Verse 3142-3144

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

सर्वप्रमातृसम्बद्धप्रत्यक्षादिनिवारणात् ।
केवलागमगम्यत्वं लप्स्यते पुण्यपापयोः ॥ ३१४२ ॥
एतावतैव मीमांसापक्षे सिद्धेऽपि यःपुनः ।
सर्वज्ञवारणे यत्नस्तत्कृतं मृतमारणम् ॥ ३१४३ ॥
येऽपि विच्छिन्नमूलत्वाद्धर्मज्ञत्वे हते सति ।
सर्वज्ञान्पुरुषानाहुस्तैः कृतं तुषकण्डनम् ॥ ३१४४ ॥

sarvapramātṛsambaddhapratyakṣādinivāraṇāt |
kevalāgamagamyatvaṃ lapsyate puṇyapāpayoḥ || 3142 ||
etāvataiva mīmāṃsāpakṣe siddhe'pi yaḥpunaḥ |
sarvajñavāraṇe yatnastatkṛtaṃ mṛtamāraṇam || 3143 ||
ye'pi vicchinnamūlatvāddharmajñatve hate sati |
sarvajñānpuruṣānāhustaiḥ kṛtaṃ tuṣakaṇḍanam || 3144 ||

“Perception and other means of cognition regarding the omniscient person having been discarded, it would follow that morality and immorality are cognisable through scripture (reliable word) only.—This alone being sufficient to establish the doctrine of the Mīmāṃsaka, if an effort is made to refute the existence of the omniscient person, it is like an attempt to kill what is already dead. The ‘person cognisant of dharma’ having been rejected, on the ground of his very root being cut off,—if people go on asserting the existence of omniscient persons, it is like the thumping of husks.”—(3142-3144)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The following might be urged—If there is no Person cognisant of Dharma and Adharma, then how can people have any idea of what is moral, good and what is immoral, evil?

The Mīmāṃsaka’s answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3142-3144 above]

‘Kevalāgama, etc. etc.’—i.e. being cognisable through the reliable Word only.—Though the term ‘āgama’ connotes the reliable word in general, yet, here, by implication, it should be taken as standing for that Word (or Scripture) which does not emanate from Man.

‘This alone, etc. etc.’—That is, only by the rejection of the Person cognisant of Dharma, the Mīmāṃsaka’s doctrine, that ‘Dharma is that beneficial thing which is indicated by the Veda’, becomes established; even so, if we make further repeated efforts—as shown later on—for rejecting the Omniscient Person, it is useless; the desired result having been already achieved, such further Effort is like the killing of what is already dead.

The Omniscient Person having been rejected, if the Buddhists still make attempts to prove his existence, that also,—as not bringing about the desired result,—is like the thumping of husks, by the person seeking for Rice; involving needless labour. Just as in the case cited, after the rice has been removed, if the man seeking for rice proceeds to thump the husks, it is entirely useless,—so also, when the main factor of the Person cognisant of Dharma, etc. has been set aside, if the Buddhist proceeds to prove the existence of the Person knowing all the little details that go to make up the world, which is of no use in regard to the main factor,—such attempt is entirely useless. Herein lies the similarity to the thumping of husks.

‘On account of their very root having been cut off’,—i.e. of whom the main point, regarding the knowledge of Dharma and Adharma, has been refuted.—(3142-3144)