Verse 3467-3472

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

नैकत्र परिनिष्ठाऽस्ति ज्ञानस्य पुरुषे क्वचित् ।
इतीदमपि वाङ्मात्रमहेतुकमुदाहृतम् ॥ ३४६७ ॥
स्वसमानथवा सत्त्वानविशुद्धधियो जडान् ।
अधिकृत्य तथा वाक्यमृतुपर्णेन कीर्त्तितम् ॥ ३४६८ ॥
प्रमाणं विस्तरेणोक्तं सर्वज्ञस्य च सम्भवे ।
बाधकं च प्रतिक्षिप्तं तस्य पूर्वं परोदितम् ॥ ३४६९ ॥
अनुक्तेऽप्यथवा तस्मिंस्तस्य सम्भवसाधने ।
बाधकापोहमात्रेण गम्यते तस्य सम्भवः ॥ ३४७० ॥
तथाहि बाधके(ऽ)दृष्टे साधके चाप्रकाशिते ।
संशयो जायते तेन याति सम्भावनामसौ ॥ ३४७१ ॥
तस्मिन्सम्भाव्यमाने च नियमस्तेन सिद्ध्यति ।
वेदेनैव स्वतन्त्रेण धर्मो लक्ष्यत इत्ययम् ॥ ३४७२ ॥

naikatra pariniṣṭhā'sti jñānasya puruṣe kvacit |
itīdamapi vāṅmātramahetukamudāhṛtam || 3467 ||
svasamānathavā sattvānaviśuddhadhiyo jaḍān |
adhikṛtya tathā vākyamṛtuparṇena kīrttitam || 3468 ||
pramāṇaṃ vistareṇoktaṃ sarvajñasya ca sambhave |
bādhakaṃ ca pratikṣiptaṃ tasya pūrvaṃ paroditam || 3469 ||
anukte'pyathavā tasmiṃstasya sambhavasādhane |
bādhakāpohamātreṇa gamyate tasya sambhavaḥ || 3470 ||
tathāhi bādhake(')dṛṣṭe sādhake cāprakāśite |
saṃśayo jāyate tena yāti sambhāvanāmasau || 3471 ||
tasminsambhāvyamāne ca niyamastena siddhyati |
vedenaiva svatantreṇa dharmo lakṣyata ityayam || 3472 ||

As a matter of fact, there is no limit to the knowledge of man. Hence the statement in question is a mere assertion made without any reason.—(3467)

Or, it may be that the statement made by ṛtuparṇa was with reference to common dull-witted persons like himself, whose minds have not been purified.—In support of the possibility of there being an omniscient person, we have already stated the proof in detail;—arguments to the contrary brought forward by other parties have also been refuted.—In fact, even if the proof in support of his existence had not been put forward, the mere annulment of the arguments to the contrary would have established the probability of his existence. Because where nothing against a certain idea is perceived, nor anything in support of it,—there arises a doubt regarding it; which indicates its probability. In fact, it is only when this probability is there, that there can be such an assertion to the contrary (made by the mīmāṃsaka) as that—“it is by means of the Veda alone that dharma can be known”.—(3468-3472)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 3467]:

As regards Ṛtuparṇa’s assertion, quoted under Texts 3172-3173—to the effect that—“All men do not know all things, etc. etc.”,—that also is a mere assertion made without reasons.—This is what is pointed out in the following—[see verse 3467 above]

Or, it may be that the statement made by Ṛtuparṇa is in regard to men like ourselves; in that case, there being no incompatibility between this view and our doctrine of the Omniscient Person,—it has no bearing on the present discussion.—This is what is pointed out in the following—[see verses 3468-3472 above]

[verses 3468-3472]:

‘Svasamān’—People like—similar to—himself.—(3468-3472)