Verse 2791-2792

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

तदभिव्यक्तरूपत्वात्तदीयं च तदुच्यते ।
कर्तृस्मृतिश्च तत्रापि भवत्वर्थनिबन्धना ॥ २७९१ ॥
परैरेवं न चेष्टं चेत्तुल्ये न्याये न किं मतम् ।
माभूद्वैवं परस्येष्टिर्न्यायात्त्वाशंक्यते तथा ॥ २७९२ ॥

tadabhivyaktarūpatvāttadīyaṃ ca taducyate |
kartṛsmṛtiśca tatrāpi bhavatvarthanibandhanā || 2791 ||
parairevaṃ na ceṣṭaṃ cettulye nyāye na kiṃ matam |
mābhūdvaivaṃ parasyeṣṭirnyāyāttvāśaṃkyate tathā || 2792 ||

Because its form was revealed by him, therefore the words are called ‘of the Buddha’. the remembrance of the author that is there may also be regarded as merely commendatory.—It might be said that—“This is not so accepted by the other party”;—but if the reason is equally applicable, why cannot it be accepted?—or, it may not be accepted by the other party; even so, it may be regarded as possible, in accordance with reason.—(2791-2792)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Its form—character, nature,—has been revealed by Buddha.

In this case also, the idea that people have regarding the author of the Buddhist Scripture may be explained as purely commendatory. And here also ‘author’ may be explained as ‘rememberer’.

The following might be urged—“The Buddhists do not accept the view that the idea of the authorship of Buddha is purely commendatory,—hence why should you base your argument on this?”

Answer:—‘The Reason being equally applicable (to Mahābhārata and the Buddhist Scripture), etc. etc.’—If the idea is in accord with Reason, then why should the Buddhist not accept it? It is not right for intelligent men not to accept what is in accordance with reason.

Even if the intelligent Buddhist does not accept this idea,—we still put this to you purely on the ground of reason.—(2791-2792)

This idea is confirmed by the words of the Mīmāṃsaka himself.—[see verses 2793-2795 next]