellishment’ would be acceptable only if it were occasional. The idea of ‘embellishment’, which is a hind of potency, is derived from the effect in the form of the cognition. Now this cognition may either appear at all times, or not appear at all. How then could it indicate the occasional embellishment (of the auditory organ)? Hence the explanation based upon the ‘embellishment of the auditory organ’ has not been sound.—(2510-2512)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Hitherto the Author has admitted (for the sake of argument) that there is Embellishment of the Auditory Organ;—and then proceeded to consider whether or not the Object is the productive Cause of the Cognition,—which consideration has led to the conclusion that the Embellishment of the Auditory Organ is absolutely useless.—He now proceeds to show that the Embellishment itself of the Auditory Organ is not possible:—[see verses 2510-2512 above]

Cognition as the effect of Embellishment could be occasional only if the Embellishment were occasional; otherwise if the Cause in its efficient state were there always, why should its effect be occasional? As a matter of fact however, the Embellishment is not occasional;—this is what is shown in the words—‘The idea of the Embellishment is derived, etc, etc.’—That is to say, the Embellishment of the Auditory Organ, deduced from the coming about of its effect in the shape of the Cognition (of Sound), could only consist in a certain Potency;—as Potency alone is what can be deduced from an effect;—this Potency should form part of the Auditory Organ itself; it cannot be anything different from it; as in the latter case the Auditory Organ itself would not be the Cause of the effect (Cognition). Then again, as no sort of relationship can be known, whenever the Potency would be there, the resultant Cognition should also be there. If the Cognition is not there, then it could never follow from that Potency; and as a result of this, the Cognition could not be occasional. Under the circumstances, how could the occasional Cognition indicate the Potency as the ‘Embellishment of the Auditory Organ’? It could never indicate it.—(2510-2512)