1129 Verse 1630

Original

अतद्धेतोरहेतोश्च तत्संवादो न युज्यते ।
नियमेन समस्तानां संवादो वाऽन्यथा भवेत् ॥ १६३० ॥

ataddhetorahetośca tatsaṃvādo na yujyate |
niyamena samastānāṃ saṃvādo vā’nyathā bhavet || 1630 ||

No such ‘conformity’ with the real state of things concerned can be certain, in a cognition of which the particular object is not the basis, or in one which has no (objective) basis at all. Or else, there would be conformity with all (things).—(1630)

Kamalaśīla

The compound ‘ataddhetuḥ’ is to he expounded as ‘na-taddhetuḥ’; ‘taddhetuḥ’ being expounded as that of which the particular object is the (objective) basis; that is, that which is based upon something else;—in such a cognition,—and also in a cognition which has no objective basis,—i.e. which is devoid of all objective background,—there can be no ‘conformity with the real state of the thing concerned’, in all cases. “What then?”—There would be conformity with all things. So that the incongruity is present in this case also.—(1630)

Or, what the affirmative sentence ‘Devadatta is fat and he eats not during the day’ does is to bring about the inference of its own cause, in the shape of the speaker’s particular ‘desire to speak’,—this inference being based upon the Indicative in the shape of the effect of the said desire; and then it brings about the idea of the contrary sentence ‘He eats at night’,—but by implication, not directly,—through the inference of the character of the Cause,—just as in the ease of smoke, there is implication of its being due to defect in the fuel.

This view is what is expounded in the following—[see verse 1631 next]