Verse 2.644-645

Sanskrit text and transliteration:

कथं वेदार्थतैतस्य न चेद्वाक्यार्थ इष्यते ॥ ६४४ ॥
पुंव्यापाराधीनत्वान्न नियोगादयं भवेत् ।
पदार्थानन्वयान्नापि वाक्योत्थो बोध आत्मनि ॥ ६४५ ॥

kathaṃ vedārthataitasya na cedvākyārtha iṣyate || 644 ||
puṃvyāpārādhīnatvānna niyogādayaṃ bhavet |
padārthānanvayānnāpi vākyottho bodha ātmani || 645 ||

English translation of verse 2.644-645:

(Objection:) If Brahman is not denoted by a sentence, how can it be the subject of Vedic teaching? (The Niyogavādin replies:) “Because of your command, Brahman will not be the import of a sentence, for the latter is not dependent on the effort of man. The Self is not comprehended by the knowledge which arises from a sentence, because it is not conveyed by the sense of a word.”

Notes:

What sense a sentence conveys is not, says the Niyogavādin, dependent on the will of a person. One cannot decide according to one’s liking that “This is the meaning of a sentence.” Because of somebody’s command, Brahman will not be the sense conveyed by a sentence (vākyārtha).

It is no argument to say that, just as dharma is both vedārtha and vākyārtha, so also Brahman could be both vedārtha and vākyārtha. There is, says the Niyogavādin, a basic difference between the two cases. What is possible in the case of dharma is not possible in the case of Brahman. Dharma can be the sense conveyed by a word (padārtha), and so it can also be the sense conveyed by a sentence (vākyārtha). But Brahman cannot be the sense conveyed by a word. It can be referred to by a word only if it has certain features like jāti, guṇa, relation, etc., necessary for the usage of a word. Since Brahman has none of these, it cannot be referred to by a word: Brahman, that is to say, is apadārtha. Since it is apadārtha, it cannot be vākyārtha. Summarising the position of the Niyogavādin, Ānandagiri writes: padasya-arthatvena brahmānanvayād-brahmaṇo'padārthatvād-dharmavailakṣaṇyānna vākyajanyajñānagamyatvam.