Verse 2707-2710

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

सत्तामात्रेण तज्ज्ञानं हेतुभावव्यवस्थितेः ।
तस्य ज्ञापकतेष्टा चेन्नेत्रवत्सर्वदा भवेत् ॥ २७०७ ॥
स(ङ्केता)नवबोधेऽपि वर्णानामश्रुतावपि ।
तद्भाव्यर्थेषु विज्ञानं शक्तकारणसन्निधेः ॥ २७०८ ॥
तथाहि नित्यसत्त्वोऽयं नचापेक्षाऽस्य काचन ।
ध्वनिसंकेतवर्णैश्च तद्व्यक्तिर्नाप्यदर्शनात् ॥ २७०९ ॥
ज्ञानं हि व्यक्तिरित्याहुस्तज्ज्ञानं नच विद्यते ।
ततो निरर्थकैवास्य व्यञ्जकस्यापि कल्पना ॥ २७१० ॥

sattāmātreṇa tajjñānaṃ hetubhāvavyavasthiteḥ |
tasya jñāpakateṣṭā cennetravatsarvadā bhavet || 2707 ||
sa(ṅketā)navabodhe'pi varṇānāmaśrutāvapi |
tadbhāvyartheṣu vijñānaṃ śaktakāraṇasannidheḥ || 2708 ||
tathāhi nityasattvo'yaṃ nacāpekṣā'sya kācana |
dhvanisaṃketavarṇaiśca tadvyaktirnāpyadarśanāt || 2709 ||
jñānaṃ hi vyaktirityāhustajjñānaṃ naca vidyate |
tato nirarthakaivāsya vyañjakasyāpi kalpanā || 2710 ||

Be it be urged that—“the cognition follows from its mere existence; and as its causal character is there, it is held to be able to bring about the cognition like the visual organ”;—then, the answer is that, in that case, the said cognition would be there at all times;—even when there is no knowledge of the convention, and there is no hearing of the letters,—there would be cognition proceeding from the sphoṭa, as its efficient cause would be there always; as this entity (sphoṭa) is eternal. (According to the grammarian), and it has no need for anything else. Nor can there be ‘manifestation’ of it by articulation or convention or letters; as it is never perceived; it is cognition itself that is spoken of as ‘manifestation’ and there is no cognition of it. Hence it follows that the assumption of the ‘manifester’ of the sphoṭa is also futile.—(2707-2710)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be argued that—“by its mere existence, the Sphoṭa would be the cause of the comprehension of meanings,—just as the visual and other organs are the cause of the cognition of things

But in that case, the cognition proceeding from it should be there always; so that even without any idea of the Convention, etc. bearing upon the Word, the comprehension of its meaning would be there.—This is what is pointed out by the words—‘Even when there is, etc. etc.’—The reason in support of this is next stated in the words—‘As this entity is eternal, etc. etc.’.

It might be argued that—“It is only when the Sphoṭa has been manifested that it is held to be the cause of the comprehension of the meaning,—and not by its mere presence; so that the difficulty pointed out does not arise

The answer to this is—‘Nor can there be manifestation, etc. etc.’;—‘as it is never perceived’—never cognised; because it has been held to be imperceptible.

This same idea is further reiterated by the words—‘there is no cognition of it, etc. etc.’,—(2707-2710)