Verse 3038-3039

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

गुणेभ्यश्च प्रमाणत्वं यथा युक्तं तथोदितम् ।
गुणानां चापरिज्ञाने दोषाभावो न लक्ष्यते ॥ ३०३८ ॥
स्वतो वाक्यं प्रमाणं तद्दोषाभावोपलक्षितम् ।
न युक्तमपरिज्ञानाद्दोषाभावो ह्यलक्षणम् ॥ ३०३९ ॥

guṇebhyaśca pramāṇatvaṃ yathā yuktaṃ tathoditam |
guṇānāṃ cāparijñāne doṣābhāvo na lakṣyate || 3038 ||
svato vākyaṃ pramāṇaṃ taddoṣābhāvopalakṣitam |
na yuktamaparijñānāddoṣābhāvo hyalakṣaṇam || 3039 ||

How validity can be due to excellences has been already explained; and so long as the excellences are not recognised, the absence of defects cannot be perceived.—Thus then, it cannot be right that the assertion, valid by itself, is indicated by the absence of defects; because, not being cognised, the absence of defects cannot serve as an indicator.—(3038-3039)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued under Text 2889, that—“in the case of the assertion of trustworthy persons, two facts have been perceived—the absence of defects and the presence of excellences; and it has already been shown how validity cannot be due to the excellences”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3038-3039 above]

‘Has been explained’—under Text 2988,

It has been asserted above (2890) that—“the assertion, valid by itself, is indicated by the absence of defects—This is not right; because excellences are beyond the reach of the senses, and when they cannot be cognised, the absence of defects also, which consists in the presence of excellences, cannot be noticed.—This is what is said in the words—‘The absence of defects cannot serve as an indicator’; that is, it cannot serve the purpose of indicating the validity; because it is itself uncognised.—(3038-3039)