Verse 2407-2409

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

ततश्चापौरुषेयत्वव्यक्तिनित्यत्वसाधनम् ।
नित्यशब्दार्थयोगश्च व्यर्थ ए(वोपवर्णि)तः ॥ २४०७ ॥
तस्मिन् सत्यपि नैवास्य यथार्थज्ञानहेतुता ।
उपगम्यत इत्युक्तं व्यासतः समनन्तरम् ॥ २४०८ ॥
तेनैवैतत्प्रतिक्षेपे नास्माकं गुरु(रादरः) ।
(अ)प्रस्तुतोपयोगस्य को हि कुर्यान्निषेधनम् ॥ २४०९ ॥

tataścāpauruṣeyatvavyaktinityatvasādhanam |
nityaśabdārthayogaśca vyartha e(vopavarṇi)taḥ || 2407 ||
tasmin satyapi naivāsya yathārthajñānahetutā |
upagamyata ityuktaṃ vyāsataḥ samanantaram || 2408 ||
tenaivaitatpratikṣepe nāsmākaṃ guru(rādaraḥ) |
(a)prastutopayogasya ko hi kuryānniṣedhanam || 2409 ||

From all this it follows that the reasons in support of (1) the Veda not being the work of a person, (2) of there being only a ‘manifestation’ of it, and (3) of its being eternal,—as also (4) of the eternal connection between the words and its meaning,—have all been set forth uselessly. Because, even if the Veda has all this character, it cannot be accepted to be the source of true knowledge; as has been just stated in detail. Hence we are not paying much attention to the refutation of this idea (of the Veda not being the work of a person). Who would ever care to refute what has no bearing upon the matter under consideration?—(2407-2409)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author has, so far, proved, in detail, the ‘Inconclusiveness’ of the following Reasons (propounded by the Mīmāṃsaha, in support of the Reliability of the Veda)—(a) that it is free from all defects conducive to falsity, as implied by the fact of its not being the work of man,—(b) that it is not the work of man, as indicated by the absence of defects,—(c) that it is not the work of man, which has been directly stated in so many words. He now proceeds to show the ‘inadmissibility’ of these:—[see verse 2407-2409 above]

(1) The idea of its not being the work of a Person, (2) the idea that there is ‘manifestation’ of it, and (3) the idea that it is eternal;—the Reasons in support all this.—‘Sādhana’ being that by which something is proved, i.e. Reason, Probans.—Various kinds of such Reasons have been shown above already.

‘Tasmin’—even if all this be true.—‘Asya’ of the Veda.

‘Upagamyate’—cannot be accepted.

‘Vyāsataḥ’—in detail.

‘Etatpratikṣepe’—to the refutation of all this idea—of the Veda not being the work of a Person and so forth.

Even if all this is true, what is wanted by the Mīmāṃsaka is not accomplished;—and as this has been explained already; if a further refutation of all this were done, it would be of no use in the present discussion.—(2407-2409)

This same idea is further explained—[see verses 2410-2411 next]