Verse 2086

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

सा हि प्रमाणं सर्वेषां नराकृततया स्थिता ।
वैतथ्यं प्रतिपद्यन्ते पौरुषेय्यो गिरो यतः ॥ २०८६ ॥

sā hi pramāṇaṃ sarveṣāṃ narākṛtatayā sthitā |
vaitathyaṃ pratipadyante pauruṣeyyo giro yataḥ || 2086 ||

“The said revealed word is authoritative for all, because it is not the work of a human being; because it is only words emanating from human beings that are found to be false.”—(2086)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

True Knowledge is what is called ‘Pramāṇa,’ ‘Right Cognition’; and being the source of right knowledge, the Veda also is called ‘Pramāṇa’, ‘means of Right Knowledge’, ‘reliable’, ‘authoritative’.

‘Why?’

Because it is not the work of a human being;—i.e. it has not proceeded from human source. What is meant by this is that the ‘authoritative’ or ‘reliable’ character of the Veda is due to the fact that there is no possibility of the presence of Love, Hate and such defects which would render it wrong or unreliable.—The argument may be formulated as follows:—That which is free from the contact of such defects as render the Word false and unreliable must be the source of right knowledge,—e.g. the Eye not affected by any disorder;—the Veda, not being the work of a human being, is free from the contact of Love, Hatred and such other causes of falsity;—hence this is a Reason (for Reliability) based upon the nature of the thing concerned.

By putting forward a Corroborating Instance per dissimilarity, the Arguer indicates the absence of ‘Inconclusiveness’ in his Reason—‘It is only words, etc. etc.’—What is shown by this is that the absence of the Probandum is invariably concomitant with the absence of the Probans. As a matter of fact, Defects (in the source of knowledge) are the cause of falsity; and wherever these Defects are present, there alone they bring about their Effect in the shape oî falsity,—not anywhere else; and that is so because when the Cause is not there, the Effect cannot be there; even if the Effect were there it would have to be regarded as without cause; and what would come about without the cause would not be regarded as the effect of that cause; as that would lead to absurdity. Thus, the impossibility of the relation of Cause and Effect between Defects and Falsity,—and the contingency of falsity being without cause,—constitute the ‘Reason’ setting aside any conclusion contrary to the one set forth above. Hence the Reason cannot be regarded as ‘Inconclusive’.

The argument may be formulated as follows:—Where the Cause of a thing does not exist, the Effect cannot appear,—e.g. Smoke does not appear in water, where its cause, Fire, is absent;—in the case of the Veda, the Cause of falsity in the shape of the presence of Love, Hate, etc. is not present;—hence its Effect, Falsity cannot be there.—(2086)