Verse 2362-2364

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

ततः परमतो ज्ञानजन्मशक्तिपरिक्षयात् ।
न नित्यः स्यादयं वेदः शक्तौ वा धीः पुनर्भवेत् ॥ २३६२ ॥
अथापि सहकारीणि व्याख्यादीनि व्यपेक्षते ।
तेषां च क्रमसद्भावात्तद्विज्ञानं क्रमीष्यते ॥ २३६३ ॥
नैवं तस्य हि शक्तस्य व्यपेक्षा कीदृशी भवेत् ।
तद्योगात्स समर्थश्चेन्नित्यताशेह का तव ॥ २३६४ ॥

tataḥ paramato jñānajanmaśaktiparikṣayāt |
na nityaḥ syādayaṃ vedaḥ śaktau vā dhīḥ punarbhavet || 2362 ||
athāpi sahakārīṇi vyākhyādīni vyapekṣate |
teṣāṃ ca kramasadbhāvāttadvijñānaṃ kramīṣyate || 2363 ||
naivaṃ tasya hi śaktasya vyapekṣā kīdṛśī bhavet |
tadyogātsa samarthaścennityatāśeha kā tava || 2364 ||

After that the Veda’s capacity to bring about cognitions would cease; consequently the Veda could not be eternal. if the said capacity continues to exist, then the same cognitions should appear again.—(2362)

It might be said that—“the Veda stands in need of explanations, etc., and as these explanations appear in succession, the cognitions (brought about by the Veda) are held to be successive also.”—(2363)

It cannot be so; when it is efficient (and has the capacity)—what sort of ‘dependence’ could there be? If it is efficient because of the presence of that on which it is dependent,—what hope, then, can you have of its being eternal?—(2364)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2362]:

The Author next points out another objection against the idea of cognitions appearing simultaneously:—[see verse 2362 above]

In the following Text, the author puts forward a likely explanation to meet the argument that ‘when the efficient cause of a thing is present, that thing must appear’;—[see verse 2363 above]

[verse 2363]:

The ‘etc.’ is meant to include Conventions.

‘These’—stands for the explanations.—(2363)

This objection is answered in the following:—[see verse 2364 above]

[verse 2364]:

It is only when something is inefficient by itself, that it needs the help of others in securing the required efficiency; when, however, a thing is quite efficient by itself, there is no imperfection in its character; what sort of need or dependence could there be in that case?

If it be held that at first it is inefficient, but subsequently, it becomes efficient through the contact of contributory causes,—then you had better give up all hope for the eternality of the Veda!—(2364)

Question:—“How so?”

Answer:—[see verse 2365 next]