Verse 3278-3279

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

इयं च त्रिविधा दृष्टिर्विश्व(नव?)रूपा प्रवर्त्तते ।
तत्तद्विरुद्धाद्यगतिगतिभेदप्रयोगतः ॥ ३२७८ ॥
मूलप्रभेदरूपाया अस्याः सर्वविदं प्रति ।
साधिते शक्तिवैकल्ये व्यस्ता अन्या अयत्नतः ॥ ३२७९ ॥

iyaṃ ca trividhā dṛṣṭirviśva(nava?)rūpā pravarttate |
tattadviruddhādyagatigatibhedaprayogataḥ || 3278 ||
mūlaprabhedarūpāyā asyāḥ sarvavidaṃ prati |
sādhite śaktivaikalye vyastā anyā ayatnataḥ || 3279 ||

This ‘non-apprehension’ proceeds in nine ways: due to its being put forward in diverse ways consisting of the non-cognition and cognition of the said three and their contraries (respectively). And when in its very basic form, the ‘non-apprehension’ has been shown to be inapplicable to the omniscient person, the others become set aside without much effort.—(3278-3279)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Says the other party:—“In that case, the other arguments may be operative; oven so the non-existence of the Omniscient Person would become proved”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3278-3279 above]

This—the aforesaid non-apprehension—of (1) the nature, (2) the Pervader and (3) the Cause—with its ramifications becomes ninefold.

“How?”

Answer:—‘Due to, etc., etc.’—The term ‘tat’ stands for the aforesaid three, called: (1) ‘Nature’, (2) ‘Pervader’, and (3) ‘Cause’;—‘tadviruddha’ is that which is contrary to these; this also is three-fold—(1) contrary to ‘Nature’, (2) contrary to ‘Pervader’, and (3) contrary to ‘Cause’;—the term ‘ādi’ includes (1) the contrary effect, (2) the effect contrary to the cause, and (3) those pervaded by its contraries.—The second ‘tat ' refers again to the said three—(1) Nature, (2) Pervader and (3) Cause;—so that the compound ‘tat-tadviruddha’, stands for (a) the three (Nature, etc.), and (b) the contraries of these three the ‘agati’ and ‘gati’ stand for the (a) non-cognition and (b) cognition of these respectively, i.e. the non-cognition of the Nature, the Pervader and the Cause, and the cognition of the contrary of these;—the diversities are due to these;—and the arguments are put forward on the basis of all this.

That which is due directly to the non-cognition of these, the Non-apprehensîon of the Nature, Cause and Pervader, has been pointed out above; of this same basic Non-apprehension, all the other Non-apprehensions are merely indirect indicatives; hence this three-fold Non-apprehension forms their ‘basis For instance, the ‘cognition of the contrary’ indicates (1) the apprehension of the contrary of its Nature, (2) the apprehension of the contrary of its Pervader and (3) the apprehension of the contrary of its Cause.—The term ‘ādi’ indicates (1) the apprehension of the contrary effect, (2) the apprehension of the effect contrary to the cause, and (3) the apprehension of what is pervaded by the contrary.—All these indirectly indicate, respectively, the Non-apprehension of the Nature, of the Pervader and of the Cause.

Thus by showing that the three basic forms of Non-apprehension are not able to prove the non-existence of the Omniscient Person, the incapacity of their ramifications to do the same follows without effort; hence no attempt need be made for proving that these ramifications also are unable to prove the non-existence of the Omniscient Person. Because, when the root itself has been cut off, the branches cannot continue to live.

In reality, the Non-apprehension of the nature of the thing itself is the root of ail; it is only in view of the diversity of other things that the threefold Non-apprehension has been spoken of as the ‘basis’ or ‘root’.—(3278-3279)