Verse 2336-2338

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

पदार्थपदसम्बन्धनित्यत्वे साधितेऽपि वा ।
नैव वेदचेह प्रमाणत्वं वाक्यार्थं प्रति सिध्यति ॥ २३३६ ॥
समयात्पुरुषाणां हि गुणवृद्ध्यादिवन्मतिः ।
निष्कारणोऽपि सन्नर्थो याज्ञिकैः परिकल्पितः ॥ २३३७ ॥
अपिचास्य कथावत्तु सङ्घातात्पौरुषेयता ।
नचाप्तः पुरुषो वास्ति तेन वेदाप्रमाणता ॥ २३३८ ॥

padārthapadasambandhanityatve sādhite'pi vā |
naiva vedaceha pramāṇatvaṃ vākyārthaṃ prati sidhyati || 2336 ||
samayātpuruṣāṇāṃ hi guṇavṛddhyādivanmatiḥ |
niṣkāraṇo'pi sannartho yājñikaiḥ parikalpitaḥ || 2337 ||
apicāsya kathāvattu saṅghātātpauruṣeyatā |
nacāptaḥ puruṣo vāsti tena vedāpramāṇatā || 2338 ||

“[Says the opponent]—‘Though the word, the meaning and the connection between them have been proved to be eternal, yet so far as the validity (reliability) of the meaning of the sentence is concerned, that cannot be admitted.—[Ślokavārtika—on sentence—1].—it may be that the meaning of sentences has been assumed by the Mīmāṃsakas, without any basis, in accordance with the conventions of men,—just as in the case of such technical terms as guṇa, vṛddhi and the like.—Further, being in the form of a compilation, the Veda must be regarded as a human production, like a book of stories. And yet there is no reliable person (known, who could be the author of the Veda);—the Veda therefore must be regarded as unreliable’.”—[see Ślokavārtika—on sentence, 108-110].—(2336-2338)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Mīmāṃsaka next sets forth these objections of the opponent against his doctrines:—[see verses 2336-2338 above]

The ‘meaning of sentence’ consists in the Injunction or Prohibition of particular acts as associated with particular means of accomplishment; herein too lies the validity or efficiency of the Vedic Injunction as a ‘Means of Right Cognition’; it does not rest in what is expressed by words, Consequently when the validity or authority or reliability of the Veda has to be proved,—what has been established regarding the eternality of the Word, its meaning and the connection of these, is of no use in the matter at issue.

Further, whenever there is cognition of the meaning of a sentence, it is always found to be based upon Convention; e.g. sentences like ‘ād-guṇaḥ’ (Pānini’s Sūtra, defining what is ‘guṇa’), bring about the cognition of what is meant by the technical terms ‘guṇa’, ‘vṛddhi’ and the like;—the cognition of the meaning of the Injunctive Sentence is cognition of the meaning of a sentence;—hence this is a reason based upon the nature of things.—This is what is shown in the words—‘In accordance with Conventions, etc. etc.’ ‘Like the technical terms, etc. etc.’—The affix ‘vati’ has the sense of the Locative.

In support of the said idea it is added—‘without any basis’.—That is, it is just possible that without any reason,—through their unbridled imagination,—for the purpose of making a living—the ‘Sacrificers’ have assumed the meanings of such Vedic sentences as—‘Desiring Heaven, one should offer the Agnihotra’.

Then again, as a matter of fact, whatever is a compilation is a human product,—e.g. Dramas and Stories,—and the Veda is a compilation of words;—hence this is a reason based on the nature of the thing.

Thus then, as the Veda is a human work, it must be unreliable—like the words of the man by the roadside.

It might be that it is reliable because it is the work of a reliable person. The answer to that is—‘There is no reliable person known, etc. etc.’—(2336-2338)

To the above, the Mīmāṃsaka makes the following answer:—[see verses 2339-2340 next]