न च सिद्धे

न च +++(ईश्वर-निभे)+++ सिद्धे वस्तुनि
+++(तद्-वस्तु-)+++साधक-बाधकयोर् अन्यतरोपनिपात-सम्भव-प्रसक्तेर्
+++(तद्-वस्तु-)+++भावितानुवाद-विपर्यय-पर्यालोचनया
तद्+++(वस्तु)+++-गोचर-वचसः प्रामाण्य-प्रच्युतिः
+++(समिद्-आहरणादि-)+++कार्य-निष्ठस्यापि तत्+++(←प्रच्युति)+++-प्रसङ्गात्,

Nor do statements concerning a fact lack authority
because of the consideration that since either a proving or disproving factor may unexpectedly turn up
there remains the possibility that this fact is thus repeated or reversed;
for the same may equally well happen to a statement concerning, not a fact, but a karya.

The validity of shabda lies in its communicating contents that cannot be known through other means of knowledge.
What I translate as ‘facts’ are more literally “established [[129]] entities,” established, that is, by other means of knowledge than shabda.
A scriptural statement of the kind “grass is green” is not strictly valid
in the sense that, in order to know that grass is green, we need a scriptural statement to that effect.

Another proving factor, c.g., the means of knowledge Perception, may turn up conceivably
and thus make the scriptural statement superfluous;
or we may find that grass is not invariably green, but changes its colour,
which would reverse the scriptural statement.

Scriptural validity, i.e., Scripture’s being a means of knowledge, is to the Prabhakara Mimimsaka, its being the sole means of knowing a particular thing.
To the Prabhakara this validity is ideal in the case of injunctions concerning actions which, suprasensibly, lead to a certain desired end.

न च सिद्धे वस्तुनि साधकबाधकयोरन्यतरोपनिपातसम्भवप्रसक्तेर्भावितानुवादविपर्ययपर्यालोचनया तद्गोचरवचसः प्रामाण्यप्रच्युतिः कार्यनिष्ठस्यापि तत्प्रसङ्गात्,

+++(लौकिकं←)+++कार्यम् अपि हि मानान्तर-वेद्यम् एव +++(“ओदनेन होतव्यम्” इत्यत्र)+++ लौकिकं समिद्-आहरणादि,
तच् च मानान्तरेणापि वेद्यम् ओदन-पाकवद् इत्य् अभ्युपगमात् ।

A kārya, too, may be known from other means of knowledge,
for it must be admitted that ordinary karyas, like ‘fetch firewood’
are also known through other means of knowledge,
as in the case of the cooking of the odana.

(The injunction concerning the odana oblation includes an injunction concerning the preparation of the odana and the fetching of firewood for the cooking. Since experience shows that for a cooking fire one needs firewood, this karya is not strictly known on scriptural authority.)

कार्यमपि हि मानान्तरवेद्यमेव लौकिकं समिदाहरणादि, तच्च मानान्तरेणापि वेद्यमोदनपाकवदित्यभ्युपगमात् ।

$ Vide Prakaraṇapañcikā II, p. 180-

" कृतिसाध्यं प्रधानं यत्,
तत् कार्यम् अवसीयते । तच मानान्तरेणापि
वेद्यम् ओदन-पाकवत् ॥ "

अथ विलक्षणाग्नि-होत्रादि-विषय-कार्यस्यासम्भावित-मानान्तरतया
तत्-प्रतिपादयद् वचः प्रमाणम्,

Or if it be claimed that,
inasmuch as a karya concerning a categorically different thing like the agnihotra etc. cannot conceivably find any other authority,
therefore the verbal testimony which sets forth such a thing must needs be its authority,

अथ विलक्षणाग्निहोत्रादिविषयकार्यस्यासम्भावितमानान्तरतया तत्प्रतिपादयद्वचः प्रमाणम्,

हन्त तर्हि निरतिशयावबोधैश्वर्य-महाऽऽनन्द-सन्दोह-वपुषि भगवति
न मानान्तर-गन्ध-सम्बन्ध
इति सर्वं समानम् अन्यत्राभिनिवेशात् ।

well, then we may say that there is not a ghost of another authority for the Bhagavan
whose form consists in unsurpassed knowledge, supremacy and beatitude;
so that it should follow that everything is entirely the same in both cases,
depending on one’s particular partisan views.
(it is all the same, depending on what partisan view one takes! )

हन्त तर्हि निरतिशयावबोधैश्वर्यमहानन्दसन्दोहवपुषि भगवति न मानान्तरगन्धसम्बन्ध इति सर्वं समानमन्यत्राभिनिवेशात् ।