Tattva Sangraha Vol 2

Author(s): Kamlashila, Ganganatha Jha
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 11

viii
INTRODUCTION
The two important technical terms of Buddhist philosophy Pratisaikhuanirodha' and 'Apratisankhynirodha' have been variously understood. The commonly-accepted view is that these terms stand for *Conscious' and 'Unconscious Destruction'. Texts 2748-2749 bring out the other explanation. They say—“The two Nirodhas are not regarded as being of the nature of Destruction; because 'Pratisarkhyā-nirodha is regarded as 'Dissociation, one after the other, from Impurities-brought about by Wisdom'; while Apratisankhya-nirodha is that which serves as an absolute bar to the appearance of Impurities"; and this latter, adds the commentary, is due not to Wisdom, but to the inefficiency of the causes productive of the Impurities.
Text 2945 speaks of Mimāmsakas as 'Prachya' (or Prochya); does this stand for 'Easterner'? And does that indicato that Mimāmsā had its origin in the country to the East of Nalanda, where Shantarakṣita is believed to have taught? This would fit in with common belief that a thousand years ago, the small land of Mithilā was able to bring together nine-hundred Mimāmsakas at any ordinary gathering of Pandits.
The commentary on Text 3018 tells us of the juice of the Drona flower as curing jaundice, when dropped into the eyes.
Text 3486 has accepted the definition of Dharma as afa:199fefe.
Texts 3511-3512 tell us of a Shakha (Rescensional Text) of the Veda,-known as 'Nimitta' which speaks of Bhagavän-Munisattamal', - the 'Blessed Lord, the Best of Sages'-explained by the commentary as Shäkya Muni,--as being sarvajña', 'omniscient'.
When I was asked to undertake the translation of the Tattvasangraha and its commentary, I agreed to do it, with some trepidation; because I have had no direct knowledge of the tenets of Buddhist philosophy, and I am fully conscious of the need of goufia, 'direct teaching from the Teacher's mouth', in all important matters. A careful study of the Sanskrit Introduction attached to the Text, however, gave me valuable information and as I proceeded with the work, the way became gradually smoothened, and I was enabled to complete the work.
The work is rather disappointing; it is purely and almost entirely polemical; its avowed aim being the demolition of all views contrary to the tenets of orthodox Buddhism,-the doctrinaire part of which is neatly -though not at all clearly set forth in the six opening verses of the Text.
I cannot conclude this without thanking Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya, the talented Director of the Oriental Institute, for help rendered of