Verse 3593-3596

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

एकदेशज्ञगीतं तु न स्यात्सर्वज्ञभाषितम् ।
इत्यत्रापि पुरा प्रोक्तं सर्वज्ञानान्वयादिति ॥ ३५९३ ॥
यथैवेष्टादिकानर्थाननुभूयाल्पदर्शनः ।
चेतस्यारोप्य तान्पश्चात्प्रवक्त्यनुभवाश्रयान् ॥ ३५९४ ॥
न च तद्वचनं तस्य तद्वस्तुज्ञानजन्म न ।
एवं सर्वज्ञवाक्यं स्याद्धेतुभेदात्तु भिद्यते ॥ ३५९५ ॥
समस्तवस्तुविज्ञानमस्य कारणतां गतम् ।
किञ्चिन्मात्रार्थविज्ञानं निमित्तं तस्य तु स्थितम् ॥ ३५९६ ॥

ekadeśajñagītaṃ tu na syātsarvajñabhāṣitam |
ityatrāpi purā proktaṃ sarvajñānānvayāditi || 3593 ||
yathaiveṣṭādikānarthānanubhūyālpadarśanaḥ |
cetasyāropya tānpaścātpravaktyanubhavāśrayān || 3594 ||
na ca tadvacanaṃ tasya tadvastujñānajanma na |
evaṃ sarvajñavākyaṃ syāddhetubhedāttu bhidyate || 3595 ||
samastavastuvijñānamasya kāraṇatāṃ gatam |
kiñcinmātrārthavijñānaṃ nimittaṃ tasya tu sthitam || 3596 ||

As regards the argument that “what is asserted by one who knows only a part cannot be regarded as the assertion of the omniscient person”,—the answer to this has already been given, that it would be due to the actual presence of the knowledge of all things.—(3593)

The man of limited vision, having perceived a few desirable things, fixes them in his mind, and subsequently describes them, on the basis of those perceptions;—and yet it is not that his words do not proceed from his knowledge of those things; the same would be the case with the assertion of the omniscient person; the difference would lie in the difference between the basis of the two assertions.—(3594-3595)

What forms the source of the words (of Buddha) is the knowledge of all things; while the source of the words of the other person consists in the knowledge of only a few things.—(3596).

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 3593]:

It has been argued under Text 3240, that—“What has been asserted by one who knows only a part cannot be the assertion of the Omniscient Person”.

The following Text points out that this also has been already answered:—[see verse 3593 above]

The same explanation is reiterated in the following—[see verses 3594-3595 above]

[verses 3594-3595]:

‘The man of limited vision’—i.e. one who is not omniscient.

‘Proceed from his knowledge, etc. etc.’—the knowledge of those things—Heart, etc.—from which proceeds the assertion. The two negatives ‘na-na’ indicate that the words do proceed from the said knowledge of the things.

‘The same, etc. etc.’—That also would be reliable as proceeding from the said actual knowledge.

Question:—“If this is so, then what would be the difference between the words of the man who knows little and the words of Buddha, the Omniscient?”

Answer:—‘The difference would lie, etc. etc.’—(3594-3595)

The same idea is further clarified:—[see verse 3596 above]

‘Asya’—of the words of Buddha.

‘Tasya’—of the words of the man who knows only a part of things.—(3596)