Verse 3482-3484

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

अतो न वेदवाक्यानां पारतन्त्र्यात्प्रमाणता ।
अपश्यतां स्वयं धर्मं वक्तॄणामपि नैव सा ॥ ३४८२ ॥
तदीदृशां प्रवक्तॄणां कल्प्यमानाप्यनादिता ।
अप्रामाण्यपदस्थत्वान्नास्तिकादेर्न भिद्यते ॥ ३४८३ ॥
तदज्ञाततदज्ञानविशेषत्वात्सर्वं यात्यत्र तुल्यताम् ।
न मानत्वाप्रमाणत्वे स्यातामेवमनादिनी ॥ ३४८४ ॥

ato na vedavākyānāṃ pāratantryātpramāṇatā |
apaśyatāṃ svayaṃ dharmaṃ vaktṝṇāmapi naiva sā || 3482 ||
tadīdṛśāṃ pravaktṝṇāṃ kalpyamānāpyanāditā |
aprāmāṇyapadasthatvānnāstikāderna bhidyate || 3483 ||
tadajñātatadajñānaviśeṣatvātsarvaṃ yātyatra tulyatām |
na mānatvāpramāṇatve syātāmevamanādinī || 3484 ||

In this way, the Vedic sentences, being dependent upon other things, cannot be reliable.—As regards the expounders, as they do not themselves perceive dharma, these also can never be reliable. Of such expounders, even though beginninglessness may be postulated, it would be in a position that is not reliable; and hence it would not be different in character from the beginninglessness of the unbelievers and others. Thus there being no difference discernible, all this comes to be on the same footing; so that neither reliability nor unreliability would be beginningless.—(3482-3484) 

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘Can never be reliable’—That is Reliability can never be theirs.

When, in this way, the Vedic Sentences themselves, being dependent upon other things, cannot be reliable,—their Expounders would be like a group of blind people, having no knowledge of dharma; and as such these also would be unreliable.

Thus what has been asserted by the other party, to the effect, that—“Reliability (Validity) and Unreliability (Invalidity) would thus be beginningless”,—cannot be right.—This is what is pointed out by the words—‘Na māmtvāpramāṇatve, etc. etc.’—Only if the reliability of the Expounders and the Veda had been established, could the said Reliability be beginningless; as a matter of fact, however, that itself has not been established; hence it is not right to assert that both these are beginningless.—(3482-3484)