Verse 3265-3267

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

स्वर्गयागादयस्तस्मात्स्वतो ज्ञात्वा प्रकाशिताः ।
वेदकारस्तवाप्यस्ति तादृशोऽतीन्द्रियार्थदृक् ॥ ३२६५ ॥
प्रधानपुरुषार्थज्ञः सर्वधर्मज्ञ एव वा ।
तस्यानुपगमे न स्याद्वेदप्रामाण्यमन्यथा ॥ ३२६६ ॥
तेनार्थापत्तिलब्धेन धर्मज्ञोपगमेन तु ।
बाध्यते तन्निषेधोऽयं बिस्तरेण कृतस्त्वया ॥ ३२६७ ॥

svargayāgādayastasmātsvato jñātvā prakāśitāḥ |
vedakārastavāpyasti tādṛśo'tīndriyārthadṛk || 3265 ||
pradhānapuruṣārthajñaḥ sarvadharmajña eva vā |
tasyānupagame na syādvedaprāmāṇyamanyathā || 3266 ||
tenārthāpattilabdhena dharmajñopagamena tu |
bādhyate tanniṣedho'yaṃ bistareṇa kṛtastvayā || 3267 ||

From this it follows that things like heaven, sacrifice and the like have been spoken of by the person who knew them by himself. In fact, under your view also the author of the Veda would be such a person capable of perceiving supersensuous things;—or a person who knows all about primordial matter, spirit and other things; or one who knows of all things.—In fact, if such an author were not

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued that—“The Perceiver of Dharma cannot exist, because the only means of Cognition by which his existence can be envisaged is ‘Non-apprehension’ (Negation).”

In answer to this, the. Buddhist is going to show from the other party’s own point of view, that this Proposition that ‘there can be no Perceiver of Dharma’ is annulled by Presumption, and the Reason adduced (‘because envisaged by non-apprehension’) is Inadmissible:—[see verse 3265-3267 above]

‘By Himself’—independently of all else; i.e. independently of the knowledge provided by the Veda.

‘Such a Person’—i.e. the like of whom yon are denying.

‘Brought about by Presumption’;—i.e. by the force of the doctrine that the Veda is reliable.

It is on this ground that the opponent’s Reason—‘because He is envisaged by Negation’—becomes Inadmissible; because He is actually envisaged by Presumption.—(3265-3267)