Verse 3293-3295

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

केचिदर्वाग्दृशो वाऽपि प्रपश्यन्तेऽनुमानतः ।
काश्चिदेव हि केषांचिन्निपुणा मतयः क्वचित् ॥ ३२९३ ॥
तथाहि वेदभूम्यादेः क्षणिकत्वादिसाधनम् ।
पुरः प्रोक्तं सुविस्पष्टमपि नो लक्षितं जडैः ॥ ३२९४ ॥
तदेवं शङ्कया नास्य ज्ञानाभावोऽपि निश्चितः ।
यतोऽसत्त्वं प्रपश्यन्ते निर्विशङ्का हि जातयः ॥ ३२९५ ॥

kecidarvāgdṛśo vā'pi prapaśyante'numānataḥ |
kāścideva hi keṣāṃcinnipuṇā matayaḥ kvacit || 3293 ||
tathāhi vedabhūmyādeḥ kṣaṇikatvādisādhanam |
puraḥ proktaṃ suvispaṣṭamapi no lakṣitaṃ jaḍaiḥ || 3294 ||
tadevaṃ śaṅkayā nāsya jñānābhāvo'pi niścitaḥ |
yato'sattvaṃ prapaśyante nirviśaṅkā hi jātayaḥ || 3295 ||

Even some men with limited vision do apprehend the omniscient person through inference; and it is only a few notions of some people that are perfectly correct. For instance, the proof of the momentary character of the veda, the earth and other things though clearly stated by us, has not been understood by dull-witted men. Consequently, the matter is open to doubt and the absence of apprehension cannot be certain,—simply because some people are sure that they! perceive his non-existence.—(3293-3295)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

So far it has been proved that ‘Non-apprehension’ as the proof (for the non-existence of the Omniscient Person) is ‘Inconclusive’ as well as ‘Inadmissible’,—Now the author proceeds to show that the other Reason—‘Because His body is envisaged by the only means of Cognition, Negation’—is ‘doubtful—hence—inadmissible’:—[see verses 3293-3295 above]

There are some clever men, even among men with limited vision, who do apprehend the Omniscient Person by means of Inference; hence the probability of His existence being there, the Reason—‘because He forms the object of Negation as the Means of knowledge’—is open to the charge of being ‘Doubtful—hence—Inadmissible—For instance, the fact of such things as the Vedic Word, the Earth, Mountains, Body, Diamond and the rest, being momentary and Soul-less—though it is not apprehended by the beastly Mīmāṃsakas,—is true, as proved by us through strong reasons. So that if, in regard to the Omniscient Person, proof is not found at the present moment, yet as His existence is probable, the matter may be in doubt; hence it cannot be admitted that the said Person is subject only to Negation, which consists in the absence of all the other five Means of Cognition;—such a Reason being open to doubt.

‘Became’—there being no proof of it.—(3293-3295)

Then again, it may be that all men with limited vision are not capable of inferring the existence of the Omniscient Person; even so, the Reason of the other party remains Inconclusive.—This is pointed out in the following.—[see verse 3296 next]