0361 Verse 470

Original

जात्यादेर्निःस्वभावत्वान्नैवेष्टा क्षणभङ्गिता ।
तदभावप्रसिद्ध्यर्थं निर्दिष्टं साधनं वृथा ॥ ४७० ॥

jātyāderniḥsvabhāvatvānnaiveṣṭā kṣaṇabhaṅgitā |
tadabhāvaprasiddhyarthaṃ nirdiṣṭaṃ sādhanaṃ vṛthā || 470 ||

Things like the ‘universal’ have no character at all (being non-existent),—hence the ‘momentariness’ of such things cannot be postulated by anyone; so that any reasons adduced for the proving of the absence of ‘momentariness’ in the said things is entirely futile.—(470)

Kamalaśīla

The term ‘like’, in the Expression ‘Things like the Universal’ is meant to include the substrata of the Universal, in the shape of Colour, Jar and the like, and also the Cognitions of these.—These also, even as qualified by the said qualification, do not exist at all; hence the reason that has been adduced for the purpose of proving the ‘momentariness’ of such things is entirely futile; that is to say, there can be no dispute on that point at all.

The Author has not gone into the minute details of the reasoning in question. If we go into the minute details, we come across a large number of defects. For instance, the reason that has been adduced in the form that ‘it is either existent or non-existent’, is found to be absent in the Probandum and also in the Corroborative Instance; as the term ‘either—or’ signifies option, and option is possible only when there are more things than one, and not when there is only one thing; and it is not possible for both existence and non-existence to be present in the object that forms the Probandum; because it being of the nature of ‘entity’, it is only existence that can belong to it. Nor are both possible in the Corroborative Instance; because, as it is a ‘non-entity’, it is non-existence alone that can belong to it.—The Reason also as stated has been loaded with a useless qualification; For instance, the expression ‘because it is expressible by words’, even by itself, is highly improper, as the term ‘expressible’ itself implies the qualification ‘by words’.—Similarly, the qualification put forward by the words ‘homogeneous, etc.’ is too childish. Similarly the other qualifications of the Reason should be regarded useless.

Further, all the Reasons put forward are ‘inconclusive’,—because no evidence has been adduced in denial of a conclusion contrary to the desired conclusion.—This is going to be explained later on.—(470)