Verse 1502-1503

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

द्वेषमोहादयो दोषा यथा मिथ्यात्वहेतवः ।
कृपाप्रज्ञादयोऽप्येवं ज्ञाताः सत्यत्वहेतवः ॥ १५०२ ॥
तदाश्रयनराभावे न तयोरपि सम्भवः ।
आनर्थक्यमतः प्राप्तं वचस्यपुरुषाश्रये ॥ १५०३ ॥

dveṣamohādayo doṣā yathā mithyātvahetavaḥ |
kṛpāprajñādayo'pyevaṃ jñātāḥ satyatvahetavaḥ || 1502 ||
tadāśrayanarābhāve na tayorapi sambhavaḥ |
ānarthakyamataḥ prāptaṃ vacasyapuruṣāśraye || 1503 ||

Just as hatred, delusion, etc. are known to be sources of error, so are compassion, wisdom, etc. known to be sources of truthfulness. where, then, there is no person as the source, these two also cannot be there. consequently the sentence that does not emanate from a person must be inexpressive (useless).—(1502-1503)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Question:—“Why cannot the eternal Sentence convey a meaning (and serve a useful purpose)?”

Answer:—[see verses 1502-1503 above]

A verbal cognition can serve a useful purpose in two ways: either by representing things as they are, or by representing things as they are not;—no third way is possible;—the use of both these kinds of Cognition have their source in good and bad qualities, as ascertained by positive and negative concomitance. For instance, the man who is beset with Love, Hatred and other bad qualities is found to say things that are not true, while one who is endowed with Compassion and other good qualities is found to say what is true;—the receptacle of both these qualities—good and bad—which are the sources of truth and falsehood,—is always a Person;—hence where there is no Person, there can be no good or bad qualities;—and when the good and bad qualities are not there, there can be no Truth or Falsehood;—and as there is no third alternative possible, the statement that does not emanate from a Person can serve no purpose at all; as the cause is not there; and when the cause is not there, there can be no effect; if it were, it would be causeless; and in that case there could be no restriction of Place, Time, etc. in regard to such effects

This argument is to be taken as a Reductio ad absurdum; otherwise, if it were meant to be really true, then it would be contrary to perceptible facts; because such sentences as ‘One desiring Heaven should offer the Agnihotra’ are actually found to convey a definite meaning; and what is actually perceived cannot be denied.

Further, the fact that the sentence is eternal is not admitted by both parties; hence the Reason is ‘Inadmissible’.

Stated in the form of a Reductio ad Absurdum, both the arguments are flawless. For instance, if the Veda is held to be ‘without a Personal Author’, then it must be meaningless (and useless); as the basis of expressiveness, in the shape of the Reason, is not there; and yet, it is not meaningless;—hence it must have a Personal Author;—this is the contingency that is shown by the Reductio ad Absurdum—(1502-1503)

In order to further support this Reductio ad Absurdum, and to refute the charge of being contrary to a perceived fact,—the author anticipates and answers an objection:—[see verses 1504-1507 next]