1764 Verse 2796

Original

अपिचानादिता सिद्ध्येदेवं नानरसंश्रयः ।
तस्मादकृतकत्वे वा स्यादन्योऽप्यागमोऽकृतः ॥ २७९६ ॥

apicānāditā siddhyedevaṃ nānarasaṃśrayaḥ |
tasmādakṛtakatve vā syādanyo’pyāgamo’kṛtaḥ || 2796 ||

Then again, in this way what would be proved would be only beginninglessness, not freedom from personal authorship. under the circumstances, if the Veda were regarded as not the work of any person, then the same may be said in regard to other revelations also.—(2796)

Kamalaśīla

The ‘Inconclusiveness’ of the Mīmāṃsaka’s reasoning has been shown. The Author now proceeds to show that it is ‘Contradictory’ also, inasmuch as it demolishes what is desired by him—[see verse 2796 above]

What the Mīmāṃsaka desires to prove is the fact that the Veda is not the work of man; but what is proved by his reason is not this,—but, merely the fact of its being without beginning.

It might be argued that—“when it has been proved that it is without beginning, then, by implication it also becomes proved that it is not the work of man; because what is the work of a person cannot be without beginning”.

The answer to this is—“Under the circumstances, etc, etc.”—That is, on the ground of there being no beginning, if a Revelation were proved to be not the work of man, then the same may be said regarding the customs of the Pārasīkas and others (in whose case also, there has been no beginning).—(2796)

The same idea is further explained—[see verse 2797 next]