The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

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

This page contains verse 2949-2950 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 2949-2950.

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

नन्वप्रमाणतो वृत्तो विदं वा कं(विसंवादं ?)समश्नुते ।
निश्चयः परतस्तस्य बाधकात्प्रत्ययान्मतः ॥ २९४९ ॥
प्रमाणतः प्रवृत्तस्तु न विसंवादमश्नुते ।
अस्यैव चेष्यतेऽस्माभिः स्वतःप्रामाण्यनिश्चयः ॥ २९५० ॥

nanvapramāṇato vṛtto vidaṃ vā kaṃ(visaṃvādaṃ ?)samaśnute |
niścayaḥ paratastasya bādhakātpratyayānmataḥ || 2949 ||
pramāṇataḥ pravṛttastu na visaṃvādamaśnute |
asyaiva ceṣyate'smābhiḥ svataḥprāmāṇyaniścayaḥ || 2950 ||

“One who acts in pursuance of an invalid cognition meets with non-conformity with reality; and certainty regarding invalidity has been held to be due to extraneous causes and ascertainable by a subsequent sublating cognition. On the other hand, one who acts in pursuance of a valid cognition does not meet with the said non-conformity; and it is in regard to this that we hold that there is firm conviction regarding its validity being inherent and self-sufficient.”—(2949-2950)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

In the following Texts, the Opponent proceeds to put forward his arguments:—[see verses 2949-2950 above]

Non-conformity with reality comes to one who proceeds to act in pursuance of an invalid cognition; and it has already been admitted that the invalidity of cognitions is due to extraneous causes. As for the Valid cognition, on the other hand, one who acts in pursuance of that does not meet with non-conformity; and it is of this cognition that validity has been held to be inherent and self-sufficient. In what way then can there be annulment of the assertion of ‘self-validity’ by Inference?

The answer to the above is provided in the following—[see verses 2951-2954 next]

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: