The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2516-2518 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 2516-2518.

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

भेदाभेदविनिर्मुक्तं व्यस्तं पक्षान्तरं ततः ।
उत्तरं श्रोत्रसंस्कारादसंस्कृततयोच्यते ॥ २५१६ ॥
एतेनैव निषेद्धव्या विषयोभयसंस्कृतिः ।
तस्मान्नित्येष्वभिव्यक्तिः सर्वथाऽपि निरास्पदा ॥ २५१७ ॥
ततश्च व्यक्तिमाश्रित्य दीर्घह्रस्वक्रमादयः ।
ये केचित्प्रविभज्यन्ते तेऽपि सर्वे निरास्पदाः ॥ २५१८ ॥

bhedābhedavinirmuktaṃ vyastaṃ pakṣāntaraṃ tataḥ |
uttaraṃ śrotrasaṃskārādasaṃskṛtatayocyate || 2516 ||
etenaiva niṣeddhavyā viṣayobhayasaṃskṛtiḥ |
tasmānnityeṣvabhivyaktiḥ sarvathā'pi nirāspadā || 2517 ||
tataśca vyaktimāśritya dīrghahrasvakramādayaḥ |
ye kecitpravibhajyante te'pi sarve nirāspadāḥ || 2518 ||

The other alternative also—under which there is neither difference nor non-difference—has already been overthrown.—Thus when the ‘embellishment of the auditory organ’ is put forward as the explanation, it must be due to the fact of the person propounding it being not ‘embellished’ (cultured).—(2516)
By these same arguments may be rejected the view that there is embellishment of the object and of both.—From, all this it follows that there can be no room for the view that there is ‘manifestation’ of what is eternal. and from this it also follows that there can be no room for any distinctions that are made on the basis of such ‘manifestation’,—such distinctions as those of ‘long ‘short’, ‘order of sequence’ and so forth.—(2517-2518)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2516]:

The Author now takes up the third alternative (suggested in the Commentary on Text 2513,—that ‘the Potency is different-non-different’ from the Auditory Organ):—[see verse 2516 above]

Already overthrown’—under the chapter on the ‘Pudgala’. The reason for it lies in the fact, that the same thing cannot be both affirmed and denied. For instance, ‘Difference’ and ‘Non-difference’ are mutually exclusive; and the presence of one is always characterised by the absence of the other; when between two things—e.g. ‘Existence’ and ‘Non-existence’—the nature of one cannot be affirmed without the denial of the other, that is, it can exist only when the other is absent;—and when two things are mutually exclusive, the absence of one implying the presence of the other and vice versa,—the affirmation of one must be concomitant with the denial of the other. Consequently when the ‘Difference’ (of the Potency from the Organ) is denied, it implies the affirmation of Sameness (Non-difference); and it cannot be right to deny this latter also at the same time; because in that case there may be affirmation of Difference also.—Such are the objections that may be pointed out against the view that there is difference-non-difference (between the Potency and the Auditory Organ).—(2516)

[verses 2517-2518]:

By these same arguments ’—i.e. by putting forward the alternatives regarding the capacity or otherwise to produce Cognitions.

From all this, etc. etc.’—This sums up the argument.

Order of sequence, etc.’—‘Etc.’ is meant to include the ultra-long, the ‘Udātta’ accent and so forth.—(2517-2518)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: