Verse 3103-3106

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

वेदेपि बाधकं मानमुक्तमेवानुमात्मकम् ।
तदुक्तात्माद्यपोहेन तस्मान्मानं न युज्यते ॥ ३१०४ ॥
पौरुषेयत्वसिद्धेश्च शङ्क्या दुष्टनिमित्तता ।
वह्नेरिव स्वतः शक्तिर्मिथ्याज्ञानेषु वा भवेत् ॥ ३१०५ ॥
चोदनाप्रभवं ज्ञानमतो दुष्टनिमित्तकम् ।
शङ्क्यते दृष्टदोषाच्च शङ्क्यदोषं न भिद्यते ॥ ३१०६ ॥

vedepi bādhakaṃ mānamuktamevānumātmakam |
taduktātmādyapohena tasmānmānaṃ na yujyate || 3104 ||
pauruṣeyatvasiddheśca śaṅkyā duṣṭanimittatā |
vahneriva svataḥ śaktirmithyājñāneṣu vā bhavet || 3105 ||
codanāprabhavaṃ jñānamato duṣṭanimittakam |
śaṅkyate dṛṣṭadoṣācca śaṅkyadoṣaṃ na bhidyate || 3106 ||

In connection with the Veda, it has been already pointed out that there is a sublating cognition in the form of inference; hence by the rejection of the ‘soul’ and other things mentioned in the Veda, it becomes established that the cognition derived from the veda cannot be valid.—As it has been proved that the Veda is the work of a personal author, the fact of its having a defective source is always open to suspicion.—If the capacity in question (i.e. validity) were inherent in cognitions, just as the capacity to burn is inherent in fire,—then such validity should belong to wrong cognitions also.—Thus it is open to suspicion that the cognition provided by the Veda proceeds from a defective source, and what is suspected to be defective does not differ from what is actually perceived to be defective.—(3103-3106)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued under Text 2916, that—“Even in cases where the falsity is explained to others,—these two ideas have to be pointed out,—and not mere similarity”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3103-3106 above]

Mere similarity is not urged by the Buddhists as what annuls the Cognition provided by the Veda; what is urged by them is that such things as the Soul, the Universal and the like, which are mentioned in the Veda, are rejected by all Means of Valid Cognition. This has been explained in the Chapters dealing with the ‘Soul’, etc.

Further, under the chapter on the ‘Revealed Word’, it has been proved that the Vedas must be the work of an author;—or even if they were without an author,—it is possible that there may be sources of falsity, as there is in the ease of the Forest-fire (which is regarded by some people as self-produced, which is not true); consequently it is possible that what is said in the Veda may be false;—this is what has been urged by the Buddhists, not mere similarity.

The following might be urged—“Even though this may be possible, yet, how can mere possibility establish the invalidity (falsity) of what is said in the Veda?”

The answer to this is—‘What is suspected to be defective, etc. etc.’—The compound ‘Śaṅkyadoṣam’ is to be expounded as—‘that in which defects are suspected’,

‘Does not differ, etc.’—Because the validity of both is equally liable to being regarded as non-existent.—(3103-3106)