imported>Vij: Added {content_identifier} content

2025-12-03T11:53:46Z

Added {content_identifier} content

New page

English Translation of Abhinavgupta's Sanskrit Commentary By Dr. S. Sankaranarayan
2.15 But, because all these different situations are of the nature of coming and going, on that account itself are they not to be lamented on ? It is not so. As for instance : What is this which is termed 'coming' ? If it is 'birth', what is that 'birth' itself ? It is wrong to say that is the same as gaining the self by what is non-existent. For, to be of the nature of non-existence, is indeed to be devoid of every inherent nature and to be devoid of the very self. If a thing is devoid of the self and devoid of every nature, how is it possible to convert it into what has an intrinsic nature ? Surely, it is impossible to convert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to covert the non-blue into blue. For, it is faulty and undesirable to conclude that a thing with certain in nature changes to be of a different nature. Hence the scritpure goes -
'The intrinsic nature of beings would not cease to
exist, e.g., the heat of the sun'.
On the other hand, if the 'birth' signifies the gaining of self just by what [really] exists, even then, why the lamentability on its coming ? For, what has gained a self, could never be non-existent and conseently it would be eternal.

Likewise, is the act of 'going' also meant for the existent or the non-existent ? What is non-existent is just non-existent [for ever.] How can there be a non-existence-nature even in the case of that which is of the existence-nature ? If it is said that it is of the non-existence-nature in the second moment; [since its birth], then it should be so even in the first moment; and so nothing would be existent. For, the intrinsic nature [ever] remains unabandoned.

But is it not that the destruction of it (i.e., of a given thing, like a pot) is brought about by the stroke of a hammer etc.? Yet, if that destruction is altogether different [from the existent one i.e. the pot], then what does it matter for what is existent ? But, it is not be seen [at that time] ? Yet, what is actually existent (pot) may not be seen just as when it is covered with a cloth; but it has not turned to be altogether different. In fact, it has been said [in the scriptures] that this is not different [from the existent]. Summarising all these, [the Lord] says -

Sbg 2.15 etassa - Revision history

imported>Vij: Added {content_identifier} content