2167 Verse 3547-3549

Original

ब्रह्मादीनां च वेदेन सम्बन्धो नास्ति कश्चन ।
भेदान्नित्यतयाऽपेक्षावियोगाच्च तदन्यवत् ॥ ३५४७ ॥
ततश्च वेददेहत्वं ब्रह्मादीनामसङ्गतम् ।
सर्वज्ञानमयत्वं च वेदस्यार्थाविनिश्चयात् ॥ ३५४८ ॥
स्वातन्त्र्येण च सम्बुद्धः सर्वज्ञ उपपादितः ।
न पुनर्वेददेहत्वाद्ब्रह्मादिरिव कल्प्यते ॥ ३५४९ ॥

brahmādīnāṃ ca vedena sambandho nāsti kaścana |
bhedānnityatayā’pekṣāviyogācca tadanyavat || 3547 ||
tataśca vedadehatvaṃ brahmādīnāmasaṅgatam |
sarvajñānamayatvaṃ ca vedasyārthāviniścayāt || 3548 ||
svātantryeṇa ca sambuddhaḥ sarvajña upapāditaḥ |
na punarvedadehatvādbrahmādiriva kalpyate || 3549 ||

There can be no connection between Brahmā (and others) and the Veda;—(a) because there is difference between them, (b) because both are regarded as eternal, and (c) because there is no mutual dependence;—just as in the case of any other thing.—Thus it is absurd to talk of Brahmā, etc. being ‘embodiments of the veda’.—Equally absurd it is to speak of the Veda as ‘consisting of all knowledge’; for the simple reason that the meaning of the Veda cannot be ascertained.—It has been explained that (for us) the omniscient person is recognised independently by himself; and he is not assumed on the ground of Brahmā and others being ‘embodiments of the Veda’.—(3547-3549)

Kamalaśīla

It has been argued under Text 3208, that—“If it be held that Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva are the embodiments of the Veda, etc, etc.”.

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verses 3547-3549 above]

If Brahmā and others had any connection with the Veda, then alone could they he regarded as the ‘Embodiment of the Veda’; as a matter of fact, there can be no connection between these and the Veda. Because there can be only two kinds of connection or relationship among things—(1) that of identity and (2) that of cause and effect,—as has been explained before;—as the two—Brahmā and Veda—are held to be different, the relation between them cannot be that of Identity.—Nor can it be the relation of Cause and Effect; because both are regarded as eternal, and as such cannot derive any benefit from one another, as neither could be in need of the other.

‘The idea of the Veda consisting of all knowledge’—this has to be construed with ‘is absurd’ of the previous sentence.

“Why is it absurd?”

Because ‘the meaning of the Veda cannot be ascertained’;—if the meaning of the Veda were ascertained, then alone could it be assumed that it consists of all knowledge. This ascertainment however cannot be got at through any Cognition, as has been pointed out already.

Nor again do we accept the Omniscient Person on the strength of the Veda,—as you do. In fact, the Cognition of the Lord is self-born, and hence He is omniscient, by Himself;—as we have already explained before.—(3547-3549)