Verse 1482-1483

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

लौकिकं लिङ्गमिष्टं चेन्न त्वन्यैः परिकल्पितम् ।
ननु लोकोऽपि कार्यादेर्हेत्वादीनवगच्छति ॥ १४८२ ॥
तत्त्वतस्तु तदेवोक्तं न्यायवादिभिरप्यलम् ।
तल्लौकिकाभ्यनुज्ञाते किं त्यक्तं भवति स्वयम् ॥ १४८३ ॥

laukikaṃ liṅgamiṣṭaṃ cenna tvanyaiḥ parikalpitam |
nanu loko'pi kāryāderhetvādīnavagacchati || 1482 ||
tattvatastu tadevoktaṃ nyāyavādibhirapyalam |
tallaukikābhyanujñāte kiṃ tyaktaṃ bhavati svayam || 1483 ||

If it be urged that—“what is ordinarily known as the inferential indicative is accepted by us, but not what has been set up by others”,—then (the answer is that) even the ordinary man understands what is the ‘cause etc. of the effect, etc.’; and in reality, this is all that the masters of the science of reasoning also have declared. So that when the ordinary (popular) idea is accepted, what is it that becomes excluded?—(1482-1483)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Purandara has argued as follows:—“What is known as Inference, in the ordinary world, is admitted by the Cārvākas also; what they deny is that form of Inference which people have set up, beyond that known in common experience”.

This is anticipated and answered in the following—[see verses 1482-1483 above]

The construction is—‘the ordinary man understands, etc. etc.’.

‘Effect, etc.’;—‘Etc.’ is meant to include the ‘nature’ of the thing.—

Similarly in ‘Cause, etc.’, the ‘nature’ is meant to be included. In both cases the Plural number has been used in view of individual things.

Thus then, the Inferential Indicative which is understood by ordinary men to be related through the relationship of ‘Nature’ and ‘Effect’,—is just what has been spoken of by us as the ‘Probans’;—and when you accept this, what is it that you discard, for which you are denying the Character of ‘Inference’?—(1482-1483)