तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि; अन्यथानुमेयमिति चेत्,
एवमप्यनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः ॥ ११ ॥
tarkāpratiṣṭhānādapi; anyathānumeyamiti cet,
evamapyanirmokṣaprasaṅgaḥ || 11 ||
tarka-pratiṣṭhānāt—Because reasoning has no sure basis; api—also; anyathā—otherwise; anumeyam—should be inferred or reasoned; iti cet—if it be said; evam—so; api—even; anirmokṣa-prasaṅgaḥ—there will result the contingency of non-release.
11. Also because reasoning has no sure basis (it cannot upset the conclusions of Vedanta). If it be said that it should be reasoned otherwise (so as to get over this defect), (we say) even so there will result the contingency of non-release (from this defect, with respect to the matter in question).
What one man establishes through reason can be refuted by another more intelligent than he. Even a sage like Kapila is refuted by other sages like Kanada. Hence reasoning having no sure basis cannot upset the conclusions of Vedanta, which are based on the Srutis. But, says the opponent, even this judgment about reasoning is arrived at through reasoning; so it is not true that reasoning has never a sure basis. Sometimes it is perfectly sound. Only we must reason properly. The latter part of the Sutra says that even though in some cases reasoning is infallible, yet with respect to the matter in hand it cannot transcend this defect. For the cause of the world (Brahman) is beyond the senses and has no characteristic signs. It cannot therefore be an object of perception, or of inference, which is based on perception. Or again if we take ‘release’ in the Sutra to mean Liberation, it comes to this: True knowledge of a real thing depends on the thing itself, and therefore it is always uniform. Hence a conflict of views with respect to it is not possible. But the conclusions of reasoning can never be uniform. The Sankhyas arrive through reasoning at the Pradhana as the First Cause, while the Naiyayikas (logicians) mention Paramanus (atoms) as that. Which to accept? So no conclusion can be arrived at through reasoning independent of the scriptures, and since the truth cannot be known through this means, there will be no Liberation. Therefore reasoning which goes against the scriptures is no proof of knowledge and cannot contradict the Sruti texts.