आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

नान्यकल्पितजातिभ्यो वृक्षादिप्रत्यया इमे ।
क्रमित्वानुगमादिभ्यः पाचकादिधियो यथा ॥ ८१० ॥
नित्यस्याजनकत्वं च बाधकं संप्रतीयते ।
संयोगदूषणे सर्वं यदेवोक्तं प्रबाधकम् ॥ ८११ ॥

nānyakalpitajātibhyo vṛkṣādipratyayā ime |
kramitvānugamādibhyaḥ pācakādidhiyo yathā || 810 ||
nityasyājanakatvaṃ ca bādhakaṃ saṃpratīyate |
saṃyogadūṣaṇe sarvaṃ yadevoktaṃ prabādhakam || 811 ||

The notions of ‘tree’ and such things cannot be based upon the ‘universals’ postulated by the other party;—because things appear in succession, and because they are comprehensive,—like the notions of the ‘cook’ and such things.—the fact that what is eternal cannot be productive (of effects) also serves to annul the opponent’s proposition.—All the objections that were urged against ‘conjunction’ also serve to annul the opponent’s conclusion.—(810-811)

Kamalaśīla

Thus having discredited the whole conception of the ‘Universal’, the Author proceeds to formulate the arguments against it:—[see verses 810-811 above]

Notions that are endowed with the properties—of appearing in succession, being comprehensive, being entities, being produced, and so forth—cannot proceed from the eternal, one all-pervading ‘Universal’, as conceived by the other party;—like the notions of the ‘Cook’;—the notions of the ‘Tree’, etc. are of the said character; hence there is perception of a character concomitant with the contrary of the Opponent’s conclusion. As being in succession and the rest are all concomitant with non-eternality, which is contrary to eternality (postulated by the Opponent). What is eternal cannot have any effective action, either successive or simultaneous,—as both are incompatible; hence the Reason adduced by us cannot be regarded as ‘Inconclusive’. As regards the fallacy of our Corroborative Instance being ‘devoid of the Probandum’, that has been already disposed of by us in detail; hence the Instance also cannot be said to be ‘unproven

The Author states another argument in annulment of the Opponent’s conclusion—All the objections, etc. etc.;—these objections were set forth under Text 674, above, where it has been shown that oneng cannot subsist in several things; similarly in the section dealing with the Composite, under Text 607.—(810-811)