Verse 3371-3373

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

उच्यते यदि वक्तृत्वं स्वतन्त्रं साधनं मतम् ।
तदानीमाश्रयासिद्धः सन्दिग्धासिद्धताऽथवा ॥ ३३७१ ॥
अस्य चार्थस्य सन्देहात्सन्दिग्धासिद्धता स्थिरा ।
प्रसङ्गसाधनं तस्मात्त्वया वक्तव्यमीदृशम् ॥ ३३७२ ॥
तत्र चागममात्रेण सिद्धो धर्मः प्रकाश्यते ।
नतु तद्भावसिद्ध्यर्थं ज्ञापकं विद्यते परम् ॥ ३३७३ ॥

ucyate yadi vaktṛtvaṃ svatantraṃ sādhanaṃ matam |
tadānīmāśrayāsiddhaḥ sandigdhāsiddhatā'thavā || 3371 ||
asya cārthasya sandehātsandigdhāsiddhatā sthirā |
prasaṅgasādhanaṃ tasmāttvayā vaktavyamīdṛśam || 3372 ||
tatra cāgamamātreṇa siddho dharmaḥ prakāśyate |
natu tadbhāvasiddhyarthaṃ jñāpakaṃ vidyate param || 3373 ||

Our answer is as follows:—if ‘speakership’ by itself, is meant to be the reason, then it is one whose substratum is unknown,—or its ‘inadmissibility’ is suspected. In fact, the exact connotation of the word being doubtful, the fact remains that it is one whose ‘inadmissibility’ is suspected. Consequently, if you have to urge such an argument, you can do so only as a reductio ad absurdum.—And in such an argument what has to be urged must be what is knowable only from the scriptures (of the other party); and there can be no other means of proving its existence.—(3371-3373)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

There are only two alternative views possible—(1) ‘speakership’ may he a Reason, independently by itself—or (2) it may be in the nature of a Reductio ad absurdum.—Under the former view, the substratum of the qualification would be ‘unknown’; hence the Reason would be ‘unknown’, ‘inadmissible’. If the substratum is meant to be, not qualified, but in general,—even so, until the ‘speakership’ has been proved to the satisfaction of the other party, its admissibility must remain doubtful; in accordance with the principle that a reason can prove a conclusion only when it is itself admitted by both parties.

‘Asya’—i.e. of ‘speakership’.

Thus in order to avoid this difficulty, you have to admit that what you have urged is only a Reductio ad absurdum. But even as regards this Reductio ad Absurdum, what has to be put forward as the Reason is only that character which cannot bear any scrutiny and what is knowable only from the scriptures of the other party; as the putting forward of such a Reason would expose the self-contradiction on the part of the opponent;—and no attempt should be made to prove such a character; as that could serve no useful purpose.

And so far as the case in question is concerned. ‘speakership’ is not a character knowable only from the scriptures of the other party. So that your Reason remains ‘Inadmissible’ under both alternatives.—(3371-3373)