Verse 2861-2863

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

संवादगुणविज्ञाने केन वाऽभ्यधिकेमतेन ते ।
आद्यस्य तदधीनत्वं यद्बलेन भविष्यति ॥ २८६१ ॥
तस्मात्स्वतःप्रमाणत्वं सर्वत्रौत्सर्गिकं स्थितम् ।
बाधकारणदुष्टत्वज्ञानाभ्यां तदपोह्यते ॥ २८६२ ॥
परायत्तेऽपि चैतस्मिन्नानवस्था प्रसज्यते ।
प्रामणाधीनमेतद्धि स्वतस्तच्च प्रतिष्ठितम् ॥ २८६३ ॥

saṃvādaguṇavijñāne kena vā'bhyadhikematena te |
ādyasya tadadhīnatvaṃ yadbalena bhaviṣyati || 2861 ||
tasmātsvataḥpramāṇatvaṃ sarvatrautsargikaṃ sthitam |
bādhakāraṇaduṣṭatvajñānābhyāṃ tadapohyate || 2862 ||
parāyatte'pi caitasminnānavasthā prasajyate |
prāmaṇādhīnametaddhi svatastacca pratiṣṭhitam || 2863 ||

“On what grounds have the corroborative cognition and the cognition of perfection been held to be superior to the initial cognition,—on the strength of which the latter should be dependent upon those two?—From all this it follows that validity must be regarded as inherent in all cognitions, as a general rule; and it is discarded only when there is either an annulment of it or the cognition of its source being defective. Even though this way the discarding of the validity will be dependent upon extraneous causes, there would be no infinite regress. Because after all, it would be dependent upon validity, and this is there, inherent in the cognition.”—(2861-2863)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—There is a difference between the initial cognition on the one hand and the subsequent corroborative cognition, and the cognition of perfection on the other,—on account of which difference, while the validity of these latter two is inherent, that of the former is not so. The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2861-2863 above]

Objection:—If Cognition is self-sufficient in its validity,—then all Cognitions become valid, which is absurd.

The answer to this is—‘From all this it follows, etc. etc.’—‘Utsarga’ is a general principle; and ‘autsargika’ is that which is in accordance with -the general principle.

‘Annulment’—the certainty that the real state of things is different from that figuring in the cognition;—‘cognition of its source being defective’.

Objection:—Thus then, Validity remaining there as a general rule,—how is it discarded? If the invalidity were held to be indicated by annulment and the cognition of the source being defective,—then this invalidity would be due to extraneous causes. It might be argued that—“it is so held by us”, But, in that case, as in the case of Validity being extraneous, so here also, there would be Infinite Regress.

The answer to this is as follows:—‘Even though this would be dependent upon, etc. There would be Infinite Regress if the invalidity (of one) were due to the invalidity (of another); as a matter of fact, however, invalidity is held to follow from Validity, which is different in kind from invalidity; and it has been established that Validity is self-sufficient; why then should there be an Infinite Regress?—(2861-2863)

The same idea is further explained:—[see verses 2864-2865 next]