Verse 3140-3141

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

स्वधर्माधर्ममात्रज्ञसाधनप्रतिषेधयोः ।
तत्प्रणीतागमग्राह्यहेयत्वे हि प्रसिद्ध्यतः ॥ ३१४० ॥
तत्र सर्वजगत्सूक्ष्मभेदज्ञत्वप्रसाधने ।
अस्थाने क्लिश्यते लोकः संरम्भाद्ग्रन्थवादयोः ॥ ३१४१ ॥

svadharmādharmamātrajñasādhanapratiṣedhayoḥ |
tatpraṇītāgamagrāhyaheyatve hi prasiddhyataḥ || 3140 ||
tatra sarvajagatsūkṣmabhedajñatvaprasādhane |
asthāne kliśyate lokaḥ saṃrambhādgranthavādayoḥ || 3141 ||

“By proving the existence of the person knowing only dharma and adharma, whom the Buddhist postulates,—one secures the reliability and acceptability of the scripture composed by him; and by denying the said person, one secures the unreliability and rejectability of the said scripture.—Thus when people proceed to prove the existence of the person knowing all the little details of the entire world, they put themselves to the unnecessary trouble of writing treatises on the subject and carrying on 'discussions on the same.”—(3140-3141)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following Text proceeds to point out where there is difference of opinion, and the proving of which would be useful for man:—[see verses 3140-3141 above]

‘Sva-dharma, etc. etc.’—the Person cognisant of Dharma and Adharma,—as posited by the Buddhist himself; when there is proving or denying of such a Person. The compound is to be taken as with the Locative ending. When there is (a) proving and (b) denying of such a person,—it becomes established whether the scripture composed by such a person is to be (a) accepted or (6) rejected, respectively.

What is meant is as follows:—If the Party postulating the said Person succeeds in proving that such a Person exists as his Instructor fully conversant with Dharma and Adharma,—then it becomes established that the scripture composed by him should be accepted; on the other hand, if the Party denying the said Person postulated by the other party as conversant with Dharma and Adharma only, succeeds in refuting the existence of such a Person,—it becomes proved that the Scripture composed by the said Person should be rejected;—when, however, one gives up all consideration of only Dharma and Adharma, and proceeds to compose treatises and carry on discussions, regarding the ‘Omniscient Person’ who is affirmed by one party as knowing all the minute details of the whole world, and is denied by the other party,—such attempt involves useless trouble.

The Locative ending at the end of the compound—‘Sarva, etc.’— connotes ‘for the purpose of’,—while that at the end of the compound ‘granthavādayoḥ’, it connotes the receptacle of the attempt.—(3140-3141)