Verse 2777-2778

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

शब्दार्थानादितां मुक्त्वा सम्बन्धानादिकारणम् ।
न स्यादन्यदतो वेदे सम्बन्धादि न विद्यते ॥ २७७७ ॥
उपायरहितत्वेन सम्बन्धाकरणानुमा ।
अनाख्यानानुमानं तु दृष्टेनैव विरुध्यताम् ॥ २७७८ ॥

śabdārthānāditāṃ muktvā sambandhānādikāraṇam |
na syādanyadato vede sambandhādi na vidyate || 2777 ||
upāyarahitatvena sambandhākaraṇānumā |
anākhyānānumānaṃ tu dṛṣṭenaiva virudhyatām || 2778 ||

“Barring the eternality of the word and its meaning, there could be no other reason for accepting the eternality of their relationship. Therefore in regard to the veda, there can be no beginning for the said relationship.—The inference of the origination of the said relationship is negatived by the absence of means (causes); and as for the inference of the non-assertibility of pre-established relationship, it is set aside by direct sense-perception.”—[Ślokavārtika-sambandhākṣepa-parihāra, 136-138].—(2777-2778) commentary.

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘Word’—consisting of Letters ;—its meaning’—the Universal;—both of these being beginningless, their Relationship also—in the shape of denotative Potency—must be beginningless; that is to say, Potency being not-different from the thing to which it belongs, there can be no means of bringing about the said Relationship, whence it is inferred that there is no bringing about of it.

The argument is formulated as follows:—When one thing is devoid of the means of bringing about another thing,—the former cannot bring about the latter;—the Potter is unable to make the Jar, when he is devoid of the means of making it, in the shape of the Clay, Revolving Stick, Wheel, Water, Thread and so forth;—all men are devoid of the means of making the Relationship (between Words and meanings); hence there is apprehension of a character contrary to the wider character.

The Reason adduced here cannot be regarded as Inadmissible. Because it has been already proved that all men are without such means, under the passage—“To whom would the Speaker have recourse to for the purpose of-making up the Relationship for the benefit of the Hearer?”.

Question:—If that is so, then, as of the Cause, so of the absence of the assertion of Relationship itself, an Inference may be put forward.

The answer to that is that for the proving of the ‘absence of the said assertion’, the Reason—‘being devoid of the means’—would be inadmissible.—(2777-2778)