Verse 2991-2993

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

सितसाध्यक्रियावाप्त्या यथा शङ्खे पुरःस्थिते ।
कामलाक्रान्तनेत्रोत्थविज्ञानं नेति गम्यते ॥ २९९१ ॥
इत्थं कारणसंशुद्धौ प्रणीतायां तदैव यातदेव या ।
शातकुम्भमये शङ्खे पीताकारमतिर्भवेत् ॥ २९९२ ॥
विशुद्धकारणोत्पादात्त्वस्याः प्रामाण्यनिश्चयः ।
निष्पादितक्रिये कम्बौ सिताकारमतेरिव ॥ २९९३ ॥

sitasādhyakriyāvāptyā yathā śaṅkhe puraḥsthite |
kāmalākrāntanetrotthavijñānaṃ neti gamyate || 2991 ||
itthaṃ kāraṇasaṃśuddhau praṇītāyāṃ tadaiva yātadeva yā |
śātakumbhamaye śaṅkhe pītākāramatirbhavet || 2992 ||
viśuddhakāraṇotpādāttvasyāḥ prāmāṇyaniścayaḥ |
niṣpāditakriye kambau sitākāramateriva || 2993 ||

In regard to the conch-shell before our eyes, when it is found that the effective action resulting from its cognition is one that can be produced by the white object, it is understood that the cognition of the white conch-shell is not one produced by eyes affected by jaundice. The purity (perfection) of the cause having become thus recognised, if, at the same time, there should arise the cognition of the yellow colour in connection with the conch-shell made of gold,—as that also would have been brought about by flawless causes, there would be certainty regarding the validity of that cognition,—just as in that of the cognition of the white colour in connection with the white conch-shell, which has led to effective action.—(2991-2993)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the Opponent:—“The Reason adduced in this argument is ‘inadmissible’; because the ‘perfection of the cause’ cannot be recognised without ‘conformity with the real state of the thing’; because the Sense-organs (which are the cause of Cognitions) are themselves beyond the reach of the senses; and when ‘conformity with the real state of things’ is needed, that in itself constitutes well-ascertained validity; so that the recognition of ‘the perfection of the cause’ would serve no useful purpose; as it would come after the validity has become ascertained.—It might be argued that—‘At times, from the Cognition of the object close by, one would find that it is in conformity with effective action and from that he would know that the source of the Cognition has been perfect, and then he would conclude that the Cognition is valid; while at other times, in the case of the remote object, even though he may not be cognisant with the fact of its being in conformity with effective action, and yet, in course of time, he would become assured of the perfection of the source of the Cognition, and then secure certainty regarding its validity’,—But this cannot be right. Because things being momentary and perishable, their activity cannot be always of one and the same form; because, as the result of the influence of a succession of causal conditions, they would be acquiring diverse potencies.”

Anticipating all this, the Author supplies the following answer:—[see verses 2991-2993 above]

What is meant by this is as follows:—We do not mean that, in the case of the Cognition of the remote object, appearing at some other time,—its validity is ascertained through the perfection of its source;—if this were our opinion, then alone could our Reason be ‘inadmissible’, on account of the possibility of fresh potencies appearing under the influence of successive causal conditions;—what we do mean is that, in the case of the Cognition of the white conch-shell near us, at the same time that we have the certainty regarding the flawlessness of the cause brought about by the securing of the effect due to the white colour,—there appears the Cognition of the yellow colour in the golden conch-shell lying far away from us,—it is concluded that as the perceptive cause has been found to be flawless, the said Cognition of the yellow colour must be valid, true.—It is not possible that the source of Cognition should have become changed at the same time; as in that case, there would be no conformity of the Cognition of the proximate object with effective action.—(2991-2993)