1052 Verse 1510

Original

आप्तानङ्गीकृतेरेव द्वितीयमपि न क्षमम् ।
शाब्दलक्षणमिष्टौ वा सोऽयमित्यविनिश्चितः ॥ १५१० ॥

āptānaṅgīkṛtereva dvitīyamapi na kṣamam |
śābdalakṣaṇamiṣṭau vā so’yamityaviniścitaḥ || 1510 ||

Because the ‘trustworthy person’ is not admitted, therefore the second definition also of verbal cognition is not proper.—Even if such a person were regarded as possible, that a certain person is such a one cannot be ascertained.—(1510)

Kamalaśīla

The second form of Verbal Cognition put forward by the other party in Text 1489, is that brought about ‘by words uttered by a Trustworthy Person’. In this definition, the Author detects the defect of ‘Impossibility’:—[see verse 1510 above]

As a matter of fact, the Mīmāṃsakas do not admit of a Person ‘free from defects’; hence no ‘Trustworthy Person’ can be admitted by them; how then could the word of such a person be valid (Right, Reliable)?

‘Na kṣamam’—is not proper; i.e. it is ‘Impossible’.

Even if the ‘Trustworthy Person’ be admitted, it could never be exactly pointed out that ‘this person’ is trustworthy; hence he would be as good as non-existent. Then again, because there is no valid means of ascertaining whether or not there are certain bad or good qualities in a certain person,—because such qualities are beyond the reach of the senses,—specially because as for the bodily and verbal behaviour of men, they are sometimes purposely misrepresented,—therefore how could any reliance be placed upon the word of such men? Because people with limited vision cannot properly discriminate among men.—(1510)