Verse 2932-2934

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

सिद्धे स्वतःप्रमाणत्वे साऽपवादनिवारिणी ।
यदीष्यते तदप्येवं नाऽऽशङ्काया असम्भवात् ॥ २९३२ ॥
तावदेव हि साऽऽशङ्का यावन्नोदेति निश्चयः ।
निश्चये तूद्गते तस्मिन्नप्रामाण्ये कुतोन्वियम् ॥ २९३३ ॥
येन तद्विनिवृत्त्यर्थं यत्नः सार्थकतां व्रजेत् ।
स्थाणौ निश्चिततादात्म्यो नान्यथात्वं हि(शङ्कते)॥ २९३४ ॥

siddhe svataḥpramāṇatve sā'pavādanivāriṇī |
yadīṣyate tadapyevaṃ nā''śaṅkāyā asambhavāt || 2932 ||
tāvadeva hi sā''śaṅkā yāvannodeti niścayaḥ |
niścaye tūdgate tasminnaprāmāṇye kutonviyam || 2933 ||
yena tadvinivṛttyarthaṃ yatnaḥ sārthakatāṃ vrajet |
sthāṇau niścitatādātmyo nānyathātvaṃ hi(śaṅkate) || 2934 ||

If it is held that—“the self-sufficiency of the validity of cognitions having been accepted as a fact, the arguments that have been set forth are only for the purpose of refuting the denial of the same”,—even that cannot be right; as there can be no possibility of such denial; there can be a suspicion of such denial, only so long as the firm conviction regarding the validity has not appeared;—as soon as that conviction has appeared, whence could there be any suspicion regarding invalidity,—for the removing of which your attempt could be useful? when a man has been convinced that the tall thing standing before him is a post, he no longer suspects it to be anything else.—(2932-2934)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be argued that—“when we put forward our arguments, it is not for proving the validity of the Cognition proceeding from the Veda; it is for refuting the invalidity that has been urged by the other party”.

This also cannot be right.—Why?—Because there can be no possibility of any suspicion of invalidity.—It has been declared that ‘Conviction and Doubt are mutually destructive’ (2930);—so that when Conviction has come about, whence could there be any suspicion of invalidity,—for the removing of which suspicion, your attempt at setting forth arguments could be fruitful?

An example is cited—‘When a man, etc. etc.’—i.e. by the observer who has become convinced of its being the post.

‘Any thing else’—in the shape of tree or man or some such thing.—(2932-2934)

Question:—“If that is so, then how can the suspicion of invalidity be removed without setting forth arguments?”

Answer:—[see verse 2935 next]