0482 Verse 633

Original

सौगतापरनिर्दिष्टमनःसंसिद्ध्यसिद्धये ।
साकारमन्यथाऽऽवृत्तं मन्ये सूत्रमिदं कृतम् ॥ ६३३ ॥

saugatāparanirdiṣṭamanaḥsaṃsiddhyasiddhaye |
sākāramanyathā’‘vṛttaṃ manye sūtramidaṃ kṛtam || 633 ||

I think that the sūtra (nyāya-sūtra 1.1.36) has been composed for the purpose of proving and disproving the mind as postulated by the Buddha, and the other philosopher (respectively),—and hence it has been repeated with an additional ‘a’ (‘not’).—(633)

Kamalaśīla

The following Text jokingly confirms the same ‘contradictory’ character of the opponent’s Reason—[see verse 633 above]

I think as follows:—The Sūtra ‘Yugapajjñānnāupapattirmanasoliṅgam’ (‘The fact that cognitions do not appear simultaneously is—and is not—indicative of the Mind’,—Nyāya-sūtra 1. 1. 16) is meant to prove the ‘Mind’ as conceived by the Buddha,—and to disprove the same as conceived by the other philosopher; for the latter purpose an additional ‘a’ (‘not’) being read (before ‘liṅgam’, ‘indicative Such is the sense of the Text as a whole.

The meaning of the words is now described:—The compound ‘Saugata—siddhaye’ is to be expounded as ‘for the purpose of the proving and disproving, respectively, of the Mind, as postulated by the Bauddha and the other Philosopher’,

Question:—“How can one and the same Sütra express two mutually contradictory meanings?”

Answer:—‘With an additional a (not)’;—that is to say, as applied to the view of the other philosopher, the words of the Sütra are to be construed as ‘for the disproving—asiddhi—of the Mind postulated by the other philosopher’,—with an ‘a’ (before ‘liṅgam’);—and it is different when applied to the view of the Buddhist, in which case it is without the said ‘a’ (‘not’).

Question:—“How can one and the same expression be with, and also without, the syllable ‘a’ (‘not’)?”

Answer:—It is ‘repeated’;—i.e. in such a case, the repetition of the expression is justified.—(633)

End of the Chapter on ‘Substance’,