Verse 2886-2888

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

नित्यमाप्तप्रणीतं वा वाक्यं यच्चावधार्यते ।
श्रोत्रुच्चारयितृभ्यां तन्न मनागपि दूष्यते ॥ २८८६ ॥
ये विद्यागुरवस्तत्र सहाध्यायिन एव च ।
विनाशं वारयन्तस्ते तादृशां पालनक्षमाः ॥ २८८७ ॥
अतो गुणनिषिद्धैर्वा दोषैर्वाक्यं न दूष्यते ।
यद्वा कर्तुरभावे ते न स्युर्दोषा निराश्रयाः ॥ २८८८ ॥

nityamāptapraṇītaṃ vā vākyaṃ yaccāvadhāryate |
śrotruccārayitṛbhyāṃ tanna manāgapi dūṣyate || 2886 ||
ye vidyāguravastatra sahādhyāyina eva ca |
vināśaṃ vārayantaste tādṛśāṃ pālanakṣamāḥ || 2887 ||
ato guṇaniṣiddhairvā doṣairvākyaṃ na dūṣyate |
yadvā karturabhāve te na syurdoṣā nirāśrayāḥ || 2888 ||

“That word which is definitely known to be eternal, or uttered by a trustworthy person, is never vitiated by the hearer or the speaker;—because teachers and fellow-students help to prevent mutilations thereof and are fully competent to preserve such assertions.—Consequently, the assertion does not become vitiated by the defects which are warded off by the excellences (of the teacher, etc.).—Or, when there is no pronouncer or ‘maker’ of the word or assertion, there can be no defects, as there would be no substratum for these.”—(2886-2888)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Two kinds of Verbal Cognition are reliable, valid—that produced by the eternal Word, and that produced by the words uttered by a trustworthy person.—That in both of these the cause or source is faultless is pointed out by the present text.

In that Word or Sentence which is eternal, there can be no defects relating to the Speaker or the Hearer; because such words and sentences are always preserved by Teachers and Students.

That Word or Sentence which is uttered by a reliable Person,—there also the presence of defects is rendered impossible by the presence in him of such excellences as those of Compassion and the like.

The faultlessness of the eternal Word is proved in another way also:—

‘Or when there is no maker of the Word, etc. etc.’—Defects, such as Love and Hate, etc. are properties of men; and as such they could reside only in the Maker; hence, when there is no substratum, in the shape of the Maker, how could they affect the words that have not emanated from a personal source? If they did, they would be without a substratum; because it is an essential feature of the subsistent that it must follow in the wake of the substratum.—(2886-2888)