आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

सर्वशब्दश्च सर्वत्र प्रकृतापेक्ष इष्यते ।
ततः प्रकृतसर्वज्ञे सति किं नोऽवहीयते ॥ ३१२९ ॥
अर्थे चासम्भवात्कार्यं किंचिच्छब्देऽपि कल्प्यते ।
तत्र यः सर्वशब्दज्ञः स सर्वज्ञोऽस्तु नामतः ॥ ३१३० ॥

sarvaśabdaśca sarvatra prakṛtāpekṣa iṣyate |
tataḥ prakṛtasarvajñe sati kiṃ no’vahīyate || 3129 ||
arthe cāsambhavātkāryaṃ kiṃcicchabde’pi kalpyate |
tatra yaḥ sarvaśabdajñaḥ sa sarvajño’stu nāmataḥ || 3130 ||

“In every case, the term ‘all’ is used in reference to the context; hence if there is a person knowing all things relating to a certain context,—what harm does that do to our position?”—(3129)

“There are certain effects (spoken of) which, if found impossible in relation to the object denoted by the word, are applied to the word itself; hence the man who knows the word ‘all’, may be called ‘all-knowing’ in name.”—(3130)

Kamalaśīla

[verse 3129]:

“Further, if you Buddhists also urge, against us, the possibility of regarding, as ‘all-knowing’, the man who knows all things except Dharma and A dharma,—then that is entirely superfluous.—This is what is pointed out in the following—[see verse 3129 above]

Question:—What is that ‘all’ that relates to the present context?

Answer:—[see verse 3130 above]

[verse 3130]:

“For example, in Grammar, we find such assertions as ‘agnerdṛk’ and so forth which lay own such effects as the addition, of certain affixes; now this effect cannot be brought about in the thing denoted by the words concerned; consequently, by implication, they are applied to the words themselves, by Grammarians.—In the same manner, if you also, finding that it is impossible for any one to know all things, explain the term ‘all’ appearing in the statement of your doctrine, as standing for the word ‘all’,—so that the man knowing the word ‘all’ would be ‘all-knowing’,—then this may be so in name,—i.e. in name only; for no one can prevent a man applying to words any meaning he likes; as the naming of things depends upon the mere whim of man—(3130)