Verse 2751-2752

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

एकस्यार्थस्वभावस्य परिक्षिप्ताद्द्विरूपता ।
अंशस्तस्मान्न जात्याख्यो नित्योऽत्र घटते घटे ॥ २७५१ ॥
तादवस्थ्यप्रतिक्षेपमात्रं चानित्यतेप्सिता ।
साध्यत्वेन प्रदीपादिस्तत्रोदाहरणं स्फुटम् ॥ २७५२ ॥

ekasyārthasvabhāvasya parikṣiptāddvirūpatā |
aṃśastasmānna jātyākhyo nityo'tra ghaṭate ghaṭe || 2751 ||
tādavasthyapratikṣepamātraṃ cānityatepsitā |
sādhyatvena pradīpādistatrodāharaṇaṃ sphuṭam || 2752 ||

The idea of a dual character of any objective entity has been rejected. consequently, in the case of the jar, it is not possible that one aspect of it should be eternal, in the shape of the ‘universal’.—(2751)

‘Non-eternality’ is held to consist merely in the overthrow (negation) of the existing state, and it is this that is the probandum (in our argument); and the lamp provides a clear corroborative instance of the same.—(2752)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2751]:

It has been urged by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2333, that—“If it is indefinite, then such a thing cannot be either entirely eternal or entirely non-eternal, etc. etc.”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2751 above]

It has been argued by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2335, that—“In the same manner the exact nature of non-eternality also has to be considered, etc. etc.”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2752 above]

[verse 2752]:

The ‘non-eternality’ that is meant to be our Probandum is that which is merely of the nature of the negation of the existing state; and in corroboration of this, we have the instance of the Lamp and such things. Wherefore then can our Corroborative Instance be ‘devoid of the Probandum’?—(2752)