sanskrit
stringlengths 4
615
| english
stringlengths 2
1.3k
|
|---|---|
ekasyām anekākāravirodha eveti cen na / | “Certainly, if what is one envisages many forms, there is incongruity”. Not so; |
ākārāṇām asatyatvāt / | because the forms are unreal. |
yadi hyekasya pāramārthikā ākārā bhaveyus tadā syād vicitratvavirodhaḥ, yāvatā asaya{sva---}bhūtā evākārā itīṣṭam / | If the one thing had several real forms, then there would be incompatibility between the one and the many. As a matter of fact, however, the view that is held is that the many forms do not really belong to the one thing. |
yadyevaṃ bhrāntajñānasaṅgitvā{t} bhrāntaḥ prāpnoti sarvajña iti cen na / | “If that is so, then the Cognition of the Omniscient Person would be associated with a wrong Cognition; and thereby the Omniscient Person would be mistaken”. Not so; |
yathābhūtaparijñānād adoṣa eṣaḥ / | as He would cognise things as they are, there would be nothing wrong in it. |
yadi hyasatyaṃ satyatvena gṛhṇīyāt tadā bhrāntaḥ syāt yadā tvasatyabhūtānākārānasatyatvenaiva jānāti tadā kathaṃ bhrānto bhavet / | He would be ‘mistaken’ if He had cognised as real what is really unreal. When, however, He cognises the unreal forms as unreal, then, how can He be said to be ‘mistaken’? |
athāvyatiriktajñānārūḍhākāragrahaṇe satyartheṣu dṛṣṭādivyavahāraṃ kurvan kathaṃ bhrānta iti cen na / | “When all things are embraced within a single Cognition, and yet He treats them differently, as ‘seen’ and the rest; how then can He be regarded as not-mistaken?” |
yadi hyucitaṃ grahaṇopāyamapāsyopāyāntareṇāmukhyenārthaṃ gṛhṇīyāt tadā bhrānto bhavet / | because, He is cognisant of the right means, He could be mistaken, if he neglected the right means of apprehending the thing, and apprehended it by some other secondary means. |
yāvatā sākārajñānavādipakṣe jñānasyākārānubhavavyatirekeṇa nānyo 'rthagrahaṇavyāpāro 'sti / | In fact however, according to the view that Cognitions have forms, there is no means of apprehending a thing except the apprehension of the form of its Cognition; |
tat katham ucitena grahaṇavyāpāreṇārthaṃ gṛhṇan bhrānto bhavet / | how then could the Person be mistaken if He apprehended the thing by the right and proper means? |
ato jñeyavadekasyāpi jñānasyānantavastuga [p.932] tākāropagraheṇotpatter anantaṃ vastu tena vyāptam ity ucyate / | Thus then, just as in the case of the knowable things, so in the case of the Cognition also, there is apprehension of the forms of limitless things, and on that account it is said that ‘limitless things’ are embraced by it. |
yenaiva cātmanā jñānātmani bhāvāḥ samārohanti tenaiva tat pṛṣṭhabhāviparāmarśacetasā paricchidyante naca sārvajñacetasi parimitabhedānugatāḥ samārohanti bhāvāḥ / | When things enter into the Cognition in certain forms, in -those same forms they become recognised by the representative consciousness that appeals later on. And so far as the Consciousness of the Omniscient Person is concerned, things do not enter into it as appearing in a limited number of diverse forms, but everything that happens to be existent enters into it. |
sarvasyaiva sarvajñānopādānaṃ pratyālambanabhāvenāpratibaddhaśaktitvāt / | Because the capacity of the Person is such that in becoming the substratum of the Cognition of all things, it is not trammelled in any way; |
manovijñānasya ca sarvārthaviṣayatvāt / | specially as mental Cognition, envisages all things. |
ataḥ sārvajñacetasaḥ{a} parimitavastvākāropagrahaṇe 'nanupapatteḥ pṛṣṭhalabdhenaca śuddhalaukikena parāmarśapratyayena deśaparyantavartitvenāparicchedāt katham iyanta iti paricchedo bhavet yenāntavattvaṃ syāt / | Thus then, there being no incongruity in the Consciousness of the Omniscient Person apprehending the forms of limitless things, and any ordinary cognition that comes later on cannot apprehend things to the farthest limit, how could there be any Cognition such as ‘so many are the things’? And it would be only if such a Cognition were there, that there could be a limit or end to the number of things. |
yadi nāma pratibhāsa{mā}nād anyannāstīti parāmarśo jātastathāpi nāntavattvaprasaṅgaḥ / | If, again, the representative Cognition appears in the form that ‘there is nothing beyond what has actually appeared in consciousness’, even so, it would not be possible for the things to be so limited. |
tathā hi yadi pratibhāsamānamantavadeva nirvikalpasarvajñacetasi pratibhāsena tadā tat pṛṣṭhalabdhena parāmarśacetasā anantatvaṃ bhāvānāṃ paricchidyeta / | Because if all that appeared in the non-conceptual Consciousness of the Omniscient Person appeared as limited in extent, then the representative Cognition following upon that might apprehend the things as so limited [Read ‘antavattvam' for ‘anantatvam’], and this Cognition would deprive the things of their limitlessness. |
yāvatā paribhāsamānaṃ vastu sarvajñacetasyanantam eva pratibhāsate sarvasyāpratihataśaktitvāt / | As a matter of fact, however, what appears in the Consciousness of the Omniscient Person appears actually as without limit, because the capacity of the Omniscient Person has no limitations; |
tasmād anyadapratibhāsamānamantavadeva / | consequently anything else that appears in consciousness must be limited; |
tasyaiva ca parāmarśacetasā vyavacchedaḥ kriyata iti sutarām eva bhavatānantatvaṃ bhāvānām upapāditam iti yatkiñcid etat / | and it is only this that is apprehended by the representative Cognition; so that you have more clearly than ever established the limitlessness of things. |
ye tu punaḥ sarvam eva yogivijñānamanālambanaṃ satyasvapnadarśanavad vastusaṃvāditayā pramāṇam iti pratipannās tān pratyantavattvacodyaṃ dūrīkṛtāvakāśam evetyalaṃ bahunā // | There are some people who hold the view that the whole Consciousness of the Mystic is devoid of objective basis, and resembles the true dream, whence, being in conformity with the real state of things, it is reliable. As against these people, there is much less room for the objection regarding things becoming limited. We have had enough of this! |
yadyadicchati boddhuṃ vā tat tadvetti niyogataḥ / | Whatever he wishes to know he comes to know it without fail; |
śaktir evaṃvidhā tasya prahīṇācaraṇo hyasau // | such is his power, as he has shaken off all evil. |
yugapat paripāṭyā vā svecchayā pratipadyate / labdhajñānaṃ ca sittvo hi sakṣaṇairhyādibhiḥ prabhuḥ // | He knows things either simultaneously or in succession, just as he wishes; and having secured the knowledge of all things, he becomes the lord. |
yadvā ṣoḍaśabhiścittaiścatuḥsatyasvabhāvakam / krameṇa vetti vijñeyaṃ sarvaṃ sarvavidityataḥ // | Or, he knows all that is knowable, in the shape of the ‘four truths’, by means of his sixteen ‘cognitions’, in succession, and on that account he is omniscient. |
tatra tādṛśi vijñāne krameṇa bhavati prabhoḥ / lavamātro 'pi nāpekṣyaḥ kimaṅgābdaśatāvadhiḥ // | When this cognition of the lord thus appears in succession not even a single moment has to be awaited; what to say, my friend, of a hundred years! (3630-3631) |
[p.933] ṣoḍaśabhiścittair iti / kṣāntijñānaiḥ / | [verses 3628-3629]: There are some people who hold that there are Persons who become omniscient at will; |
aṣṭau kṣāntayo duḥkhadharmajñānakṣāntyādayaḥ aṣṭau ca jñānāni duḥkhadharmajñānādīnīti ṣoḍaśabhinno 'yaṃ satyābhisamaya iti vacanāt / | ‘By means of Sixteen Cognitions’ i.e. by Forgivenesses’ and ‘Cognitions’: There are eight ‘Forgivenesses’, in the shape of the Forgiveness of Pain, Dharma, Knowledge and so forth; and there are eight ‘Cognitions’, in the shape of the cognition of Pain, Dharma, Knowledge and so forth; |
kāla{kalā}paryanta kṣaṇaḥ, viṃśakṣaṇaśatamekastatkṣaṇaḥ ṣaṣṭitat kṣaṇā eko lava iti samayaḥ / | all this is clear from the declaration that ‘The Truth is divided sixteen -fold’, ‘Even a single moment’. The lowest measure of time is called ‘Kalā 120 Kalās make one Kṣaṇa; 60 Kṣaṇas make one Lava. |
aṅgetyāmantraṇe / | ‘My friend’ is a form of address. |
abda iti saṃvatsaraparyāyaḥ //3630- | ‘Abda’ is year.’ (3630-3631) |
svabhāvenāvibhaktenetyādāvāha svabhāvenetyādi / svabhāvenāvibhaktena yaḥ sarvam avabudhyate / svarūpāṇyeva bhāvānāṃ sarveṣāṃ so 'vabudhyate // | The person who apprehends all things in their own undiversified form, knows the very forms of all things. It is the ‘specific individuality’ itself, as differentiated from heterogeneous and non-momentary things, which is spoken of here as ‘universal’, on the ground of its leading to calmness and dispassion. |
nanu yogināmanāśravaṃ jñānaṃ śāstre sāmānyaviṣayam evopavarṇyate, natu svalakṣaṇaviṣayam, tat kathaṃ sāmānyaviṣayeṇa yogicetasā bhāvānāṃ svarūpāṇyeva ca | The cognition that apprehends this and is brought about by the force of medication, and appears only in great mystics, envisages the specific individuality itself. [verse 3632]: It has been argued under Text 3251, that “Even if the Person by his own undiversified nature, apprehends all things, he cannot apprehend the specific individualities of all things”. |
budhyanta ityata āha sā{sva}tmaketyādi / | The answer to this is as follows: [see verse 3632 above] |
sā{svā}tmakākṣaṇikādibhyo yadvyāvṛttaṃ svalakṣaṇam / śamotprekṣānimittatvāt sāmānyaṃ tad ihocyate // | Says the Opponent: “In the scriptures it is said that the Cognition of the Mystics, free from all impurities, appertains to Universal only, not to Specific Individualities; |
tadgrāhakaṃ ca vijñānaṃ bhāvanābalabhāvi yat / | how do you say that the Consciousness of the mystics, which envisages Universals, apprehends the very forms of all things?” |
yogīśānām abhivyaktaṃ tat svalakṣaṇagocaram // tadeva hi svalakṣaṇaṃ vijātīyavyāvṛttam abhinnākārapratyayahetutayā śāstre sāmānyalakṣaṇam ity ucyate atas tadgrāhakaṃ yogijñānaṃ bhāvanābalena sphuṭapratibhāsamutpadyamānaṃ svalakṣaṇagocaram evetyaviruddham eva / | That same ‘Specific Individuality’, which, differentiated from things of other kinds, becomes the basis of the notion of ‘Uniformity’, and is then called the ‘Universal’, Hence the consciousness of the Mystic which apprehends it and which becomes clearly manifested by the force of his Meditation, envisages the Specific Individuality itself; hence there is nothing incongruous in the same Cognition apprehending the Universal as well as the Specific Individuality. It has been argued under Text 3253, that “the said uniform cognition would be either true or false; |
tadyat sāmānyagocaraṃ tat kathaṃ {na} svalakṣaṇagrāhi tadbhavatīti / | if it is true, it goes against perceptible facts, as it makes all things one”. |
yac coktam tadekākāravijñānam ityādi tat sarvam etenaiva pratyuktam, svalakṣaṇaviṣayatvādyogijñānasyeti // | All this also has been answered by what has been just explained; because what the mystic consciousness apprehends is the Specific Individuality. |
atha yattatsāṃvṛtaṃ tattvānyatvādibhir ākārair anirdeśyaṃ sāmānyamasmābhir upavarṇitam, yacca parais tairthikaiḥ pāramārthikam eva prakalpitam, tadgrāhitvena yogijñānasya svalakṣaṇaviṣayatvaṃ sādhyate, tadasiddhamityādarśayannāha tattvetyādi / tattvānyatvādyanirdeśyaṃ yatparaiś ca prakalpitam / | What is apprehended by the mystic consciousness is not that universal which is incapable of being spoken of as ‘that’ or ‘not-that’ and so forth, and which other people have regarded as real’. If what is meant by Mystic Consciousness envisaging Specific Individuality is that it apprehends that Universal which we have declared to be ‘illusory’, not capable of being described as that or not-that, and which other philosophers have regarded as real, then the said idea cannot be accepted. This is what the Author points out in the following: [see verse 3635 above] |
ādiśabdena nityatvādibhir anirdeśyam iti grahītavyam // | ‘And so forth’ is meant to include ‘eternal’ or ‘non-eternal’, etc. etc. |
kasmāt tena tasya grahaṇaṃ nāstītyāha avikalpam ityādi / | Question: “Why cannot there be apprehension of that Universal?” |
[p.934] | Answer: [see verse 3636 next] |
avikalpam avibhrāntaṃ tadyogīśvaramānasam / | The consciousness of the mystic is free from conceptual content and is not erroneous; |
vikalpavibhramākrāntaṃ tadgrahe ca prasajyate // | and if it apprehended the said universal, it would be something beset with conceptual content and error. |
yogijñānamavikalpābhrāntatayā pratyakṣaṃ pramāṇam iṣyate / | The Mystic Consciousness has been held to be valid Perception, because it is free from Conceptual Content and is not erroneous. |
yadi ca tadyathoktasāmānyaviṣayaṃ syāt tadā sāṃvṛtārthaviṣayatvād vikalpākrāntaṃ prāpnoti / paraparikalpitālīkasāmānyaviṣayatvād vibhramākrāntaṃ ca prasajyate / | If however, it envisaged the Universal as described above, then it would apprehend an illusory thing and thus become beset with Conceptual Content; and as apprehending the unreal thing in the shape of the Universal as assumed by other people, it would become beset with Error also. |
yadvā pratyekamubhayaviṣayatve doṣadvayam āpatati // | Or both being taken as referring to both, there are two objectionable features. |
evam adhyāropitālīkārthaviṣayatvād vikalpavibhramākrāntaṃ tat prasajyata iti pratipāditam / itaś ca vikalpavibhramākrāntaṃ tadgrāhi prasajyata iti bhaṅgyantareṇa pratipādayann āha vikalpātmā cetyādi / vikalpātmā ca sāmānyamavācyaṃ yat prakīrtitam / | Because it has been already explained that the universal which consists of the conceptual content and is incapable of being spoken of, and is in the form of permanent contiguity, is formless (featureless). It has been shown that the Cognition in question, as apprehending an unreal and purely fanciful thing, becomes beset with Conceptual Content and Error. It is next shown in another way, that it becomes beset with Error for the following reason also: [see verse 3637 above] |
yadetad anantaroktamavācyam tattvānyatvādyanirdeśyaṃ sāmānyamuktam, tadvikalpasyātmeti yadyasmātprakīrtitam pratipāditam anyāpohe / tasmāt tadgrahe vikalpavibhramākrāntaṃ prasajyata iti prakṛtena sambandhaḥ / | It has just been said that the Universal, which is incapable of being spoken of’ that is, the Universal which cannot be spoken of as either ‘this’ or ‘not-this’, forms the very essence of Conceptual Content; ‘because" inasmuch as this has been already explained under the section on ‘Apoha’, ‘therefore the said Consciousness becomes beset with Conceptual Content such is the connection with what has gone before (in the preceding text). |
tathā hi vikalpātmatayā sāmānyasya tadgrāhiyogijñānaṃ vikalpātmakam eva syāt / | As the Universal is of the nature of Conceptual Content, the Mystic Consciousness that envisaged it would also be of the nature of Conceptual Content; |
tādātmyenaiva tasya grahaṇāt / | because it is apprehended as of that nature. |
vikalpasya ca prakṛtyā svapratibhāse 'narthe 'rthādhyavasāyena pravṛtter viparyayatattvam iti vibhramākrāntaṃ ca prasajyeta / | As regards the Conceptual Content, wherever it appears, it presents as good and desirable, what is not-good and not-desirable; |
yacca paraparikalpitaṃ sāmānyaṃ nityānugatirūpaṃ tadapi sāmānyaparīkṣāyāṃ nīrūpasvabhāvam eva pratipāditam iti tadgrahe sphuṭataram eva vikalpavibhramākrāntatvam āsajyate // | As regards the Universal postulated by other people, in the form perpetual contiguity, that also has been shown, under the chapter on ‘the Universal’, as being entirely feature-less, characterless. So that if the Apprehension envisages this Universal it becomes all the more clearly ‘beset with Conceptual Content and Error’. |
sahetu saphalaṃ karma jñānenālaukikena yaḥ / samādhijena jānāti sa sarvajño 'padiśyate // | That person is certainly called ‘omniscient’ who knows all things along with their causes, through a single abnormal cognition brought about by communion. |
purastād anumānena tasya sattā prasādhitā / | The existence of such a person has been already established before, by means of inference. |
pramāṇam asya sadbhāve tadastītyasti tādṛśaḥ // | Thus there is a distinct means of cognition vouching for his existence. Hence it follows that such a one really exists. |
yugapat paripāṭyā vā jñānaṃ kāryāt prakāśitāt / | Simultaneously or successively, there is cognition following from the effect that is manifested. |
sāmarthyam api tasyāsti deśanāṃ kurute yadā // | when he imparts the teaching, he has the requisite capacity also. |
[p.935] subodham // | This is easily understood. |
svabhyastadharmanairātmyā yasyeyaṃ deśanāmalā / sādhitā sarvaśāstreṣu{ṇa---} sarvamānair abādhitā // saṃsāryanucitajñānā keśavāder agocaraḥ / śirobhirarcyate śaktyā yācātīva manīṣibhiḥ // | That person who has propounded this teaching which is pure and wherein the dharma of ‘no-soul’ has been reiterated, and which has been supported by the whole of this work and not traversed by any form or means of valid cognition, which is not known to worldly men, which is beyond the ken of Keśava and others, which is highly borne on the head by all wise men, which destroys the entire host of enemies in the shape of evils, and is the cause of various kinds op prosperity as also of the attainment of nirvāṇa, such a person acquired special powers not common among men, which distinguishes him from all other men, and he alone is omniscient; |
samastaduritārātivargabhaṅgavidhāyinī / | this is entirely vouched for by means and forms of right cognition. |
labdhāsādhāraṇopāyo 'śeṣapuṃsāṃ viśeṣa{lakṣa---}ṇaḥ / sa ekaḥ sarvavinnātha ityetat sapramāṇakam // | It has been argued under Text 3260, that “The idea that there is one Person who has acquired special powers not common among men and He knows all things, is entirely baseless”. |
sarvaśāstreṇeti / sakalenāmunā tattvasaṅgraheṇa / | ‘Samaśāstreṇa’ by the whole of this work, the Tattvasaṅgraha. |
saṃsāriṇām anucitamasahajaṃ saṃsāryanucitaṃ tat tādṛśaṃ jñānaṃ yasyāṃ deśanāyāṃ sā tathoktā / | ‘Which is not known to worldly men’ i.e., the Teaching which envisages knowledge that is not easily attained by worldly men. |
keśavāder agocara iti / svaliṅgenaiva deśanāsamānādhikaraṇametat / | ‘Beyond the ken of Keśava, etc. etc.’ Though this word is in the Masculine Gender, yet it qualifies the word ‘Deśana’ (Feminine). |
samastaduritārātivargabhaṅgadhāyinīti / | and their hosts are destroyed by it. |
citrābhyudayaniṣpattinirvāṇaprāptikāraṇam iti kāraṇaśabdaḥ pratyekamabhisambadhyate / | ‘Is the cause of various kinds, etc. etc.’ the word ‘Kāraṇa’ is to be construed with each of the two members of the compound. |
citrābhyudayaniṣpattikāraṇaṃ nirvāṇaprāptikāraṇam cetyarthaḥ // | (1) It is the cause of the various kinds of Prosperity, and also (2) it is the cause of the attainment of Nirvāṇa. |
itthaṃ yadā ca sarvajñaḥ kaścid evopapadyate / | It has been argued under Text 3261 “Thus, no omniscient Person of any kind is conceivable; |
dharmādyadhigame hetuḥ pauruṣeyaṃ tadā vacaḥ // | consequently no human assertion could be the means of providing the knowledge of Dharma”. The answer to this is as follows; |
kaścid eveti / sugata eva, na kapilādiḥ / | ‘An Omniscient Person’ i.e. Buddha Himself alone; not Kapila, or any one else; |
yathoktaṃ prāgityabhiprāyaḥ / yaś ca nirākārasākārajñānavikalpena doṣa uktas tathā{trā---}pi pūrvam evāsmābhiḥ prativihitam / | as already established before. As regards the objection that has been urged regarding Cognition being formless or with form, that has been answered by us already. |
nirākārādicintā tu sarvajñe nopayujyate / | Any discussion regarding formlessness and the rest is of no use in regard to the omniscient person. |
yathāhi bhavatāṃ jñānaṃ kvacid arthe tathā param // | In fact, just as your cognition appears in regard to a certain object, so does the other (superior) cognition also. |
ity atīndriyadarśipuruṣaparīkṣā // | The answer to this is as follows: [see verse 3646 above] |
śāntarakṣitaviracitas tattvasaṅgrahaḥ samāptaḥ // | End of Chapter. Thus ends the Tattvasaṅgraha by Śāntarakṣita. |
[p.936] yeyam asmābhir vijñānavadasthitair nirākāracintā prāgakāri sā sāmprataṃ bāhyārthābhiniviṣṭān bhavato mīmāṃsakān prati bahirarthamabhyupetya sarvajñe pratipādyamāne bhavatāṃ bahirarthavādināṃ katham api nopayujyata evakartum / | The discussion that we carried on earlier, regarding the Cognition being formless, etc. etc., from the Idealistic point of view, can serve no useful purpose on the present occasion, as against you Mīmāṃsakas who are wedded to the External World, when we are proving the existence of the Omniscient Person on the understanding (for the sake of argument) that the external world exists. |
katham ity āha yathāhītyādi / | Question: “Why?” |
avaśyaṃ hi bhavadbhir bahirarthasya sākāreṇa vā nirākāreṇa vā jñāne grahaṇam upavarṇanīyam / | Answer: ‘In fact, etc. etc.’ You must assert that there is Cognition of the External object, whether the Cognition be formless or with form; |
anyathā bahirarthocchedaḥ syāt / | as otherwise the whole external world would disappear. |
tataś ca yathā yena prakāreṇa bhavatāṃ kvacid arthe jñānaṃ pravartate tathā tenaivākāreṇa param utkṛṣṭam, sārvajñaṃ {iti}sambadhyate, pravartiṣyate ityacodyametad iti // | So that, just as there comes about your Cognition of a certain thing, in the same manner would come about also the other and the superior Cognition of the Omniscient Person (which is to be construed heie). So that the objection that has been urged has no force at all and should not have been urged. |
iti kuśalamadabhraṃ yan mayāprāpi śubhram nirupamajinalakṣmīsadmatām etya nityam / | This excellent and extensive, pure and lasting, (Teaching) that has been secured by me, may it become the abode of the magnificence of the unrivalled Jina; |
sakalajanamanāṃsi prīṇayan dīptakāntiḥ | and with its effulgence, may it delight the hearts of all men! |
sugatakamalaśīlas tena sarvo 'stu lokaḥ // ity atīndriyadarśipuruṣaparīkṣā // | May thereby the whole of mankind become like the Buddhist Kamalaśīla (or, may all men attain the character of the Lotus as blooming under the rays of the sun of the Great Teaching)! |
kamalaśīlaviracitā pañjikā samāptā // | End of the Commentary by Kamalaśīla. END. |