Verse 2414-2417

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

सर्वसत्त्वैरगम्यत्वं संदिग्धं तु कदाचन ।
केनचित्कोऽपि मानेन वेत्तीत्यपि हि शङ्क्यते ॥ २४१५ ॥
येन (यन्न ?) त्रिभुवनान्तस्थाः सर्वे प्राणभृतः स्फुटम् ।
सर्वात्मनाऽपरिच्छिन्नाः सुनिश्चेतुमिमं क्षमाः ॥ २४१६ ॥
स्वयं त्वगम्यमानत्वं व्यभिचारि तथाहि ते ।
पुरुषान्तरसंकल्पैस्तदभावो न निश्चितः ॥ २४१७ ॥

sarvasattvairagamyatvaṃ saṃdigdhaṃ tu kadācana |
kenacitko'pi mānena vettītyapi hi śaṅkyate || 2415 ||
yena (yanna ?) tribhuvanāntasthāḥ sarve prāṇabhṛtaḥ sphuṭam |
sarvātmanā'paricchinnāḥ suniścetumimaṃ kṣamāḥ || 2416 ||
svayaṃ tvagamyamānatvaṃ vyabhicāri tathāhi te |
puruṣāntarasaṃkalpaistadabhāvo na niścitaḥ || 2417 ||

As regards his being not cognised by all beings,—that is always doubtful; as it is possible that at some time by some means of cognition, he might become cognised by some one. Because that he is so uncognisable cannot be clearly ascertained by all living beings of all the three worlds coming together without exception.—As regards his being not cognised by the Mīmāṃsaka himself, it is clearly ‘inconclusive’, because that does not prove with certainty that there is no cognition by other persons.—(2415-2417)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Further, the Reason as adduced by the Mīmāṃsaka can have two meanings—(1) that the Author is not cognised by any one through the Five Means of Cognition, and (2) that he is not so cognised by the Mīmāṃsaka himself;—in the former sense, it is Doubtful-hence-Inadmissible; and in the latter, it is Inconclusive.—This is shown in the following:—[see verses 2415-2417 above]

‘Imam’—i.e. the fact that the Author of the Veda is not cognised by anyone.

‘Tathā hi, etc. etc.’—confirms the said ‘Inconclusiveness’—through the convictions of other people and also the cogitations of students.—(2415-2417)