Verse 3524-3525

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

जातिस्तत्रापि नित्या चन्नेनु साऽपि निराकृता ।
तन्मात्रवचने वाचो नाचाज्यादौ मतिर्भवेत् ॥ ३५२४ ॥
तस्यापि वचने वाचो नित्यता किं न हीयते ।
सर्वज्ञेऽप्याकृतिर्वास्तु तेन तत्परनित्यता ॥ ३५२५ ॥

jātistatrāpi nityā cannenu sā'pi nirākṛtā |
tanmātravacane vāco nācājyādau matirbhavet || 3524 ||
tasyāpi vacane vāco nityatā kiṃ na hīyate |
sarvajñe'pyākṛtirvāstu tena tatparanityatā || 3525 ||

If it is urged that—“in these cases also, there is the universal, which is eternal”,—then (the answer is that) that also has been discarded. Then again, if the word expresses the universal alone, then it cannot bring about the cognition of the particular things, clarified butter and the rest. If it expresses this latter also, then does it not lose its eternality? Further, in regard to the omniscient person also, the scriptural word could retain its eternality in the same way, even though denoting the person (who is not-eternal).—(3524-3525)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[The other Party says]—“In the case of the Clarified Butter and other things, there is the Universal which is expressed by the word; so that there could be no incongruity”.

This cannot be right; because under the chapter on the ‘Universal’, the Universal has been rejected in detail.

Granting that the Universal is there; even so, as the word ‘Clarified Butter’ would express the Universal only, it could not bring about the notion of the Individual; and in that case, the denoting of the Universal would be useless, so far as that man is concerned who seeks to do some act that could be accomplished only through the Individual.

“The Individual is cognised because it is unseparable from the Universal”.

That cannot be; because, as a matter of fact, there is no such remoteness in the Cognition. That is to say, it does not so happen that when the word is uttered, the Cognition that comes about first is that of the Universal,—and then later on, follows the Cognition of the Individual as inseparable from that Universal. What actually happens in ordinary experience is that the Cognition of the usefully effective thing (which is the individual) follows from the word immediately (directly); in fact, people use the word for the purpose of speaking of that useful thing itself. Hence it cannot be right to say that “the Cognition of the Individual does not follow from the word directly”.

If the word denoted the Universal only, and not the Individual, then a sane man would not be prompted to activity by the Word which denotes something not connected with that activity,—and such a word would be like the Injunction of milking the Bull!

If, in order to avoid this contingency, it is admitted that there is denotation of the thing in its individual aspect also,—then how would the Veda escape from the contingency of losing its etemality?

Further, it may be that primarily the words denote Universals;—and there is denotation of Individuals only as inseparable from Universals. Even so, however, there would be nothing incongruous in the Scripture speaking of the Omniscient Person being eternal.—This is what the Author points out in the words—‘Then too, in regard, etc. etc.’ That is to say, even when the Omniscient Person is one only, a multiplicity might be assumed on the basis of varying states; and thereby it would be possible for Him to be spoken by means of a word denotative of the Universal;—what to say then when there is an immeasurable line of Omniscient Persons?—(3524-3525)