The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2691-2692 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 2691-2692.

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

व्यक्तिसम्बद्धरूपाणां जातीनां च व्यवस्थितौ ।
व्यक्तीनामपि नित्यत्वं दुर्वारमनुषज्यते ॥ २६९१ ॥
जातिसम्बन्धरूपाणां व्यक्तीनां वा व्यवस्थितौ ।
जातीनामप्यनित्यत्वमकामस्यापि ते भवेत् ॥ २६९२ ॥

vyaktisambaddharūpāṇāṃ jātīnāṃ ca vyavasthitau |
vyaktīnāmapi nityatvaṃ durvāramanuṣajyate || 2691 ||
jātisambandharūpāṇāṃ vyaktīnāṃ vā vyavasthitau |
jātīnāmapyanityatvamakāmasyāpi te bhavet || 2692 ||

If the universals continue to exist as related to the individuals, the eternality of the individuals also is irresistible. or (conversely), if the individuals exist as related to the universals, then the universals also should be noneternal, even if you do not relish it.—(2691-2692)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Granting (for the sake of argument) the relationship between the Universal and the Individual, the Author proceeds to point out objections—[see verses 2691-2692 above]

Every Relationship subsists between two relatives; Universals are regarded as eternal; hence what exists in the form related to the Universal, must itself be eternal. Otherwise the Universals would not have their form consisting of the relationship of the Individuals. Similarly, as Individuals are held to be non-eternal, the Universals, which consist in the relationship to these, must also be non-eternal. If the Individuals are non-eternal, the

Universals must also be non-eternal. If it were not so, then, while one of the two relatives would be there in a perfect condition, it cannot be right for the other to be imperfect; as in that case, the Relationship itself would cease.—(2691-2692)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: