Verse 2942-2943

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

अयं च भवतां पक्षो यत्र वाक्ये नञः श्रुतिः ।
तत्रैवान्यव्यवच्छेदः स्वात्मैवान्यत्र गम्यते ॥ २९४२ ॥
चोदनाजनिताबुद्धिः प्रमाणमिति नेह च ।
प्रयोगोऽस्ति नञस्तेन नाप्रामाण्यनिवर्त्तनम् ॥ २९४३ ॥

ayaṃ ca bhavatāṃ pakṣo yatra vākye nañaḥ śrutiḥ |
tatraivānyavyavacchedaḥ svātmaivānyatra gamyate || 2942 ||
codanājanitābuddhiḥ pramāṇamiti neha ca |
prayogo'sti nañastena nāprāmāṇyanivarttanam || 2943 ||

Your view is that—“it is only in the sentence in which the negative word is found that there is denial of something else, and in all other sentences, it is the positive denotation itself that is apprehended”;—now in your assertion (under text 2348) that “the cognition produced by the Veda is valid”—the negative word has not been used; hence it cannot mean the denial of invalidity.—(2942-2943)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued by the Mīmāṃsaka, under 2932, that “the self-sufficient 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”.—This cannot be right; because, under the circumstances, there could be no doubt regarding the validity; as has been explained,—The position now taken up is—that it may be granted (for the sake of argument’, that the arguments have been adduced for the purpose of removing the suspicion of invalidity; but even so, that cannot be right, in accordance with your view.—This is what is pointed out in the following:—[see verses 2942-2953 above]

The view of persons like you, who hold that the denotation of words is always positive, is as follows:—“It is only when the negative word is used in a sentence, that ‘the denial of other things’ is comprehended,—in all other cases it is only affirmation that is expressed”,—In the sentence embodying your argument—“The cognition produced by the Veda is valid, etc. etc,”, the negative word has not been used; how then could it express the denial of invalidity?—(2942-2943)