The Tattvasangraha [with commentary]

by Ganganatha Jha | 1937 | 699,812 words | ISBN-10: 8120800583 | ISBN-13: 9788120800588

This page contains verse 2480-2481 of the 8th-century Tattvasangraha (English translation) by Shantarakshita, including the commentary (Panjika) by Kamalashila: dealing with Indian philosophy from a Buddhist and non-Buddhist perspective. The Tattvasangraha (Tattvasamgraha) consists of 3646 Sanskrit verses; this is verse 2480-2481.

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

अन्यापोहात्मकस्यापि न गत्वस्य समाश्रयः ।
इत्थमेवेति चेन्नैवमाश्रयासिद्धताप्तितः ॥ २४८० ॥
अगकारपरावृत्तगवर्णाभावतो भवेत् ।
गान्यबुद्ध्यनिरूप्यत्वं कस्य धर्मो हि धर्मिणः ॥ २४८१ ॥

anyāpohātmakasyāpi na gatvasya samāśrayaḥ |
itthameveti cennaivamāśrayāsiddhatāptitaḥ || 2480 ||
agakāraparāvṛttagavarṇābhāvato bhavet |
gānyabuddhyanirūpyatvaṃ kasya dharmo hi dharmiṇaḥ || 2481 ||

If it be urged that what is sought to be proved (by the mīmāṃsaka’s argument) is that it is not the substratum of the universal ‘ga’, which is of the nature of the ‘exclusion of others’,—that cannot be right; as that will involve the fallacy of the basis of the reason being ‘inadmissible’.—Inasmuch as the letter ‘ga’ is nothing apart from ‘the exclusion of the non-ga’, to which object would the character of ‘being not apprehended by any cognition other than that of ga’ belong?—(2480-2481)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—“What is meant to be proved by the-reasoning in question is that the Individual is not the substratum of that universal ‘Ga’ which is of the nature of the ‘exclusion of others’; hence there is no ‘futility’ in it; because you (Buddhist) do not hold that the-Individual Ga is not the substratum of the ‘exclusion of others’”.

This is the view combated in this Text.

Even when what is sought to be proved is put in this way, the Reason becomes ‘inadmissible Because the ‘exclusion of others’ is not anything different from the thing thus ‘excluded’ from others; in fact, it consists of the same Individual ‘Ga’; and it is spoken of as ‘exclusion of others’ or ‘Apoha.’ etc. when its precise nature is meant to be determined which is thus done through the denial of other exclusions of unlike things. Consequently there being no such object which could form the subject of the argument,—to whom could the Reason,—in the form ‘because it is not apprehended by any cognition other than that of Ga’—belong? To nothing at all.—(2480-2481)

Help me to continue this site

For over a decade I have been trying to fill this site with wisdom, truth and spirituality. What you see is only a tiny fraction of what can be. Now I humbly request you to help me make more time for providing more unbiased truth, wisdom and knowledge.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: