0172 Verse 207-208

Original

प्राणादीनां च सम्बन्धो यदि सिद्धः सहात्मना ।
भवेत्तदा प्रसङ्गोऽयं युज्यते ऽसङ्गतोऽन्यथा ॥ २०७ ॥
न वन्ध्यासुतशून्यत्वे जीवद्देहः प्रसज्यते ।
प्राणादिविरहे ह्येवं तवाप्येतत्प्रसञ्जनम् ॥ २०८ ॥

prāṇādīnāṃ ca sambandho yadi siddhaḥ sahātmanā |
bhavettadā prasaṅgo’yaṃ yujyate ‘saṅgato’nyathā || 207 ||
na vandhyāsutaśūnyatve jīvaddehaḥ prasajyate |
prāṇādivirahe hyevaṃ tavāpyetatprasañjanam || 208 ||

The contingency that has been urged would be right if the connection between the functions of breathing, etc. and the soul were well-established; otherwise, it would be absurd. for instance, the absence of the ‘son of the barren woman’ cannot make the living body devoid of breathing, etc. and your urging of the contingency in question is of the same kind.—(207-208)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued above (under Text 184) that “The living body would be devoid of Breathing, etc., if there were no Soul”.

The answer to that is provided in the following Text:—[see verses 207-208 above]

If between Breathing, etc. and the Soul, there were some connection,—as that of being produced from it, or being of the same nature,—known as established, then there would be some reason for urging the contingency that the absence of the Soul would involve the absence of Breathing, etc. Otherwise, the urging of the absence of one thing on the absence of another thing not connected with it at all, would be absurd. Certainly the absence of ‘the Son of the Barren Woman’ does not entail the absence of Breathing etc. Hence, if someone were to put forward the contingency of absence of Breathing, etc. as due to the absence of the ‘Son of the Barren Woman’,—like that of the Jar,—this would be entirely ‘inconclusive’; in the same way your argument putting forward the contingency of Breathing, etc. being absent on account of the absence of the Soul is purely ‘inconclusive’, for the simple reason that no connection is known (to subsist between Breathing, etc. and the Soul).—(207-208)

Question—“How do you know that the connection is not known?”

Answer:—[see verses 209-210 next]