Verse 2109-2110

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

दृष्टान्तनिरपेक्षत्वाद्दोषाभावाच्च लाघवम् ।
आगमस्य प्रमाणत्वे नानुमानस्य तादृशम् ॥ २१०९ ॥
तेनागमानुमानाभ्यां यत्रार्थे संशयो भवेत् ।
तत्रागमबलीयस्त्वात्कार्यस्तेनैव निर्णयः ॥ २११० ॥

dṛṣṭāntanirapekṣatvāddoṣābhāvācca lāghavam |
āgamasya pramāṇatve nānumānasya tādṛśam || 2109 ||
tenāgamānumānābhyāṃ yatrārthe saṃśayo bhavet |
tatrāgamabalīyastvātkāryastenaiva nirṇayaḥ || 2110 ||

“There is a degree of simplicity in the validity of verbal cognition—due to the fact of its not needing a corroborative instance, and to the absence of defects,—which is not found in inference. Consequently, whenever there should be any doubt between verbal cognition and inference, it is verbal cognition that should be regarded as stronger, and the matter determined accordingly.”—(2109-2110).

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘Pramāṇatve’—the Locative is to be construed with ‘lāghavam’,

‘Which is not found, in Inference’;—because it needs a Corroborative Instance and because defects are possible in it; the defect being that it is annulled by Cognition derived from the Veda which is equal in authority to Perception.—(2109-2110)

The other party raises an objection—As a rule that alone is regarded as a ‘Defect’ in argument which is admitted by both parties; in the case in question, Revelation is not a means of valid Cognition, for the Buddhist, who posits only two Means of Cognition (Perception and Inference); then how can there be an ‘annulment’ of Inference by what is not accepted as a Means of Cognition,—so far as the Buddhist is concerned?

The answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows:—[see verses 2111-2116 next]