The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2810 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 2810.

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

ज्ञानालोकव्यपास्तान्तस्तमोराशिः पुमानतः ।
श्रुत्यर्थानां विविक्तानामुपदेशकृदिष्यताम् ॥ २८१० ॥

jñānālokavyapāstāntastamorāśiḥ pumānataḥ |
śrutyarthānāṃ viviktānāmupadeśakṛdiṣyatām || 2810 ||

For these reasons, please seek for a person whose inner darkness has been dispelled by the light of knowledge, and who is capable of teaching the clear meaning of the Veda.—(2810)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Inner darkness’—Ignorance, ‘Painful and Unpainful’;—who has dispelled this by the light of knowledge.

Clear’—correct; pure, free from impurities like animal-slaughter, wrongful sexual acts and so forth.

Seek for a teacher’;—i.e. it is only then that your idea of the Veda having no personal author would be of any use; otherwise the meaning being not cognisable, the said idea would be futile.

What is meant by this is as follows:—

The notion of yours, that the Veda is self-sufficient in its authority, cannot be right unless there is an omniscient Person;—hence such a Person has got to be admitted;—otherwise the authority and reliability of the Veda would be impossible; as explained above. Under the circumstances, it is far better to rely upon the word of this Person himself, for the knowledge of Dharma and such matters; what is the use of assuming the Word not proceeding from a Person,—the reliability of which Word must always remain doubtful?

It has been argued that matters like Dharma are not amenable to the direct meditative Perception of the Mystics.—This assertion also is defective; because it is going to be proved later on, by means of Inference, that there can be such perception in the case of Mystics.—(2810)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: