1199 Verse 1751-1752

Original

शक्तं रूपं न चैकस्य वस्तुष्वन्येषु वर्त्तते ।
कार्योपलम्भनिर्भासभेदादेरिति वर्णितम् ॥ १७५१ ॥
अतद्वस्त्वात्मकत्वं तु तदश्लेषेण युज्यते ।
नाविशेषमवस्तुत्वं वस्तुलक्षणभावतः ॥ १७५२ ॥

śaktaṃ rūpaṃ na caikasya vastuṣvanyeṣu varttate |
kāryopalambhanirbhāsabhedāderiti varṇitam || 1751 ||
atadvastvātmakatvaṃ tu tadaśleṣeṇa yujyate |
nāviśeṣamavastutvaṃ vastulakṣaṇabhāvataḥ || 1752 ||

As a matter of fact, the capable (potent) form of one entity does not reside in other entities,—because the effect produced and the form of the apprehension are found to be different and so forth; this has been explained before.—‘that a certain entity is not the same as the other’,—this alone can follow from the exclusion (of differentiation) therefrom;—and not the fact of its being a non-entity devoid of all properties.—(1751-1752)

Kamalaśīla

The following Texts show the ‘Inconclusive’ character of the Opponent’s Reason:—[see verse 1751-1752 above]

If the character of ‘Entity’, consisting of capacity for effective action, were something embracing all ‘entities’ collectively, then alone could the thing differentiated from others be said to be featureless (non-existent),—the ‘entity’ being something that is characterised by capacity for effective action. As a matter of fact however, the ‘capable (or potent) form of one entity—the Blue for instance—cannot subsist in other things,—like the white and the rest; as has been explained under Text 1740.

Question:—“Why cannot it subsist in other things?”

Answer:—Because the effect produced is different, and the form of Apprehension (Idea) is different. The term ‘Upalambha’ here stands for Apprehension, i.e. Cognition; and ‘nirbhāsa’ for the form of that Cognition (i.e. the Idea).

The phrase ‘and so forth’ stands for diversities of birth, of existence, of destruction, etc.

For these reasons all that ‘non-contact’—differentiation—from another entity can prove is only that ‘the entity in question is not the same as this latter’; it cannot prove it to be devoid of properties, a mere non-entity.

“Why?”

Because the capacity for effective action, which constitutes the essence of ‘Entity’, is present in it.—(1751-1752)

For instance, the Jar, excluded or differentiated from the Cloth and other things, could be recognised only as devoid of sameness with the Cloth, and it could not be recognised as absolutely devoid of essence (existence), as even as thus excluded, it would be capable of efficient action,—(1750)