Verse 2431-2432

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

अकृतत्वाविनाशाभ्यां नित्यत्वं चेद्विवक्षितम् ।
निषेधमात्ररूपाभ्यां निरुपाख्येऽपि तत्समम् ॥ २४३१ ॥
अतो गगनराजीव नित्यताऽस्ति न वास्तवी ।
यथा तथैव वेदेऽपि तत्प्रामाण्यं न सिद्ध्यति ॥ २४३२ ॥

akṛtatvāvināśābhyāṃ nityatvaṃ cedvivakṣitam |
niṣedhamātrarūpābhyāṃ nirupākhye'pi tatsamam || 2431 ||
ato gaganarājīva nityatā'sti na vāstavī |
yathā tathaiva vede'pi tatprāmāṇyaṃ na siddhyati || 2432 ||

If ‘eternality’ is what is meant by being not produced and being not destroyed,—then, inasmuch as both would be of the nature of mere negation,—the same may be said regarding the non-entity also. consequently, just as the eternality of the ‘sky-lotus’ is not real, in the same way the reliability of the Veda also does not become established.—(2431-2432)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been urged above by the Mīmāṃsaka, under the Text 2105, that—“Eternality is what is meant by the two characters of being not produced and being not destroyed, and both these being of the nature of Negation, do not require any proof for themselves”.

The Buddhist’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2431-2432 above]

There are two assumptions here—(1) that eternality is asserted on the basis of the two characters of being not produced and being not destroyed, which are of the nature of absolute negation,—and (2) that these latter are of the nature of Relative Negation;—under the former view (1) the Reason being ‘inconclusive’ (doubtful) in view of the ‘Sky-lotus’, the ‘eternality’ of the Veda does not become established as a real entity; because in the case of the ‘Sky-lotus’, though both the said characters of being produced and being destroyed are denied,—yet its eternality does not become established as a real entity; the same happens in the case of the Veda; hence the Reason is ‘Inconclusive’; and from this it would follow that, as in the Sky lotus, so in the Veda also, there would he no reliability.—(2431-2432)