Verse 1125

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

स्थितिप्रसवसंस्त्यानसंश्रया लिङ्गसंस्थितिः ।
यदि स्यादविभागेन विलिङ्गत्वं प्रसज्यते ॥ ११२५ ॥

sthitiprasavasaṃstyānasaṃśrayā liṅgasaṃsthitiḥ |
yadi syādavibhāgena viliṅgatvaṃ prasajyate || 1125 ||

If the application of the genders were based upon the states of continuance, appearance and destruction,—then, all the three genders would become applicable to all things.—(1125)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Some people think that “the three genders in the case of the words cited may be explained as pertaining to the three states of the thing concerned (River-bank),—the three states being those of destruction, appearance and continuance”.

That this also cannot be right is shown in the following—[see verse 1125 above]

There is a hiatus after ‘syāt’ (the conditional clause ending there).

If the ‘application’—regulation—of genders were based upon the states of continuance and the rest, then all the three genders would he applicable to all things,—like the River-bank, the Chain and so forth. Because, as in the case of the River-bank, so elsewhere also, all the three states of continuance and the rest would be there. Otherwise, there should not be three genders in the case of the three words ‘tataḥ’, ‘taṭī’ and ‘taṭam’ also; as there is no difference between the two cases. Thus the definition proposed becomes too wide.—(1125)

The definition is ‘too narrow’ also, because it is not true in all cases;—this is what is shown in the following—[see verse 1126 next]