Verse 3601-3605

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

इत्यादि कीर्त्त्यमानं तु श्रद्दधानेषु शोभते ।
प्रकृतार्थानुरूपेण प्रोक्तं नैतद्द्विजातिना ॥ ३६०१ ॥
तथा(ऽ)व्याप्तश्च सर्वार्थैः शक्तो नैवोपदेशने ।
इत्येतत्प्रकृतं ह्यत्र तत्र चाहुर्महाधियः ॥ ३६०२ ॥
तस्योपदेशने शक्तिर्न स्याच्चेत्किं तदा भवेत् ।
ततो भवद्भिर्वक्तव्यमागमो न भवेदिति ॥ ३६०३ ॥
तत्राप्याहुर्भवत्वेवं किं दृष्टोऽसौ त्वया वदन् ।
प्रसङ्गसाधनेनेदमनिष्टं चोद्यते यदि ॥ ३६०४ ॥
न चेद्वक्तृत्वमिष्येत नागमोपगमो भवेत् ।
तत्प्रणेतागमेष्टौ तु तस्य वक्तृत्वमिष्यताम् ॥ ३६०५ ॥

ityādi kīrttyamānaṃ tu śraddadhāneṣu śobhate |
prakṛtārthānurūpeṇa proktaṃ naitaddvijātinā || 3601 ||
tathā(')vyāptaśca sarvārthaiḥ śakto naivopadeśane |
ityetatprakṛtaṃ hyatra tatra cāhurmahādhiyaḥ || 3602 ||
tasyopadeśane śaktirna syāccetkiṃ tadā bhavet |
tato bhavadbhirvaktavyamāgamo na bhavediti || 3603 ||
tatrāpyāhurbhavatvevaṃ kiṃ dṛṣṭo'sau tvayā vadan |
prasaṅgasādhanenedamaniṣṭaṃ codyate yadi || 3604 ||
na cedvaktṛtvamiṣyeta nāgamopagamo bhavet |
tatpraṇetāgameṣṭau tu tasya vaktṛtvamiṣyatām || 3605 ||

When the Brāhmaṇa (opponent) has asserted—that “such assertions sound well only when addressed to people imbued with faith”,—he has not said anything relevant to the subject under consideration.—(3601)

The subject under consideration was the statement that “the omniscient person, being excluded from all things, could not be able to impart teachings”.—To this, the wise men made the answer—‘if he had no power to impart teachings, what would happen?’—The proper rejoinder for you should have been that—“in that case there would be no reliable scripture”.—What you have asserted is—“it may be so, but have you seen him actually speaking?”—Now if, in this, you are urging a reductio ad absurdum against us, then it should only mean as follows:—“If his speakership is not admitted, then there could be no getting at the scripture; hence if the scripture composed by him is admitted, his speaker ship also will have to be admitted.”—(3602-3605)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

[verse 3601]:

It has been argued, under Text 3243, that—“such assertions sound well only when addressed to people imbued with faith,—we, however, are wanting in that faith, and hence ask for reasons”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 3601 above]

Question:—“Why? What is the subject under consideration,—to which our remark is not relevant?”

Answer:—[see verses 3602-3605 above]

[verses 3602-3605]:

The Author thinks that the Opponent will say that—“what I have asserted is only a Reductio ad Absurdum, and not an independent argument by itself”;—and consequently he proceeds to lend support to the idea that what the Opponent has urged is a Reductio ad Absurdum, with the words ‘what you have asserted, etc. etc.’—What you have asserted is that—“Being excluded from all things, the Person could not have the capacity to teach”; in connection with this, you have to be asked—He may not have the capacity to teach, what is the harm in that?—Being thus asked, what the Opponent would say, the Author himself states—‘The proper rejoinder for you should have been that in that case there would be no reliable Scripture’.—The answer to this rejoinder is—There may be no reliable Scripture, what is the incongruity in that?—He has not been seen speaking, by which there would be incompatibility with a perceived fact.—Being thus questioned, you should have said—“I am not proving His speakership after having myself seen that the Scripture had been composed by Him; you yourself regard your Scripture as composed by Him; and this is not possible if you do not admit His speaker-ship; hence when you must insist upon the fact of the Scripture having been composed by Him, you must admit His speakership also”.—This is the undesirable contingency that is presented to the Buddhist by means of the Reductio ad Absurdum.—(3602-3605)