आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

यन्नादौ क्रियते वेदः पश्चान्नैव विनश्यति ।
तदेव तस्य नित्यत्वं ज्ञेयं तदपि चेन्मतम् ॥ २१०४ ॥
अकृतत्वाविनाशाभ्यां नित्यत्वं हि विवक्षितम् ।
तौ चाभावात्मकत्वेन नापेक्षेते स्वसाधनम् ॥ २१०५ ॥

yannādau kriyate vedaḥ paścānnaiva vinaśyati |
tadeva tasya nityatvaṃ jñeyaṃ tadapi cenmatam || 2104 ||
akṛtatvāvināśābhyāṃ nityatvaṃ hi vivakṣitam |
tau cābhāvātmakatvena nāpekṣete svasādhanam || 2105 ||

“The eternality of the Veda consists in the fact that it is not produced in the beginning and does not perish in the end.—If it be urged that ‘even so, this eternality is something cognisable’,—then [the answer is that] eternality is what is meant by the two characters of ‘being not produced’ and ‘being not destroyed’; and both these being of the nature of negation do not require any proof for themselves.”—(2104-2105)

Kamalaśīla

The other party urges—If the ‘negation of the two ends’ constitutes Eternality, then it comes to this that Eternality is not a positive quality of things.

The answer to this (from the Mīmāṃsaka) is as follows:—[see verses 2104-2105 above]

What is meant by this is that eternality forms part of the very nature of the Veda, which is an entity.

‘If it be urged, etc. etc.’—This anticipates the following objection from the Opponent—If it is as stated, then Eternality is an entity and as such it is something that has to be cognised by a Means of Cognition, to be proved.

The answer to this is—‘What is meant, etc. etc.’

‘Both these’—i.e. the characters of not being produced and not being destroyed.

‘Proof for themselves’—i.e. any means of cognising their own forms. What is meant is that there need be nothing incongruous in Negation being an entity; so that even though Eternality consists in the two characters of ‘not being produced’ and ‘not being destroyed’, it need not be a nonentity.—(2104-2105)