Verse 3455-3457

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

श्रुत्वा नचान्यतः प्रोक्तं तुल्यपर्यनुयोगतः ।
न यदृच्छाविसंवादिरूपमीदृक् च भावितम् ॥ ३४५५ ॥
देशनैवम्परैवेयं नान्यहेतूपकल्पना ।
हेत्वन्तरकृतायां हि वृत्तौ तन्नाम शङ्क्यते ॥ ३४५६ ॥
पिपासाकुलचित्तस्य वाहिनीमुपसर्पतः ।
तथा विद्रुमसम्प्राप्तेर्युक्ता यादृच्छिकी स्थितिः ॥ ३४५७ ॥

śrutvā nacānyataḥ proktaṃ tulyaparyanuyogataḥ |
na yadṛcchāvisaṃvādirūpamīdṛk ca bhāvitam || 3455 ||
deśanaivamparaiveyaṃ nānyahetūpakalpanā |
hetvantarakṛtāyāṃ hi vṛttau tannāma śaṅkyate || 3456 ||
pipāsākulacittasya vāhinīmupasarpataḥ |
tathā vidrumasamprāpteryuktā yādṛcchikī sthitiḥ || 3457 ||

Nor could he derive his knowledge by hearing it as asserted by another person; as the case of the latter also would be open to the same objections.—Nor can the conformity (of the teaching) with the real state of things be merely accidental. Because the teaching is avowedly in regard to dharma; hence it could not be attributed to any other motive; and it is only when something has been done with a different motive that such ‘accident’ may be suspected; e.g. when a thirsty man is going in search of the river,—if he comes by a tree, that can be said to be ‘accidental’,—(3455-3457)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It might be said that—“His knowledge has been derived from the assertions of another person”,—But that cannot be right, as the case of this latter also would be open to the same objections. For instance, the following consideration arises here also: How did the other person know it? There can be no teaching, without knowledge;—if he learnt it from another person;—and so on, there would be an infinite regress; thus there being a case of the blind following the blind, all would have to be regarded as ignorant, and no teaching would be right and sound. This has bèen thus declared.—‘In regard to such matters (as Dharma), the assertion of man cannot be reliable, as it would be like the assertion of the blind regarding colour.’

The following might be urged—“The Conformity of the Teaching to the real state of things might be purely accidental”.

The answer to this is that—‘Nor can, etc. etc.’—The compound is to be expounded as—that of which accidental conformity is the character. It is only when the effort made for one thing leads one to another thing that the conformity to this latter may be accidental; e.g. when a man is going along in search of the river-side, if he comes by the shade of the tree. In the case in question, however, the Teaching has not been imparted with any other motive; as the Blessed Lord has clearly introduced His teaching with the words—‘O Bhikṣus, I shall now teach you Dharma’, and then proceeded to expound His Teachings regarding Dharma and other matters; so that it is clear that His teaching has not proceeded with any other motive.

‘Vāhinī’ is River;—‘Vidruma’ is Tree,—or Coral.—(3455-3457)