Verse 3273-3274

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

स्वोपलम्भस्य चार्थेषु निखिलेषु विनिश्चये ।
कुतश्चिद्भवतो ज्ञानाद्धेतुत्वव्यापकत्वयोः ॥ ३२७३ ॥
भवानेव तदा सिद्धः सर्वार्थज्ञोऽप्रयत्नतः ।
ततश्च स्वात्मनि द्वेषः कस्ते सर्वविदि स्वतः ॥ ३२७४ ॥

svopalambhasya cārtheṣu nikhileṣu viniścaye |
kutaścidbhavato jñānāddhetutvavyāpakatvayoḥ || 3273 ||
bhavāneva tadā siddhaḥ sarvārthajño'prayatnataḥ |
tataśca svātmani dveṣaḥ kaste sarvavidi svataḥ || 3274 ||

If your own apprehension is recognised—through some means of cognition, as being the ‘cause’ and the ‘pervader’, of all things,—then your own omniscience becomes established, without any effort. why then should you yourself be hostile to your own omniscience?—(3273-3274)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

If it is insisted upon by the other party that one’s own Apprehension is the Cause and Pervader of all things—then his Proposition involves self-contradiction.—This is pointed out in the following—[see verses 3273-3274 above]

‘Hetutvavyāpakatvayoḥ’—The Genitive Ending is in relation to ‘niścaya’.

‘Upalambhasya cārtheṣu’—The Genitive Ending in ‘Upalambhasya’, and the Locative Ending in ‘artheṣu’ is in reference to the ‘Cause’ and the ‘Pervader’; the former connoting the relationship of these, and the latter the fact of their being envisaged.

What is meant is as follows If, through some Means of Cognition, you have recognised the fact of your own Apprehension being the ‘Cause’ and ‘Pervader’ of all things,—then, your own omniscience becomes clearly asserted; because unless one is omniscient, his Apprehension can never comprehend all things, And yet you are putting forward proofs in support of the non-existence of the Omniscient Person. Thus there is clear self-contradiction on your part.—(3273-3274)