Verse 2986

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

एवमर्थक्रियाज्ञानात्प्रमाणत्वविनिश्चये ।
नानवस्था पराकाङ्क्षाविनिवृत्तेरिति स्थितम् ॥ २९८६ ॥

evamarthakriyājñānātpramāṇatvaviniścaye |
nānavasthā parākāṅkṣāvinivṛtteriti sthitam || 2986 ||

Thus, it is established that the idea of validity, being ascertained through the cognition of effective action, does not involve infinite regress; as all further need has ceased.—(2986)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text sums up the argument:—[see verse 2986 above]

‘As all further need has ceased’;—‘Parākāṅkṣā’ is to be treated as a Karmadhāraya compound; ‘parā’—‘another’, ‘further’—being a qualification for ‘ākāṅkṣā’—‘need’,—Or it may be taken as Tatpuruṣa—‘need for another’—i.e. anything other than conformity to the reality;—because all such need has ceased.

Further, when it is said that ‘Cognition in conformity with reality is valid’,—it provides the definition (peculiar characteristic) of that Cognition which brings about the result in the shape of the Cognition of effective action. This definition is not applicable to the Cognition of the result itself; under the circumstances, how could there be any room for the objection that this Cognition also should be regarded as valid? For instance, when the Seed is defined as the cause of the Sprout,—do the wise ones raise the question that the Sprout also should be regarded as the Seed? What happens in this case is that the fact of the Seed being the ‘cause of the Sprout’ is cognised only when one sees the Sprout (rising from it); in the same manner, the Cognition is cognised as ‘valid’ only when its result in the shape of effective action is perceived; and this result is not apprehended by another Cognition; only if it did, would there be an Infinite Regress. Because the Cognition of the result, which is in the shape of Cognition, is cognised by itself (not by another Cognition); and there can be no mistake or illusion in the Cognition in regard to itself; because if there were any uncertainty regarding it, the Cognition of itself could not come about at all. Thus there is nothing in what has been urged by the other party.—(2986)