Verse 2997-2999

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

यदि स्वतःप्रमाणत्वं सर्वत्रौत्सर्गिकं स्थितम् ।
बाधकारणदुष्टत्वज्ञानाभ्यां तदपोद्यते ॥ २९९७ ॥
बाधकारणदुष्टत्वज्ञानाभावात्प्रमाणता ।
प्राप्तैवं च परस्मात्ते भवेत्प्रामाण्यनिश्चयः ॥ २९९८ ॥
तथाहि तदभावोऽयमभावाख्यं प्रमान्तरम् ।
त्वत्पक्षेऽनुपलम्भाख्यमनुमानं तु मन्मते ॥ २९९९ ॥

yadi svataḥpramāṇatvaṃ sarvatrautsargikaṃ sthitam |
bādhakāraṇaduṣṭatvajñānābhyāṃ tadapodyate || 2997 ||
bādhakāraṇaduṣṭatvajñānābhāvātpramāṇatā |
prāptaivaṃ ca parasmātte bhavetprāmāṇyaniścayaḥ || 2998 ||
tathāhi tadabhāvo'yamabhāvākhyaṃ pramāntaram |
tvatpakṣe'nupalambhākhyamanumānaṃ tu manmate || 2999 ||

If self-validity of cognitions is the general rule, and it is discarded when there is either an annulment of it or the cognition of its sources being defective,—then validity becomes really due to the absence of annulment and absence of the cognition of the source being defective; and for you thus the certainty regarding validity is due to extraneous causes. Because the said ‘absence’ is a negative cognition, which is essentially different from the other form of positive cognition,—this other form being ‘non-apprehension’ according to you, and ‘inference’ according to us.—(2997-2999)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been asserted by the Mīmāṃsaka, in Text 2862, that—“Validity must be regarded as inherent in all Cognitions as a general rule, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 2997-2999 above]

The first two lines reproduce the opinion of the other party, and the other lines state the objection against that opinion.

If the Cognition of annulment, etc. discards the Validity, then it means that conviction regarding Validity is due to the absence of the Cognition of the annulment, etc.; and this would mean that it is due to causes extraneous to the Cognition itself. Because ‘Non-apprehension’ (Negation) has been accepted as a distinct form of Cognition.

According to our view the form of Cognition called ‘Non-apprehension’ is included under ‘Inference’, and is not a distinct form of Cognition.—(2997-2999)