Verse 2394-2397

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

नरेच्छाधीनसङ्केतनिरपेक्षो यदि स्वयम् ।
वेदः प्रकाशयेत्स्वार्थं प्रमाणं युज्यते तदा ॥ २३९४ ॥
तदा हि मोहमानादिदोषोपप्लुतबुद्धिभिः ।
अन्यथाऽऽख्यायमानो हि(पि?)निजमर्थं न मुञ्चति ॥ २३९५ ॥
यस्मात्तद्विषयामेव धियमुत्पादयत्यरम् ।
न त्विष्टं पुरुषैरर्थमपरं द्योतयत्ययम् ॥ २३९६ ॥
नरेच्छायास्त्वपेक्षायां पौरुषेयान्न भिद्यते ।
द्योतनं हि तदायत्तं विपर्यस्ताऽपि सा भवेत् ॥ २३९७ ॥

narecchādhīnasaṅketanirapekṣo yadi svayam |
vedaḥ prakāśayetsvārthaṃ pramāṇaṃ yujyate tadā || 2394 ||
tadā hi mohamānādidoṣopaplutabuddhibhiḥ |
anyathā''khyāyamāno hi(pi?)nijamarthaṃ na muñcati || 2395 ||
yasmāttadviṣayāmeva dhiyamutpādayatyaram |
na tviṣṭaṃ puruṣairarthamaparaṃ dyotayatyayam || 2396 ||
narecchāyāstvapekṣāyāṃ pauruṣeyānna bhidyate |
dyotanaṃ hi tadāyattaṃ viparyastā'pi sā bhavet || 2397 ||

If the Veda expressed its meaning by itself independently of conventions made by the whims of men,—then it might be valid and reliable. As, in that case, it would not abandon its meaning, even when explained otherwise by men with minds perverted by delusion, vanity and other defects;—and it would directly bring about the cognition of that meaning alone, and not express any meaning that may be desired by men.—If however, it depends upon the whims of men, then it does not differ from the common assertions of men; as in that case the expressing of meaning would be dependent upon men, and it is quite possible that it may be wrong.—(2394-2397)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

The Author again shows that the premiss regarding the Veda being independent of personalities is ‘inconclusive’:—[see verses 2394-2397 above]

The whims of men are unfettered; if then the Veda depended, in the expressing of its meaning, upon Conventions made by the whims of men,—it would not express the meaning that is desired; as there would be nothing to restrict it. On the other hand, if the Veda expressed its meaning independently of the Conventions, then it would be possible for it to be valid and reliable; because regardless of the explanations propounded by men, it would directly express its meaning; even though it might be explained otherwise by men, it would never abandon the function of expressing its own meaning by itself,—exactly as the eye and other organs do not abandon their inherent function of apprehending things.—This is the sense of the whole argument.

‘Ākhyāyamāna’—Being explained.

‘Aram’—Quickly; at once.

‘Wrong’—i.e. the whims of men may be wrong.—(2394-2397)