Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

SR No.: 007609
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra
Publication Year: 1939
Total Pages: 887
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 84 MB

Page 142

EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRAIKĀLYA'.
867
TEXTS (1797-1798).
THE IDEA OF THE ETERNAL THING being a cause HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BEFORE-ON THE GROUND OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS EFFECTS APPEARING EITHER SUCCESSIVELY OR SIMULTANEOUSLY. As for being embellished, THIS IS CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE IN AN ETERNAL THING. WHEN ACTIVITY IS DESCRIBED AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE 'PHASES AND OTHER THINGS (POSTULATED BY BUDDHISTS), THERE IS THE IRRESISTIBLE CONTRADICTION OF YOUR OWN DOCTRINES.
(1797-1798)
COMMENTARY.
Before '-i.e. under the chapter on the Permanence of Things
All that is embellished' has been held to be non-eternal, hence the character of being embellished cannot belong to an eternal entity ;-this is clearly understood.
Further, when the Activity' is described as something different from the ‘Phases' (Skandhas) and the 'Inner Receptacles' (Āyatanas),-there is clear contradiction of your own (Buddhist) doctrine; as the Blessed Lord has declared as follows—"All things, O Brahmana, are included in the Five
Phases and the Twelve 'Receptacles' and the Eighteen Substances'."(1797-1798)
TEXTS (1799-1800).
IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE 'ACTIVITY' Is not different FROM THE
ENTITY, THEN, BEING INSEPARABLE FROM THE ENTITY, IT WOULD BE THERE AT ALL TIMES, JUST LIKE THE NATURE OF THE ENTITY; AND IN THAT CASE, THE DIVISION AMONG THE STATES COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS ACTIVITY; AS THERE COULD BE NO SUCH DISTINCTION AS THAT BETWEEN cessation, AND non-attainment, OF THE SAID
ACTIVITY.-(1799-1800)
COMMENTARY.
If the Activity is held to be non-different from the Entity, then like the nature of things, it would be inseparable from the Entity; the Activity also would be something existing at all times; and in that case there could be no such distinction among states as that—that which has ceased from activity is Past', that which is still active is Present', and that which has not yet attained Activity is 'Future'. Because if the Activity were distinguishable into 'attained' and 'not attained', -then alone could the said distinction be