The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2858-2860 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 2858-2860.

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

यथाऽऽद्ये च तथाऽन्यत्रेत्यनवस्थैव पूर्ववत् ।
तत्र तत्रैवमिच्छन्तो न व्यवस्थां लभेमहि ॥ २८५८ ॥
गुणज्ञानं गुणायत्तप्रामाण्यमथ नेष्यते ।
आद्यमप्यर्थविज्ञानं नापेक्षेत गुणप्रमाम् ॥ २८५९ ॥
अतो दूरमपि ध्यात्वा प्रामाण्यं यत्स्वतः क्वचित् ।
अवश्याभ्युपगन्तव्यं तत्रैवादौ वरं स्थितम् ॥ २८६० ॥

yathā''dye ca tathā'nyatretyanavasthaiva pūrvavat |
tatra tatraivamicchanto na vyavasthāṃ labhemahi || 2858 ||
guṇajñānaṃ guṇāyattaprāmāṇyamatha neṣyate |
ādyamapyarthavijñānaṃ nāpekṣeta guṇapramām || 2859 ||
ato dūramapi dhyātvā prāmāṇyaṃ yatsvataḥ kvacit |
avaśyābhyupagantavyaṃ tatraivādau varaṃ sthitam || 2860 ||

“Just as in the case of the initial cognition, so in that of the other also, there would be infinite regress, as before; and seeking for them one after the other, we could not secure a resting ground.—In case the cognition of the perfection is not held to be one that has its validity dependent upon the presence of those perfections in its cause,—then the initial cognition of the object also should not need the valid cognition of perfection in its cause.—Thus then, even going along to a long distance, if one has to admit, at some stage or the other, the self-validity of the cognition,—it is far better to admit it at the very first step.”—(2858-2860)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

What is meant is that—just as in the initial cognition, the validity is dependent upon the perfections apprehended by another cognition,—so should it be in other cognitions also.

As before’—as in the case of certainty of validity arising from corroboration.

One after the other’—in each preceding cognition of perfections.

If, through fear of Infinite Regress, it be held that the validity of the cognition of perfection is inherent in it, self-sufficient,—then what hostility should there be against the cognitions of the object itself,—by virtue of which its validity is held to be extraneous, not inherent? We do not perceive any reason for this.

Thus then the flying bird, not perceiving the end of the other shore, has to return to the place whence it started; consequently, there is no need for the making of baseless assumptions.—This is what is pointed out by the words—‘In case the cognition of the perfection, etc. etc.’—‘Dependent upon the perfection’—i.e. that which has its validity dependent upon the certain cognition of the perfection.—(2858-2860)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: