Verse 3526-3527

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

तदा च वेदवाक्यानां स्वातन्त्र्येणार्थनिश्चयः ।
वेदात्स्वतः परस्माच्च मोहादिविवशात्मनः ॥ ३५२६ ॥
तेनाग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्स्वर्गकाम इति श्रुतेः ।
जिनः सर्वज्ञ इत्येवं नार्थ इत्यत्र का प्रमा ॥ ३५२७ ॥

tadā ca vedavākyānāṃ svātantryeṇārthaniścayaḥ |
vedātsvataḥ parasmācca mohādivivaśātmanaḥ || 3526 ||
tenāgnihotraṃ juhuyātsvargakāma iti śruteḥ |
jinaḥ sarvajña ityevaṃ nārtha ityatra kā pramā || 3527 ||

As regards the words of the Veda, as they are self-sufficient, their meaning could not be ascertained from the Veda itself;—nor from the learner by himself,—or from some other person,—who might be under the influence of delusion and other disabilities. Under the circumstances, how could there be any certainty regarding the assertion that—‘what is meant by the Vedic words—agnihotram juhuyāt svargakāmaḥ—is not that Jina is omniscient?—(3526-3527)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Then again, if you do not accept the Rescensional text called ‘Nimitta’ as Veda,—yet, even so, your assertion, that “the Omniscient Person is not mentioned in the Veda”, becomes doubtful at any rate.—This is what is pointed out in the following—[see verse 3526-3527 above]

The words of the Veda, on account of their eternality, must be self-sufficient, independent; hence what these words mean cannot be ascertained from the Veda itself; because the Veda nowhere says ‘My meaning is this—not that’;—nor could it be ascertained from the learner by himself;—or from some other person, in the shape of an expounder; because all these men, according to you, might be under the influence of Delusion and other disabilities.—Under the circumstances, it is quite possible to take the words relating to the Agnihotra as meaning that ‘the Blessed Lord is omniscient’,

‘Any certainty, etc. etc.’—i.e. no certainty at all.—(3526-3527)