Verse 2341-2343

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

नचानर्थकता तस्य तदर्थप्रत्ययोदयात् ।
सङ्घातत्वस्य वक्तव्यमीदृशं प्रतिसाधनम् ॥ २३४१ ॥
वेदस्याध्ययनं सर्वं गुर्वध्ययनपूर्वकम् ।
वेदाध्ययनवाच्यत्वादधुनाध्ययनं यथा ॥ २३४२ ॥
भारतेऽपि भवेदेवं कर्तृस्मृत्या तु बाध्यते ।
वेदे तु तत्स्मृतिन स्मृतिर्यापि साऽर्थवादनिबन्धना ॥ २३४३ ॥

nacānarthakatā tasya tadarthapratyayodayāt |
saṅghātatvasya vaktavyamīdṛśaṃ pratisādhanam || 2341 ||
vedasyādhyayanaṃ sarvaṃ gurvadhyayanapūrvakam |
vedādhyayanavācyatvādadhunādhyayanaṃ yathā || 2342 ||
bhārate'pi bhavedevaṃ kartṛsmṛtyā tu bādhyate |
vede tu tatsmṛtina smṛtiryāpi sā'rthavādanibandhanā || 2343 ||

“It cannot be meaningless; as its meaning is clearly apprehended—(2341a)

“As regards the argument based upon the fact of the Veda being an aggregate, the counter-argument should be stated as follows:—All Vedic study (by any person) is always preceded by previous ‘study’ by his teacher,—because it is called ‘Vedic study’—like the ‘study’ carried on at the present time—[Ślokavārtika—on sentence, 365-366].—(2341b-2342)

“The argument might be urged in regard to the Mahābhārata also; but it is blocked by the distinct ‘remembrance’ (mention) of its writer. though there are such ‘remembrances’ in regard to the Veda also,—yet, they are all based upon ‘commendatory’ description”.—[Ślokavārtika—on sentence, 367].—(2343)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2341a]:

‘It’—stands for the Veda.—(2341)

The Opponent has urged (under Text 2338 the fact of the Veda being on ‘aggregate’ as a reason for its unreliability. By means of a counterreason, the Mīmāṃsaka shows that the said reason is ‘Inconclusive’:—[see verses 2341b-2342 above]

[verses 2341b-2342]:

Says the Opponent—The same can be said in regard to the ‘study’ of the Mahābhārata also: all ‘study’ of the Mahābhārata is always preceded by the previous study by the Teacher,—like the ‘study’ at the present time; but it will not be right to argue thus; hence the counter-argument put forward is ‘inconclusive’.

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 2343 above]

[verse 2343]:

The same argument might be urged in regard to the Mahābhārata also; but the Author, Vyāsa, is clearly ‘remembered’ (mentioned); hence such an assertion is rendered impossible by this mention of the author, and hence cannot be made. There is no such mention of the ‘Author’ in the case of the Veda.

Says the Opponent—In regard to the Veda also, the Author is mentioned, in such passages as—‘Agnirāvaścakruḥ sāmāni... atharvānāṅgirasaḥ’.

The answer to this is—‘Though there are such, etc, etc.’—As regards the mention of ‘authors’ in the Veda, that is based upon commendatory description; ‘arthuvāda’ is the ‘vāda’, description, of ‘artha’, ‘facts’; this description is the basis of the said mention (of Authors in the Veda); hence the word ‘cakruḥ’ in the passage quoted does not stand for creating or producing, but for remembering; so the meaning is that the persons named ‘remembered’ the Sāman, etc.—(2343)

Question:—How has this meaning been determined?

Answer:—[see verses 2344-2345 next]