0346 Verse 451

Original

निष्पादितक्रिये चार्थे प्रवृत्तेः स्मरणादिवत् ।
न प्रमाणमिदं युक्तं करणार्थविहानितः ॥ ४५१ ॥

niṣpāditakriye cārthe pravṛtteḥ smaraṇādivat |
na pramāṇamidaṃ yuktaṃ karaṇārthavihānitaḥ || 451 ||

It cannot be right to regard recognition as valid,—because it operates towards an object whose purpose has been already accomplished,—like remembrance and such other cognitions;—and hence it is devoid of the character of the valid means (of cognition).—(451)

Kamalaśīla

For the following reason also,—that it apprehends what is already apprehended,—Recognition cannot be valid,—being just like Remembrance.—This is what is shown in the following— [see verse 451 above]

That active agent alone is called the ‘Means of Right Cognition’ which is the best implement and the most effective instrument in the bringing about of the action of valid Cognition. If then, Recognition has for its object something that has been already apprehended by a previous Cognition, then, inasmuch as it would be operating towards a Cognition that has been already brought about, it could not be ‘the most effective instrument’,—and under the circumstances, how could it have the character of the ‘Means of Right Cognition’? If it did, then Remembrance also would be a means of Right Cognition (which no one admits). And when it has not acquired the character of a ‘valid means of Right Cognition’, it cannot be effective in annulling any notion. If it did so, it would lead to an absurdity.

“Recognition may not be a separate Means of Right Cognition; and yet the mere fact of its having for its object something that existed at the previous time does annul the notion of the ‘Perpetual Flux’ ofngs.”

This is not right; because in reality, its object is not the same as the previous thing; in fact it is a figment of the imagination, and even though purely imaginary, it apprehends, through illusion, the previously perceived thing; and by reason of this illusory apprehension, it is said to have the previously perceived thing for its object. Under the circumstances, how can the doctrine of ‘Perpetual Flux’ be discarded on the strength of the said ‘Recognition’ which is illusory in its very source?—(451)