Verse 3503-3505

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

दृश्यते न च सर्वज्ञ इदानीमिति किं ( यत् ? )त्वया ।
अथ सर्वैरिति प्रोक्तं विस्तरेणेह दूषणम् ॥ ३५०३ ॥
भावत्कोऽनुपलम्भो हि केवलो व्यभिचारवान् ।
सर्वान्यदृग्निवृत्तिस्तु संदिग्धेति न साधनम् ॥ ३५०४ ॥
निराकरणवच्छक्या न चासीदिति कल्पना ।
इत्ययुक्तमतीतेऽपि तन्निराकृत्ययोगतः ॥ ३५०५ ॥

dṛśyate na ca sarvajña idānīmiti kiṃ ( yat ? )tvayā |
atha sarvairiti proktaṃ vistareṇeha dūṣaṇam || 3503 ||
bhāvatko'nupalambho hi kevalo vyabhicāravān |
sarvānyadṛgnivṛttistu saṃdigdheti na sādhanam || 3504 ||
nirākaraṇavacchakyā na cāsīditi kalpanā |
ityayuktamatīte'pi tannirākṛtyayogataḥ || 3505 ||

As regards the argument that the omniscient person is not seen at the present time—by you or by all men,—this has been already answered in detail. As regards non-perception by you, that, by itself, is ‘fallible’, ‘inconclusive’, as regards non-perception by all other men, that must remain always doubtful.—(3503-3504)

“His existence in the past cannot be presumed in the way in which his non-existence has been presumed”—This assertion in regard even to the past cannot be right; because such denial is impossible.—(3505)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verses 3503-3504]:

It has been argued under Text 3186 that,—“The Omniscient Person is not seen by us at the present time, etc. etc.”

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3503-3504 above]

[verse 3505]:

It has been argued further by Kumārila (Ślokavārtika) that—“That He existed in the past cannot be presumed in the way in which it is presumed that He did not exist in the past”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 3505 above]

The assertion that—“The denial can be made to the effect that the Omniscient Person did not exist in the past,—in the same way, it cannot be presumed that He did exist in the past”;—Such an assertion is most improper; because even in reference to the past, the denial of the said Person is not possible.—The term ‘even’ implies that it is not possible in reference to the Present and the Future also. It has been already pointed out that the mere fact that a certain thing is not seen cannot justify the conclusion that it does not exist.—(3505)