आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

स्वातिरिक्तक्रियाकारि प्रमाणं कारकत्वतः ।
वास्यादिवच्चेद्वैफल्यमन्यद्ध्यपि फलं मतम् ॥ १३५३ ॥
उक्तन्यायेन वास्यादेरन्यदस्ति फलं न च ।
कारकत्वं च नो सिद्धं जनकत्वविवक्षया ॥ १३५४ ॥
स्थापकत्वविवक्षायां न विरोधोऽस्ति कश्चन ।
तेनानैकान्तिको हेतुर्विरोधाप्रतिपादनात् ॥ १३५५ ॥

svātiriktakriyākāri pramāṇaṃ kārakatvataḥ |
vāsyādivaccedvaiphalyamanyaddhyapi phalaṃ matam || 1353 ||
uktanyāyena vāsyāderanyadasti phalaṃ na ca |
kārakatvaṃ ca no siddhaṃ janakatvavivakṣayā || 1354 ||
sthāpakatvavivakṣāyāṃ na virodho’sti kaścana |
tenānaikāntiko heturvirodhāpratipādanāt || 1355 ||

“As a matter of fact, the means of cognition must bring about an effect other than itself,—because, it is an active agent,—like the hatchet”;—if this is urged [then the answer is as follows]:—(1353)

The argument is futile; as a different ‘fruit’ has been admitted; and in accordance with reasons already explained (under text 1348), there is no ‘different’ fruit at all.—As regards the means of cognition being an ‘active agent’,—that is not admissible by us, if what is meant by it is that it is productive; if what is meant is that it is the regulator, then there can be no objection to it; and in that case the reason becomes ‘inconclusive’, as it indicates no incongruity.—(1353-1355)

Kamalaśīla

Śaṅkarasvāmin urges the following argument:—[see verses 1353 above]

“The Means of Cognition must be one that brings about an effect different from itself,—because it is an active agent,—like the Hatchet, etc.”—(1353)

The answer to the above is as follows:—[see verses 1353-1355 above]

‘Futile’,—because it seeks to prove what is already proved; inasmuch as different ‘fruit’ or ‘effect’ has been already admitted in the form of ‘characterisation’ (specification).—The particle ‘hi’ connotes reason (for what is said).

The corroborative instance cited—‘like the Hatchet’,—is one that is ‘devoid of the Probandum’; because it has been already shown that the Hatchet is the same as the Cut (vide Text, 1348).

The premise—‘because it is an active agent’—is ‘inadmissible’ if what is meant is that it is prodtictive of its effect; if it is meant that it is the Regulator,—then that is accepted by us.

But even if it is meant that it is the Regulator, the Reason is Inconclusive, as there is no incongruity (indicated).

If ‘activity’ in general be what is meant, then also the Reason is Inconclusive, as there is no incongruity indicated.—(1353-1355)