Verse 3040-3041

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

नहि दण्डापरिज्ञाने पुंसां दण्डीति लक्ष्यते ।
तल्लक्षितं स्वतो मानमित्येतच्च पराहतम् ॥ ३०४० ॥
दोषाभावः प्रमाभावात्प्रमाणान्निश्चितात्मकः ।
वाक्यस्य लक्षणं युक्तं परतोऽतः प्रमास्थितिः ॥ ३०४१ ॥

nahi daṇḍāparijñāne puṃsāṃ daṇḍīti lakṣyate |
tallakṣitaṃ svato mānamityetacca parāhatam || 3040 ||
doṣābhāvaḥ pramābhāvātpramāṇānniścitātmakaḥ |
vākyasya lakṣaṇaṃ yuktaṃ parato'taḥ pramāsthitiḥ || 3041 ||

Unless people know the sticks they cannot have any idea of the stick-holder. Thus the idea of the ‘self-validity’ being indicated by the absence of defects becomes discarded by self-contradiction.—The absence of defects can qualify the ‘word’ only when ascertained by that means of cognition which consists of nonapprehension; and in this way validity of a cognition would be due to something extraneous to itself.—

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

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)

The following Text shows that what is itself unknown cannot serve as an indicator:—[see verses 3040-3041 above]

Further, absence of defects may be a qualification; but even so, the objection remains,—as there is possibility of self-contradiction. For instance, if Validity is indicated and qualified by the absence of defects, then it would clearly mean that Validity is extraneous; and this would go against and discard the assertion that Validity is inherent.

This same idea is further clarified in the words—‘the absence of defects can qualify, etc. etc.’—If the absence of defects is ascertained through the Means of Cognition known as ‘Non-apprehension’, then alone it could serve as a qualification (and an indicator); because what is not ascertained cannot serve as a qualification; and there is no other Means of Cognition that could bring about the certain Cognition of the absence (of defects);—consequently it becomes clearly asserted that the Validity of the Cognition follows from Non-apprehension, which is something different from the Cognition itself.—(3040-3041)