Verse 3332-3333

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

अनात्मक्षणिकत्वादि यद्येवं सर्वदर्शिनः ।
साक्षात्समस्तवस्तूनां तत्त्वरूपस्य दर्शनात् ॥ ३३३२ ॥
सन्तु तेपि समस्तानामैकमत्येन संस्थितेः ।
परस्परविरुद्धार्थं नीतार्थं न हि ते जगुः ॥ ३३३३ ॥

anātmakṣaṇikatvādi yadyevaṃ sarvadarśinaḥ |
sākṣātsamastavastūnāṃ tattvarūpasya darśanāt || 3332 ||
santu tepi samastānāmaikamatyena saṃsthiteḥ |
parasparaviruddhārthaṃ nītārthaṃ na hi te jaguḥ || 3333 ||

“There is no soul;—things are momentary and so forth.”—If that is so, these teachers are omniscient; because they have directly perceived the true nature of all things. In that case they are all omniscient, holding the same view of things. As for the mutually contradictory teachings, they never expounded any such teachings,—they meant something quite different.—(3332-3333)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Being questioned as above, the other Party answers—“The correct teaching according to these Teachers is that there is no soul, things are momentary,and so forth”.

If this is the answer, then it means that there is no difference of opinion between these Teachers and Buddha; hence our Reason would not be ‘inadmissible

The Author therefore says in his reply—‘If that is so, etc. etc.’—We do not mean to point our finger to any one Person and say that ‘He is omniscient’, we only assert it in a general way that ‘there are omniscient persons’. If it is admitted that Kapila and others also have the said knowledge of truth, then you should not say—why is there a difference of opinion between the two”?—Because under the circumstances, they would all be of the same opinion.

Then, as regards the mutually contradictory teachings of these Teachers,—it will have to be interpreted in some other way; for people holding the same opinions cannot expound contradictory teachings;—the only right view is that all of them expound only the true nature of things. Hence whenever one meets with a diversity of opinion, he should understand that its meaning is something quite different.

In case they are held to be holders of divergent opinions, there can be no room for the question—“who is the one to be selected as omniscient?” (as has been asked by the other party in Text 3148). Because in that case Sugata (Buddha) would be selected as the only person possessing the said knowledge and hence being omniscient,—and no other person could be so regarded.—(3332-3333)

Then again, if Kapila and others are accepted as holding the said opinion regarding things, then they become Buddhas themselves.—This is what is pointed out in the following:—[see verses 3334-3335 next]