Verse 2762-2766

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

वर्णानां क्रमशून्यानां वाचकत्वं न विद्यते ।
नातस्ते तादृशा वाक्यं क्रमोऽप्येषां न विद्यते ॥ २७६२ ॥
व्याप्तेर्नित्यतया चैषां देशकालक्रमो न हि ।
लिपिवत्फलपुष्पादिभेदवच्चोपपद्यते ॥ २७६३ ॥
स्वाभाविके क्रमे चैषां सर इत्येवसम्भवेत् ।
नतु स्याद्रस इत्यादिः स्थितक्रमविरोधतः ॥ २७६४ ॥
स्थिता रेफादयश्चान्ये नैवान्यक्रमयोगिनः ।
जायन्ते वायुतो वर्णा नित्यैकत्वेन वर्णिताः ॥ २७६५ ॥
अन्यथा प्रत्यभिज्ञानं नित्यत्वैकत्वसाधनम् ।
व्यभिचारि त्वयैवोक्तं भवेद्भेदेऽपि वर्तनात् ॥ २७६६ ॥

varṇānāṃ kramaśūnyānāṃ vācakatvaṃ na vidyate |
nātaste tādṛśā vākyaṃ kramo'pyeṣāṃ na vidyate || 2762 ||
vyāpternityatayā caiṣāṃ deśakālakramo na hi |
lipivatphalapuṣpādibhedavaccopapadyate || 2763 ||
svābhāvike krame caiṣāṃ sara ityevasambhavet |
natu syādrasa ityādiḥ sthitakramavirodhataḥ || 2764 ||
sthitā rephādayaścānye naivānyakramayoginaḥ |
jāyante vāyuto varṇā nityaikatvena varṇitāḥ || 2765 ||
anyathā pratyabhijñānaṃ nityatvaikatvasādhanam |
vyabhicāri tvayaivoktaṃ bhavedbhede'pi vartanāt || 2766 ||

Letters, devoid of order of sequence, cannot be expressive; hence such letters cannot constitute the ‘sentence—(2762)

Nor can the letters have an order of sequence. as they are all-pervading and eternal, there cannot be any sequence in them of either time or place,—like what there is in the letters reduced to writing, or in the case of fruits and flowers.—If the order of sequence were inherent in the letters themselves, then they would always be in the form ‘sa-ra’, never in the form ‘rasa’; as the latter would be incompatible with the former order, which is eternal. The letter ‘ra’ that might be elsewhere cannot be said to appear in any other order of sequence, from out of air. Because every one of the letters has been declared to be one and eternal. If it were not so, then ‘recognition’ put forward by you as a reason for eternality’ and ‘oneness’ would be inconclusive; as it would be present even when the letters are diverse.—(2762-2766)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 2762]:

The following Text points out the objections against the first view (that the ‘Sentence’ consists of the Letters only):—[see verse 2762 above]

The objections against the second view (that the Sentence consists in the Letters arranged in a certain order) are stated in the following Texts:—[see verses 2763-2766 above]

[verses 2763-2766]:

‘Nor can the Letters, etc. etc.’—Because the order of sequence among things can be of only two kinds—spacial and chronological;—there is order of sequence in space, as in the Letters reduced to writing; and there is order of sequence in Time as in the case of the series consisting of the seed-sprout-trunk—flower-fruit.—The first kind of sequence (that is of space) is not possible in the case of Letters,—because they are all-pervading;—the Letters pervading over all things; consequently,—as in Ākāśa, so in Letters also—there can be no sequence due to breaks in the continuity, because they occupy the whole space entirely; as all things subsist in one part of Ākāśa only.—Nor can sequence in time belong to Letters; because, being eternal, they must be all synchronous.

Then again, the order of sequence could either be made by man or be inherent in the Letters. It is not held to be due to man; as in that case the Veda would have to be regarded as the work of man.—If then, the sequence is inherent in the Letters, then the form would always be ‘sa-ra’,—never ‘rasa’,

Nor can it be admitted that the Letters appearing in different words are different; because Letters have been proved to be eternal on the ground of their being recognised as the same everywhere. And it is the denial of this sameness that would be asserted in the said proposition (that they are different in different words). Otherwise Recognition (as the reason for eternality) would be Inconclusive.—(2762-2766)