Verse 85

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

विमुखस्योपदेष्टृत्वं श्रद्धागम्यं परं यदि ।
वैमुख्यं वितनुत्वेन धर्माधर्मविवेकतः ॥ ८५ ॥

vimukhasyopadeṣṭṛtvaṃ śraddhāgamyaṃ paraṃ yadi |
vaimukhyaṃ vitanutvena dharmādharmavivekataḥ || 85 ||

Then again, the ‘teachership’ of a mouthless person can only be a matter of blind faith; god’s ‘mouthlessness’ is proved by his having no body, on account of the absence in him of merit and demerit.—(85)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text proceeds to show that the Reason put forward is also ‘Contradictory’ and the Conclusion is contrary to the Theist’s own doctrines:—[see verse 85 above]

If it were possible for usage to be preceded by (due to) God’s teaching, then the Reason might not be ‘Contradictory’; as it is however, God having no mouth, it is not possible for Him to be a teacher; and the fact of His having no mouth is proved by His having no body,—i.e. because He is devoid of a body.—Question—“But how do you know that He has no body?”—Answer—On account of the absence in Him of Merit and Demerit; that is, in God there is no Merit and Demerit, which are the causes of Souls having bodies. This has been thus declared by Uddyotakara:—‘Proof is available for the presence of Intelligence in God, but there is no proof for the presence of such qualities as Merit and the rest’.^[1]—Thus the ‘teachership’ of God being impossible, usage cannot be attributed to His teaching; what is indicated is only the fact of its being due to the teaching of some persons other than God; and thus by discarding what is desired to be proved, the Reason becomes ‘Contradictory’.

Even if God’s ‘teachership’ is admitted, the doctrine that He is ‘mouthless’ becomes abandoned; and in this way the conclusion becomes contrary to the Theist’s own doctrine.

As regards the argument—‘The manifest consisting of the Primary Elements and the rest being controlled by an Intelligent Controller, etc. etc.” (put forward by Uddyotakara, in Nyāyavārtika, p. 463, and quoted in the Text 52),—it can be shown that the Reasons cited there also, as before, are (a) ‘inconclusive’, as there is no proof against a contrary conclusion,—(b) ‘futile’, if the reason is meant to be stated generally,—and (c) if it is meant to be particular, then the Corroborative Instance cited is devoid of the Probandum.—(85)

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This is an exact quotation from the Nyāyavārtika, p. 468,11. 12 et. seq., Bib. Ind. Ed., with this slight difference that for ‘Sattve’ in the present context, Nyāyavārtika has ‘Sambhave’.