Verse 3339

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

साक्षात्कृतिविशेषाच्च दोषो नास्ति सवासनः ।
सर्वज्ञत्वमतः सिद्धं सर्वावरणमुक्तितः ॥ ३३३९ ॥

sākṣātkṛtiviśeṣācca doṣo nāsti savāsanaḥ |
sarvajñatvamataḥ siddhaṃ sarvāvaraṇamuktitaḥ || 3339 ||

Also, on account of the peculiar character of the direct perception, the defect along with the dispositions ceases forthwith; and thus through freedom from all ‘obstacles’, omniscience becomes accomplished.—(3339)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘Direct perception’—of what?—of the idea of ‘no-soul’; this is to be understood from the context.—‘The peculiar character’ of this Direct Perception consists in the complete realisation of the good and bad points of the said idea and its contrary (respectively), by a long-continued process. It is because this complete realisation is wanting in those who are still in the stage of pupilage, that these are not omniscient. And the reason for this lies in the fact that, on account of the absence of the said long-continued practice, the ‘Hindrance of Cognisable things’ has not been removed; because the said contemplation is still wanting.

The argument may be formulated thus:—That Contemplation which is carried on uninterruptedly with due faith for a long time brings about its fruit in the shape of the direct perception of things as if they were in one’s palms,—as for example, the contemplation by the lover of the loved one;—the contemplation by the Merciful Lord of the doctrine of ‘No-soul’ is fully equipped with all the said three qualifications;—thus there is a reason based on the nature of things.—The Reason here adduced cannot be said to be ‘inadmissible’; because it has been already explained that it is always possible for the Merciful one, seeking for some end (such as the welfare of mankind) to have recourse to such activity.—Nor can the Reason be said to be ‘Inconclusive’; because the thing under discussion, which is the mental perception of the ‘soul-lessness’ of all things, is what is sought to be proved as rendered manifest by the aforesaid contemplation with the three qualifications. And the invariable concomitance of the character of the Probans with the character of the Probandum is well-known; specially because the clear manifestation of it does not need any other cause to bring it about; and from this there follows by implication, its invariable concomitance with omniscience also; because ‘omniscience’ is nothing other than the said clear manifestation of the Cognition envisaging the ‘Soul-less-ness’ of all things. Thus then the invariable concomitance of the contemplation with the expected clear manifestation in general being established, that with ‘omniscience’ also becomes established by implication. Specially because in connection with the subject in question no other clear manifestation is possible.

By this same argument all those arguments become answered which the other party had brought forward against the existence of the Omniscient Person; because the existence of the Omniscient Person is not something to be proved; what is meant to be proved is the clear manifestation of the thing in question in the well-known mind (of that Person).

In this way, on account of the peculiar character of the direct perception, the entire effects of the Defects,—in the shape of the deficiencies of Body, Speech and Mind,—become dispelled; and thus both kinds of ‘Hindrance’ become set aside; and all hindrances having been set aside, Omniscience becomes an accomplished fact.—(3339)