Verse 1520

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

तेषामपि विवक्षायाः केवलाया विरुध्यते ।
नानुमैकान्तसद्भावात्प्राणितादिप्रसिद्धये ॥ १५२० ॥

teṣāmapi vivakṣāyāḥ kevalāyā virudhyate |
nānumaikāntasadbhāvātprāṇitādiprasiddhaye || 1520 ||

In the case of those words also, there is no incongruity in the inference of the simple ‘desire to speak’; because it is always there;—for the purpose of establishing the fact of its being produced by the speaker’s breath and so forth.—(1520)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text shows that words can be the Means of Cognising ‘the Speaker’s Intention’ in general also:—[see verse 1520 above]

In the case of all words, uttered by deluded as well as undeluded persons, there is no incongruity in the Inference of a general ‘Intention to Speak’ because it is always there,—i.e. there is no failure in the general premiss.

It might be argued that—“The assertion that—‘through the mere presence of such a Person,—as through that of the Cintāmaṇi gem,—instructions issue forth at will, even out of the walls’,—would appear to indicate that (as there is no speaker, there can be no ‘desire to speak’), there may be falsity (in such assertions).”

But that is not so; because in this ease also the initial cause lies in the ‘desire to speak’; as even here the word issues forth only under the influence of the faculty produced by previous meditations. For instance, when a person has thoroughly got up a certain Text, it so happens that even when his thoughts are turned towards other things, he can go on repeating (automatically) words and portions of verses of that text. And it cannot be said that the initial cause of such utterances does not lie in some previous efforts put forth by the man,—because, if it were not so, then, even on perceiving (misconceiving) smoke, in the vapour issuing from the cowherd’s pot (and finding it as not truly indicating the Fire), one might regard the real Smoke also to be fallible as an indicative of real Fire.

From all this it follows that in all cases, there is no fallibility in the Indicative at aū,—when due consideration is given to the Effect, the Indicative, the Time, the Place and other details,—and hence it is always present.

Nor can the Inference (of the ‘desire to speak’) be regarded as useless; as it serves to prove the fact of the utterance being due to the breath of the Speaker and so forth.

The phrase ‘and so forth’ includes such conditions as the presence of defects (which can exist only in the Speaker, whose desire is inferred from the verbal statement).—(1520)