The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2824 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 2824.

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

व्यक्तिहेत्वन्तरापेक्षे व्यस्ते नित्यस्य वस्तुनः ।
तस्मात्तद्रूपकार्याणां नित्यां स्यादुपलम्भनम् ॥ २८२४ ॥

vyaktihetvantarāpekṣe vyaste nityasya vastunaḥ |
tasmāttadrūpakāryāṇāṃ nityāṃ syādupalambhanam || 2824 ||

The whole idea of the ‘manifestation’ of the eternal thing and its being dependent upon other contributory causes has been rejected already; hence the effects producible by the pramāṇas by themselves should be apprehended at all times.—(2824)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Manifestationanddependence upon other causes’.—Under the chapter on the ‘Revealed Word’, the idea of ‘manifestation’ of the eternal thing has been refuted in detail; and it has also been explained that the thing that cannot be helped cannot be dependent upon other causes.

The effects producible, etc. etc.’—‘Tat’ stands for the Pramāṇas; the effects of these by themselves, etc. etc.

The view that “the Potency may be both (different and non-dîfferent)” cannot be right, because they are mutually contradictory and also because it would be open to all the objections that have been urged against Difference as also those urged against Non-difference.

Nor can the view that “it is neither different nor non-different” be accepted. Because between two mutually exclusive things, the affirmation of one is inseparable from the denial of the other; hence it can never be right to deny it at the very time that it is affirmed; as the affirmation and denial of the same thing involves an incongruity. This objection is quite clear; hence it has not been stated in the Text.—(2824)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: