आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

स्वतःप्रामाण्यपक्षे तु निश्चयं कुरुते स्वतः ।
वेदः स्वार्थस्वरूपे च तन्न मोहादिसम्भवः ॥ ३११९ ॥
अतश्चाज्ञानसंदेहविपर्यासापदे स्थिते ।
नोपदेशमपेक्षेत द्विजपोतोऽपि कश्चन ॥ ३१२० ॥
यथाचाज्ञातमूलस्य न विनाशोऽपि सम्भवी ।
को वा विनाशो नित्यस्य भवेद्वज्रातिशायिनः ॥ ३१२१ ॥
अभिव्यक्त्यन्यथात्वं चेन्नित्ये सा नन्वपाकृता ।
अतो रक्षामपि प्राज्ञा निष्फलामस्य कुर्वते ॥ ३१२२ ॥

svataḥprāmāṇyapakṣe tu niścayaṃ kurute svataḥ |
vedaḥ svārthasvarūpe ca tanna mohādisambhavaḥ || 3119 ||
ataścājñānasaṃdehaviparyāsāpade sthite |
nopadeśamapekṣeta dvijapoto’pi kaścana || 3120 ||
yathācājñātamūlasya na vināśo’pi sambhavī |
ko vā vināśo nityasya bhavedvajrātiśāyinaḥ || 3121 ||
abhivyaktyanyathātvaṃ cennitye sā nanvapākṛtā |
ato rakṣāmapi prājñā niṣphalāmasya kurvate || 3122 ||

Under the view that the validity of cognitions is inherent in them, certainty of conviction must be regarded as brought about by the Veda by itself, in regard to its own form (text); hence there can be no possibility of delusion in respect to that.—Thus, there being no room for ignorance, or doubt, or misconception,—even the infant of the Brāhmaṇa should not require any teaching.—Just as there is no possibility of the destruction of the thing whose root (cause) is unknown,—how could there be any destruction (mutilation) of what is eternal and superior even to the diamond (in its indestructibility)?—If it be said that “there may be destruction in the shape of perversion of the manifestation”,—then the answer is that the possibility of such manifestation of what is eternal has been already rejected.—Hence if wise people seek to preserve the vedic text, the attempt is entirely superfluous.—(3119-3122)

Kamalaśīla

Then again, the validity of the Veda being self-sufficient, it always brings about certainty regarding its subject-matter; so that there can be no delusion regarding it;—and as it is eternal, there is no likelihood of its essential nature being altered;—thus in neither of the two ways can there be any mutilation of the Veda,—in accordance with your view. Under the circumstances, all the attempt that has been made by Vedic Scholars to preserve the text of the Veda has been superfluous.

This is what is pointed out in the following—[see verses 3119-3122 above]

‘Infant of a Brāhmaṇa’—a Brāhmaṇa-child.

Thus far it has been shown that the destruction (or mutilation) of the Veda is not possible, if it is self-sufficient in its validity. The author now proceeds to show that it is not possible, on account of its eternality also; to this end, he puts the question—‘How could there be, etc. etc.?’

‘If it is urged, etc. etc.’—this is to be construed with ‘destruction’ of the preceding sentence.

‘Sā’—manifestation.

‘Asya’—of the Veda.—(3119-3122)