Verse 3219-3221

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

यद्वा सामान्यतो दृष्टं प्रवृत्तमिह साधनम् ।
सर्वज्ञस्योच्यतेऽन्यत्र ज्ञानपूर्वत्वदर्शनात् ॥ ३२१९ ॥
यः कश्चिदुपदेशो हि स सर्वो ज्ञानपूर्वकः ।
यथाऽभयादिशक्तीनामुपदेशस्तथाविधः ॥ ३२२० ॥
धर्माधर्मोपदेशोऽयमुपदेशश्च तत्कृतः ।
तदीयज्ञानपूर्वत्वं तस्मादस्यानुमीयते ॥ ३२२१ ॥

yadvā sāmānyato dṛṣṭaṃ pravṛttamiha sādhanam |
sarvajñasyocyate'nyatra jñānapūrvatvadarśanāt || 3219 ||
yaḥ kaścidupadeśo hi sa sarvo jñānapūrvakaḥ |
yathā'bhayādiśaktīnāmupadeśastathāvidhaḥ || 3220 ||
dharmādharmopadeśo'yamupadeśaśca tatkṛtaḥ |
tadīyajñānapūrvatvaṃ tasmādasyānumīyate || 3221 ||

“‘(b) or, this argument in support of the existence of the omniscient person may be stated in the form of the following inference of the sāmānyatodṛṣṭa kind (difference from the universal to the particular):—in every other case teaching is found to be preceded by the knowledge of the thing taught, and wherever there is teaching, it is always preceded by the knowledge of the subject taught; as in the case of the potencies of harītakī and such things;—the teaching of dharma and a dharma, has been given by Buddha;—hence it is inferred that the teaching must have been preceded by a knowledge of those matters.”—(3219-3221)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Texts show that the argument put forward just now may be regarded as Inference; it need not be taken as Presumption:—[see verses 3219-3221 above]

The special mention of the ‘Sāmanyatodṛṣṭa’ Inference (from the Universal Premiss) implies the impossibility of the Particular Premiss; as a matter of fact, it is only when the relation between the particular Probans and the particular Subject has been perceived, that, at a later time, the same Probans is made to yield an Inference that sets aside all doubts on the point; and it is this Inference that is called ‘Viśeṣatodṛṣṭa’ (based on a particular Premiss). As a matter of fact, no relationship has been perceived between the Omniscient Person and the Teaching of Dharma, etc.; hence this can be an instance of Inference from a Universal Premiss only. For instance, it has been found as a universal truth that in any one ‘chain’, the Teaching is always preceded by knowledge; hence just as in the case of Devadatta, it having been found that his change of place is preceded by movement, so in the case of the sun, the change of place leads to the inference of its movement;—in the same manner, from the fact that Buddha imparted teachings relating to Dharma, it is inferred that He possessed the knowledge of Dharma.

The argument may be formulated as follows:—Every Teaching is preceded by the Teacher’s knowledge of what is taught;—e.g. the teachings relating to the potencies of the Harītakī;—Buddha’s teaching of Dharma is Teaching; hence this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.—(3219-3221)

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to the above is as follows:—[see verses 3222-3223 next]