Tattva Sangraha Vol 1

SR No.: 007608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1937
Total Pages: 753
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 42 MB

Page 354

EXAMINATION OF THE FIRST CATEGORY_SUBSTANCE'
359
an eternal Cause, as the Catase would always be present in its perfect form, the successive appearance of Cognitions would be incongruous.--(631-632)
The following Text jokingly confirms the same contradictory character of the opponent's Reason
TEXT (633). I THINK THAT THE Sūtra (Nyáya-sūtra 1. 1. 36) HAS BEEN COMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING AND DISPROVING THE MIND AS POSTULATED BY THE Buddha AND THE OTHER PHILOSO PHER (RESPECTIVELY),—AND HENCE IT HAS BEEN REPEATED WITH AN ADDE
TIONAL 'A' (* not')-(633)
COMMENTARY. I think as follows The Satra Yugapajjfānnāupapattirmanasolingam' (The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is-and is not-indicative of the Mind,-Nyaya-sūtra 1. 1. 16) is meant to prove the Mind' as conceived by the Buddha.-and to disprove the same as conceived by the other philosopher ; for the latter purpose an additional
a' ('not') being read (before 'lingam', 'indicative "). Such is the sense of the Text as a whole.
The meaning of the words is now described :-The compound Saugata siddhaye' is to be expounded as for the purpose of the proving and disproving, respectively, of the Mind, as postulated by the Bauddha and the other Philosopher
Question :-"How can one and the same Sūtra express two mutually contradictory meanings ?"
Answer: With an additional a (not);-that is to say, as applied to the view of the other philosopher, the words of the Sutra are to be construed as for the disproviny-asiddhi-of the Mind postulated by the other philosopher', -with an 'a' (before lingam ');-and it is different when applied to the view of the Buddhist, in which case it is without the said 'a' ('not').
Question "How can one and the same expression be with, and also without, the syllable 'a' (not')"
Answer It is repealed'; i.e. in such a case, the repetition of the expression is justified.-(633)
End of the Chapter on 'Substance'