आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

यद्येवमीदृशो न्यायः प्रसिद्धो न्यायवादिनाम् ।
प्रसङ्गसाधने धर्मः श्रद्धामात्रात्परैर्मतः ॥ ३६०६ ॥
युक्तिप्रसिद्धतायां च स्वतन्त्रं साधनं भवेत् ।
ईदृशश्च परेणेष्टस्तत्प्रणीतः स आगमः ॥ ३६०७ ॥
सम्भारावेधतस्तस्य पुंसश्चिन्तामणेरिव ।
निःसरन्ति यथाकामं कुट्यादिभ्योऽपि देशनाः ॥ ३६०८ ॥
आधिपत्यप्रपत्त्याऽतः प्रणेता सोऽभिधीयते ।
विकल्पानुगतं तस्य न वक्तृत्वं प्रसज्यते ॥ ३६०९ ॥
वयमश्रद्दधानास्तु ये युक्तीः प्रार्थयामहे ।
इतीदं गदितं तस्मात्प्रसङ्गार्थमजानता ॥ ३६१० ॥

yadyevamīdṛśo nyāyaḥ prasiddho nyāyavādinām |
prasaṅgasādhane dharmaḥ śraddhāmātrātparairmataḥ || 3606 ||
yuktiprasiddhatāyāṃ ca svatantraṃ sādhanaṃ bhavet |
īdṛśaśca pareṇeṣṭastatpraṇītaḥ sa āgamaḥ || 3607 ||
sambhārāvedhatastasya puṃsaścintāmaṇeriva |
niḥsaranti yathākāmaṃ kuṭyādibhyo’pi deśanāḥ || 3608 ||
ādhipatyaprapattyā’taḥ praṇetā so’bhidhīyate |
vikalpānugataṃ tasya na vaktṛtvaṃ prasajyate || 3609 ||
vayamaśraddadhānāstu ye yuktīḥ prārthayāmahe |
itīdaṃ gaditaṃ tasmātprasaṅgārthamajānatā || 3610 ||

If that is so, then, the principle accepted by all relationalists is that a reductio ad absurdum (in this case) can be urged only on the basis of a character that is accepted on mere faith; if it were based upon well-known reasons, there would be independent (direct) arguments in support. As a matter of fact, the scripture that is postulated by the other party (the Buddhist) as composed by the omniscient person, is as thus described—‘without any appurtenances, the teachings of that person proceed freely even from the walls,—as if they were coming out of the cintāmaṇi gem’.—Thus then it is purely through supervision that he is regarded as the ‘composer’ of the teachings; hence his speakership need not be associated with any conceptual content.—Thus then, when you assert that—“we are wanting in that faith and hence ask for reasons”—you do so without knowing what is meant by reductio ad absurdum.—(3606-3610)

Kamalaśīla

Having thus supported the idea of the Reductio ad Absurdum, the Author now proceeds to show how the putting forward of this Reductio ad Absurdum is not pertinent to the subject under consideration;—[see verses 3606-3610 above]

That character which the other party admits on the basis of the Scripture alone,—that alone should be urged in the Reductio ad Absurdum;—such is the well-recognised principle. Now, if the other party (Buddhist) had held the fact of the Scripture being composed by the Person on the ground of His speakership,—then there could be some point in urging that—“if He is not the speaker, then the Scripture could not have been composed by Him”. As a matter of fact, however, when Buddha is regarded as the composer (Author) of the Scripture, it is only as a Supervisor, an over-lord,—not as the actual speaker.—Consequently, the argument that you have urged in the form of the Reductio ad Absurdum,—that “if He is the composer of the Scripture, He must be the speaker”,—is one that has been urged by you without knowing what is meant by ‘Reductio ad Absurdum’.—(3606-3610)