1894 Verse 3024-3026

Original

ऋणादिव्यवहारस्तु यो वाक्यत्रययोग्यवान् ।
स तादृशस्थलात्मैव नोदाहार्यः प्रमास्थितौ ॥ ३०२४ ॥
अर्थिप्रत्यर्थिनौ तत्र स्मृत्वा स्मृत्वा परिस्फुटम् ।
नहि सूक्ष्मेक्षिकां कर्त्तुं लभेते तत्र वस्तुनि ॥ ३०२५ ॥
वस्तुस्थित्या प्रमाणं तु व्यवस्थाप्यं छलान्ननु ।
प्रकृताप्रतिरूपोऽतो व्यवहार उदाहृतः ॥ ३०२६ ॥

ṛṇādivyavahārastu yo vākyatrayayogyavān |
sa tādṛśasthalātmaiva nodāhāryaḥ pramāsthitau || 3024 ||
arthipratyarthinau tatra smṛtvā smṛtvā parisphuṭam |
nahi sūkṣmekṣikāṃ karttuṃ labhete tatra vastuni || 3025 ||
vastusthityā pramāṇaṃ tu vyavasthāpyaṃ chalānnanu |
prakṛtāpratirūpo’to vyavahāra udāhṛtaḥ || 3026 ||

As regards dealings regarding debt, etc. which admit of only three statements,—this condition (of three statements) is applicable to those cases only, and should not be cited in connection with validity.—In those cases, the two disputants make statements on recalling things to their memory, and do not find time to make a careful scrutiny of things. As regards the validity of cognitions however, things have got to be determined in regard to the real state of things,—and not by mere casuistry. Hence the dealings that have been cited are not analogous to the subject under consideration.—(3024-3026)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued by the other party, under Text 2882, that—“In such dealings as debts, as between two parties, while the plaintiff makes only one statement, the defendant makes two, [hence there need be the following up of only three Cognitions]

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3024-3026 above]

The exact position regarding the validity of Cognitions, which is related to the real nature of things, forms the subject under consideration; while the transactions relating to Debt, etc. consist in Casuistry and are related to Conventions made by the mere whims of men; the citing of these transactions therefore only shows your ignorance of the subject under consideration.—(3024-3026)