आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

प्राधान्यं किमिदं नाम न शक्तिरसमन्वयात् ।
द्रव्यक्रियागुणात्मादि नात एवावकल्प्यते ॥ ७६३ ॥

prādhānyaṃ kimidaṃ nāma na śaktirasamanvayāt |
dravyakriyāguṇātmādi nāta evāvakalpyate || 763 ||

What is it that is called ‘principal character’?—It cannot be a potency; because this does not subsist (in other individuals).—For the same reason it cannot be said to consist in the nature of the substance, quality or action, etc.—(763)

Kamalaśīla

What is this ‘Principal Character’?

If it is a Potency, that cannot be right; as potency is restricted to each individual substratum, and must therefore vary with each individual object, and cannot subsist in another object.

For the same reason, it cannot consist in the ‘nature’—essence, self-sufficiency,—of Substance, etc.; as this also cannot belong in common to several objects.

The term ‘etc.’ is meant to include any entity that may be held to be distinct from Substance, Quality and Action.

As regards the explanation offered (by Uddyotakara) of the assertion that “the appearance of the notions in question is due to other causes”,—this has already been answered by pointing out that if some sort of a Cause is meant, then the argument is futile, as we also admit it as being due to Conventional Conception if on the other hand any particular Cause is meant, then there is ‘absence of concomitance’ and also ‘Falsity’, in view of such notions as those of the Cook and the like.—(763)