sanskrit
stringlengths 4
615
| english
stringlengths 2
1.3k
|
|---|---|
[p.648] athāpītyādinā yadavikalakāraṇam ityasya hetor asiddhatām āśaṅkate athāpi sahakārīṇi vyākhyādīni vyapekṣate / | The Author next points out another objection against the idea of cognitions appearing simultaneously: [see verse 2362 above] In the following Text, the author puts forward a likely explanation to meet the argument that ‘when the efficient cause of a thing is present, that thing must appear’; |
vyākhyādīnītyādiśabdena saṅketādiparigrahaḥ / teṣāṃ ceti vyākhyādīnām // | [verse 2363]: The ‘etc.’ is meant to include Conventions. ‘These’ stands for the explanations. This objection is answered in the following: [see verse 2364 above] |
naivam ityādinā pariharati / | [verse 2364]: |
asamartho hi paramapekṣeta tataḥ samarthasvabhāvotpādalipsāyām / | It is only when something is inefficient by itself, that it needs the help of others in securing the required efficiency; |
yastu samarthas tasya na kiñcit svabhāvavaikalyamastīti kīdṛśī tasya vyapekṣā / | when, however, a thing is quite efficient by itself, there is no imperfection in its character; what sort of need or dependence could there be in that case? |
atha prāgasamarthaḥ sahakārikāraṇayogāt paścāt samartho bhavatītyabhyupeyate, tadā jahatu bhavanto vede nityatāśām // | If it be held that at first it is inefficient, but subsequently, it becomes efficient through the contact of contributory causes, then you had better give up all hope for the eternality of the Veda! (2364) |
katham ity āha prāgaśakta ityādi / | Question: “How so?” Answer: [see verse 2365 next] |
prāgaśaktaḥ samarthaś ca yadi taiḥ kriyate punaḥ / prasaktaḥ pauruṣeyo 'yaṃ jñānāṅgaṃ hi narāśrayāt // | If it was previously inefficient, and is made efficient by the explanations, then it becomes a source of knowledge through the help of personalities, and hence the work of a person. |
śakter avyatirekād iti bhāvaḥ / | The underlying idea is that the efficiency or potency is not something apart from the Veda itself; |
vyatireke tu sambandhāsiddher vedasyākārakatvaprasaṅgaḥ, śakter eva kāryotpatter iti vācyam / | if it were something different, then as there would be no connection between the Veda and the efficiency, the Veda would not be an active agent at all; as effects are produced from efficiency only, |
jñānasyāṅgaṃ yo bhavati vedaḥ sa narāśrayāj jātaḥ, vedasvarūpaṃ ca narāśrayāj jātaṃ, tac ca vedāvyatirekāt, so 'pi jāta eva // | ‘Source of knowledge’ The Veda as source of knowledge, comes to be born of Personalities; the form of the Veda itself becomes born of Personalities; and as all this is not different from the Veda, the Veda itself becomes ‘born of personalities’. |
kiñca na kevalaṃ parāpekṣāyām anityatvaprasaṅgaḥ, apauruṣeyatvakalpanā na vyarthā prāpnotīti darśayann āha nahītyādi / | Further, it is not only that by dependence upon something else, the Veda becomes non-eternal; the assumption that it is not the work of an author also becomes futile. This is shown in the following: [see verses 2365-2368 next] |
nahi tāvat sthito 'pyeṣa jñānaṃ vedaḥ karoti naḥ / | The Veda, as it stands, provides no knowledge to us, until it is illuminated (explained) by persons who act as lamps. |
yāvan na puruṣair eva dīpabhūtaiḥ prakāśitaḥ // tataś cāpauruṣeyatvaṃ bhūtārthajñānakāraṇam / na kalpyaṃ jñānam etad dhi puṃvyākhyānāt pravartate // | Consequently there is no reason for the assumption that what brings about the knowledge of things is something which is not the work of a person; because the knowledge in question does proceed from the explanations provided by persons. Thus the character of not being the work of a person, even though it may be present in the veda, is of no use; |
yadiṣṭaṃ phalam asyā hi jñānaṃ tat puruṣāśritam // | because the only result produced by the Veda i.e. knowledge is dependent upon persons. |
[p.649] yathārthajñānārtham asyāpauruṣeyatā kalpyate / | The idea that the Veda is not the work of a Person is postulated for the purpose of showing that the knowledge provided by it must be right; |
sā ca kalpanāpi na puruṣanirapekṣā tajjñānotpādane samartheti vyarthā tat kalpanā / | this assumption also is not independent of personalities in providing that knowledge, hence the assumption is entirely futile. |
puruṣā eva pramāṇabhūtāḥ praṇetāro yathārthajñānakāraṇaṃ santu / kimidānīm apauruṣeyatayā siddhopasthāyinyā // | In fact, the Persons, as authors of the Veda, might very well be the reliable source of right knowledge, what is the use of assuming this independence of Personalities, which, after all, is itself dependent on personalities? (2365-2368) |
śaktaścet sarvadaivāyaṃ tat kimanyadapekṣate / śaktaikahetubhāve tu jñānaṃ syād eva tena vaḥ // | If the Veda is always efficient (to produce knowledge), then why should it require anything else? The required knowledge would be forthcoming for you from the presence of that single efficient cause. |
syād etat puruṣāpekṣāyāṃ nāpauruṣeyatā vyarthāyate / | The following might be urged “Even if the help of Personalities is needed, the idea of freedom from Personalities does not become futile; |
yathāvasthita evārthaḥ puruṣaiḥ prakāśyate nāpūrvaḥ kriyate / | because what is made clear (explained) by the Persons is the meaning as it is there already, they do not produce anything new; |
apūrvakaraṇe hi svātantryam eṣām abhyupagataṃ syāt / | if they produced something new, then alone would the independence of those Persons become admitted; |
tataś ca rāgādibhirupaplutā viparītārthāṃ śrutimāracayantaḥ kena pratibadhyeran / | and in that case, being beset with attachment and other Defects, if they were to set about producing Vedic texts giving expression to wrong ideas, how could they be prevented?” |
tadetad vyākhyāyām api puruṣaiḥ kriyamāṇāyāṃ doṣajātaṃ samānam iti darśayann āha svatantrā ityādi / | The answer is that all these contingencies would arise also under the view that the knowledge of the meaning of Vedic Sentences is brought about by the explanations provided by Persons. This is what is shown in the following: [see verses 2370-2371 next] |
svatantrāḥ puruṣāśceha vede vyākhyāṃ yathāruci / kurvāṇāḥ pratibaddhuṃ te śakyante naiva kenacit // | Persons, being free agents, proceeding to explain the Veda, according to their whims, could never be checked by any one. |
mohamānādibhir doṣair ato 'mī viplutāḥ śruteḥ / viparītām api vyākhyāṃ kuryur ityabhiśaṅkyate // | consequently, being beset with such defects as delusion, vanity, etc., they might provide wrong explanations of the Veda. there is room for such a suspicion. |
api ca na vedārthasyātīndriyārthasya kaścit svātantryeṇa parijñātā naro 'bhyupagato yo vedārthamākhyāsyati / | The other party do not admit any person capable of perceiving supersensuous things; and the knowledge of the connection between heaven and sacrificial performance can not be obtained except from the (Vedic) injunction; |
tathā hi vedārthaparijñānadvāreṇātīndriyārthadarśitvam asya na svātantryeṇa, vedārthaparijñānaṃ tano{tu nā---}tīndriyārthadarśitvamantareṇeti vyaktam avatarati nitarāmitaretarāśrayatvam iti darśayann āha nacātīndriyadṛgityādi / | as whoever has any knowledge of these has it only through the eternal words. [verses 2370-2371]: Then again, no such Person has been postulated as is independently cognisant of the meaning of the Veda, which is beyond the reach of the senses, who would expound this meaning. Because the power of such a Person to perceive supersensuous things through his knowiedge of the Veda, cannot belong to him independently by himself; |
svargayāgādisambandhajñānaṃ naiva hy acodanam // yasmād atīndriyārthānāṃ draṣṭā sākṣān na cāsti vaḥ / | and the knowledge of the meaning of the Veda also is not possible without the power to perceive supersensuous things; thus there is an unavoidable mutual interdependence. |
vacanena hi nityena yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati // | This is what is shown in the following: [see verses 2372-2373 above] |
avidyamānā codanā asyetyacodanaṃ jñānam / codanānirapekṣam iti yāvat / | The compound ‘acodanam’ is to be explained as ‘that for which there is no Injunction’; i.e. that which is independent of the Injunction. |
atra kāraṇam āha yasmād iti / | The reason for this is next stated ‘Because, etc. etc.’ |
etad api katham ity āha vacanenetyādi / | Question: “Why is this also so?” |
taduktam `tasmā [p.650] datīndriyārthānāṃ sākṣāt draṣṭā na vidyate / | Answer: ‘As whoever, etc. etc.’ As has been declared in the following words ‘For these reasons there is no Perceiver of supersensuous things; |
vacanena tu nityena yaḥ paśyati sa paśyatīti // | whoever knows anything about these knows it only through the Eternal Word’ (2372-2373) |
syād etad veda eva svayaṃ puruṣavyāpāram anapekṣyāsmai puruṣāya sa{sva}martham āvedayiṣyate / | The following might be urged “The Veda itself would make known to such a person its own meaning, without any action on the part of that Person; |
tenetarāśrayatvaprasaṅgo nāvataratītyāha veda ityādi / | so that there is no mutual interdependence”. The answer to this is as follows: [see verse 2374 above] |
nahi prathamaśruto 'samayajñasya svayaṃ sa{sva}marthamāvedayate vedaḥ / | When the Vedic sentence is heard by a man for the first time, it does not make known its meaning to that man, if he does not know the conventions (regarding the words and their meanings). |
kinnāma kuruta ity āha andhāt tetyādi / | Question; “What then does it do?” |
andhairāttā gṛhītā {yaṣtiḥ} tayā tulyeti vigrahaḥ // | Answer: ‘It needs, etc. etc.’ The compound is to be explained as ‘that which is similar to the stick held by the blind man (2374) |
apekṣatāṃ ko doṣa ity āha sa tayetyādi / | Question: “It may be in need of it; where is the harm?” Ansiver: [see verse 2375 next] |
sa tayā kṛṣyamāṇaśca kuvartmanyapi sampatet / | When pulled up by the explanations, the Veda might fall into the wrong path; |
tato nālokavad vedaścakṣurbhūtaś ca yujyate // | and in that case, it would not be right to regard the Veda as the ‘eye’ (illuminating things) like the light. |
sa iti vedaḥ / | ‘Sa’ stands for the Veda. |
tayeti puṃvyākhyayā / | ‘Tayā’ stands for the Explanations by men. |
kuvartmanyapi sampatediti / viparītārthaprakāśanāt / | ‘Might fall into the wrong path’ by providing a wrong knowledge of things, expressing things as they are not. |
tataś ca yaduktam tasmād ālokavad vedaṃ sarvalokaikacakṣuṣi / naiva vipratipattavyam iti tadanupapannam // | Thus, it cannot be right to say, as has been said (by the Mīmāṃsaka) ‘The Veda, like Light, is the one eye for all men, and there should be no objections raised against it’, (Text 2351). |
svatantrasya ca vijñānajanakatve sati sphuṭam / prāmāṇyam api naivāsya sambhāvyaṃ puruṣekṣaṇāt // | Even though by itself, the Veda may be able to bring about cognitions, yet its validity (reliability) cannot be quite clear; as it is dependent upon personalities. |
śaktasya hi na puruṣāpekṣayā jñānajanakatvaṃ yuktam iti pratipāditam / | It has been already explained that what is efficient cannot bring about cognitions through the help of Personalities. |
bhavatu nāma puruṣāpekṣayā śaktasyāpi jñānajanakatvaṃ tathāpi puruṣāpekṣayā jñānajanakatve 'pi prāmāṇyam asya sphuṭaṃ na sambhāvyam iti padārthayojanā / | Even granting that the Veda is efficient and yet it is productive of Cognitions through the help of Personalities, even so, though it may be able to bring about cognitions through the help of Personalities, yet its validity and reliability would not be clearly possible. Such is the construction of the sentence. |
asyaivārthaṃ vyaktīkurvannāha yathārthabodhetyādi / | it should be construed after ‘sati’. The following Text further clarifies this same idea: [see verse 2377 next] |
yathārthabodhahetutvāt prāmāṇyaṃ hyavakalpate / | The validity of a means of cognition is accepted on the ground of its bringing about cognitions in accordance with the real state of things. |
puṃvyākhyāpekṣaṇe cāsya na sādhvī mānakālpanā // | If then, the Veda depends upon explanations provided by men, the assumption of its validity (reliability) cannot be right. |
na sādhvī mānakalpaneti / | ‘The assumption of its validity cannot he right’; |
sa tayā kṛṣyamāṇaśca kuvartmanyapi sampated ityanena pūrvam asādhutvasya pratipāditatvāt // | because under Text 2375 it has been shown that ‘it might fall on the wrong path (2377) |
[p.651] tataś ca, yaduktam pramāṇe 'vasthite vede śiṣyācāryaparamparā / anādiḥ kalpyamānāpi nirdoṣatvāya kalpate // | Thus, the Veda not having been proved to be valid, any beginningless line of pupils and teachers, even though assumed, cannot make it faultless. From the above it follows that it is not right to assert as has been asserted (by the Mīmāṃsaka, under Text 2350, above) that ‘The Veda being reliable, a beginningless line of Pupils and Teachers tends to make it faultless’. |
iti tadayuktam iti darśayann āha ittham ityādi / | This is what is shown in the following: [see verse 2378 above] |
itthaṃ māne 'sthite vede śiṣyācāryaparamparā / | After ‘māne’, we should read ‘a-sthite’, (2378) |
kathaṃ na yujyata ity āha yasmād eko 'pīti / | Question: “Why cannot it make it faultless?” Answer: [see verse 2379 next] |
yasmād eko 'pi tanmadhye naivātīndriyadṛgmataḥ / | Because not a single person among them is held to be capable of perceiving supersensuous things; |
anādiḥ kalpitāpyeṣā tasmād andhaparamparā // | hence the assumption of the beginninglessness of the line (of pupils and teachers) is entirely futile. |
yadi nāmāndhaparamparā jātā, tataḥ kimityāha andhenāndha ityādi | [verse 2379]: Question: “If it is a line of blind people, what then?” Answer: [see verse 2380 above] [verse 2380]: |
dhruvaṃ naiva tathāpyasyā viphalānādikalpanā // yathoktaṃ śābare bhāṣye "naivaṃjātīyakeṣvartheṣu puruṣavacanaṃ prāmāṇyamupaiti andhānām iva vacanaṃ rūpaviśeṣeṣvi"ti // | This has been thus asserted in the Śabara-Bhāṣya (1.1. 2) In regard to such things as are beyond the senses, the words of men cannot be a reliable source of knowledge; just as the words of persons born blind cannot be a reliable source of knowledge regarding shades of colour (Translation, page 5). |
parata vedatattvajñā manuvyāsādayo 'pi ca / tairevāracito nāyam arthaṃ ityatra na pramā // | As a matter of fact, there is no means of knowing for certain that this thing (the Veda and its meaning) has not been made (composed) by such later beings as Manu, Vyāsa and others. |
na prameti / | Now it is going to be shown that this also is not so proved: [see verse 2381 above] |
atyantaparokṣatvāt // | because the matter is entirely imperceptible. |
syād etat nāvitathajñānahetutvād apauruṣeyatvena prāmāṇyam iṣṭam, kiṃ tarhi satyārthānnityācchabdārthasambandhamātrāt / | The following might be urged “When we regard the Veda as valid and reliable, it is not because it is the source of true knowledge and hence not the work of any person; we do so simply because the connection between words and their meanings is eternal and what they express is true. |
navā {sa cā---}pauruṣeyatāyāṃ satyāṃ bhavatīti tadatrapyanaikāntikam eva / | But this also is ‘Inconclusive’; |
ko hyatra niyame hetur yad apauruṣeyeṇa satyārthena bhavitavyam iti / | where is the ground for the hard and fast rule that what expresses the truth must not be the work of a Person? But granting that it is so; |
bhavatu nāma tathāpi doṣa eveti darśayann āha | even so the view is open to objections. This is what is pointed out in the following: [see verses 2382-2383 next] |
satyārthanityasambandhamātrāt prāmāṇyam astu vā / | The validity and reliability of the Veda may be due merely to eternal connection expressive of true things; |
atīndriyaṃ tu taṃ yogaṃ naiva kaścid vyavasyati // | even so, there is no one who ever perceives that connection, which is beyond the senses. |
atīndriyā yataste 'rthās tatstho yogo 'pyatīndriyaḥ / | All that is expressed by the words (of the Veda) is supersensuous; hence its connection also must be supersensuous; |
anatyakṣadṛśaḥ sarve narāścaite svatas sadā // | while all human beings by themselves are incapable of seeing things beyond the reach of the senses. |
satyārthaścāsau nityasambandhaśceti vigrahaḥ / | ‘Satyārtha’ qualifies ‘nityasambandha’. |
kalpito hi nityaḥ sambandhaḥ, yadya [p.[652] sāvarthapratītihetur na bhavet tadā vyarthā tat kalpanā / | As a matter of fact, the ‘eternal connection’ is something that has been assumed; and if it did not bring about the cognition of the meaning, its assumption would be futile; |
nacānyat tasya rūpam anyatrārthapratītijanakatvāt / | certainly it has no other character except that of being productive of the cognition of the meaning; |
iyāneva hi sambandhasya vyāpāro yadarthapratītijananam tadakurvāṇaḥ kathaṃ sambandhaḥ syāt / | the operation of the connection consists only in bringing about the cognition of the meaning; how then can there be a Connection which does not bring about such Cognition? It is not by its mere presence that the Connection brings about the cognition; |
nāpyasau sattāmātreṇārthapratītihetuḥ, kiṃ tarhi jñātaḥ san, anyathā hyagṛhītasamayasyāpi tataḥ pratītir bhavet, na cāsau jñātuṃ kenacicchakyate, sambandhinaḥ svargāder atīndriyatvena tasyāpyatīndriyatvāt / | if it were not so, then the cognition of the meaning wrould appear also in one who is ignorant of the convention (bearing upon the connection between words and meanings); and yet the connection cannot be recognised by any one; because one member of the connection in the shape of Heaven, etc. being beyond the reach of the senses, the connection itself must also be beyond it. |
atīndriyārthadarśinas tarhi taṃ jñāsyantīti cedityāha anatyakṣadṛśa ityādi / | It might be argued that “People capable of perceiving supersensuous things would recognise the connection”. |
taduktam tasmād atīndriyārthānāṃ sākṣād draṣṭā na vidyate / | The answer to that is ‘All human beings, etc. etc.’ as has been declared in the following words ‘Thus there is no direct perceiver of things beyond the senses; |
vacanena tu nityena yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati // | if people know these things it is only through the Word’. |
iti anatyakṣadṛśaḥ atīndriyārthādarśinaḥ // | ‘Anatyakṣadṛśaḥ’ capable of perceiving supersensuous things. |
ayaṃ mamārthasambandha ity āha ca na sā śrutiḥ / | The Veda certainly does not say ‘such and such is my connection with the meaning’; |
naraklṛpto 'rthayogas tu pauruṣeyān na bhidyate // | as regards the ‘connection of the meaning’ that would be fixed by men, and would not differ from being ‘the work of man’. |
na hyete bhavanto brāhmaṇā mamāyamartho gṛhyatāmityāhūya pravṛddhatarakāruṇyaḥ puraṇyaikapravaṇacetāḥ parahitanirataḥ sanvadānya iva brāhmaṇebhyaḥ svayaṃ svamarthaparpayati vedapuruṣaḥ / | It is not that the Veda-Personality, over-flowing with sympathy, his mind bent upon piety, devoted to doing good to others, and charitably disposed, invites the Brāhmaṇas and offers to them the meaning of the Veda, saying to them ‘O Brāhmaṇas, such and such is my meaning, please accept this’. Question: “In that case, the Brahmaṇas would themselves imagine the meaning”. |
tamevābhedaṃ darśayati tadyathetyādi / | Answer: ‘As regards, etc. etc.’ The following Text explains the ‘non-difference’ mentioned in the preceding Text: [see verse 2385 next] |
tadyathā pauruṣeyasya śaṅkyate viparītatā / narair utprekṣitasyāpi sā śaṅkyaiva na kiṃ bhavet // | Just as it is suspected that what the word of man says may be untrue, in the same way, may it not be suspected that the meaning imagined by man may be wrong? (2385) |
api nāma saṅkīrṇamarthaṃ jānīyām iti saṅkarahetuḥ puruṣo 'pākīrṇe yathāpuruṣaiḥ svayaṃ prayuktāḥ śabdāḥ saṅkīryante tathā tair upakalpitārthā apīti ko 'tra viśeṣaḥ / | It sometimes happens that with the intention of knowing things in a jumbled up form, men make use of confused and jumbled up words, in the same way, they may imagine and determine the meaning of words in the same confused manner. Where then is the difference between the two? |
seti viparītatā / | ‘Sā’ stands for wrongness. |
śaṅkyeti śaṅkanīyā // | ‘Śaṅkyā’ might be suspected. |
pūrvamaprāmāṇyād vedasya śiṣyācāryaparamparākalpanā vyartheti pratipāditam, idānīṃ bhavatu nāma nityasambandhadvāreṇa prāmāṇyam, ubhayathā śiṣyācāryaparamparopakalpanā vyarthetyupadarśayati māne sthite 'pītyādi / | Even if the Veda is a reliable source of knowledge, the beginningless ‘line of pupils and teachers’ that has been assumed becomes like a ‘line of blind persons’. “The cognition that arises in regard to heaven and such things, from the Vedic sentences speaking of the agnihotra, etc. is found to be free from doubt and uncertainty, just like the firm conviction that proceeds from sense-perception. |
yaduktam narair utprekṣitasyāpi sā śaṅkaiva na kiṃ bhavet iti, atra paro 'sambhavamāśaṅkāyā darśayati nanvityādi / | Why then should the Veda, bringing about such cognition not be regarded as reliable? It is for this reason that the idea that one derives from the words of the Veda is never doubtful and uncertain.” (2387-2388) |
[p.653] | [verse 2386]: |
nanvārekādinirmuktā svargādau jāyate matiḥ / agnihotrādivacaso niṣkampādhyakṣabuddhivat // | At first, it was explained that the Veda itself being unreliable, the assumption of the ‘line of pupils and teachers’ is futile. Now, it is granted (for the sake of argument) that the Veda is reliable; |
nāvalambeta tāṃ kurvankathaṃ vedaḥ pramāṇatām / na hyato vacanād arthaṃ saṃdigdhaṃ vetti kaścana // | In the following text, the Opponent urges the fallacy of ‘Impossibility’ against the foregoing assertion of the Buddhist to the effect ‘May it not be suspected, etc. etc.’ (Text 2385): [see verses 2387-2388 above] |
ārekaḥ saṃśayaḥ / | ‘Āreka’ is doubt, uncertainty. |
ādiśabdena viparyāsau gṛhyate / | ‘ādi’ is meant to include mistake, wrongness. |
yathoktaṃ bhāṣye śābare "na ca svargakāmo yajetetyato vacanāt saṃdigdhamavagamyante bhavati vā sargo na vā bhavatīti / | As declared in the Śabara-Bhāṣya (1. 2) ‘The idea brought about by the assertion Desiring Heaven, one should perform sacrifices is not an uncertain one; i.e. it is not in the form Heaven may or may not follow from the performance of sacrifices; |
na ca viniścitamavagamyamānam idaṃ mithyā syāt / yo hi janitvā pradhvaṃsate naitad evam sa mithyāpratyayaḥ / | and when this is cognised for certain, it cannot be false. That Cognition or Idea alone is false which, having appeared, becomes sublated by the notion such is not the actual case; |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.