Establishment of Brahman 3.39

3.39

bhūtārthamātraṃ cedanuvādatā na sāpekṣatvaheturasti /
na bhūtārthataiva sāpekṣatvahetuḥ, bhūtārthayorapi pratyakṣānumānayoranapekṣatvāt /
tasmādbhūtārthe 'bhūtārthe vādhigamāntarasaṃsparśaḥ pramāṇāntarāpekṣāhetuḥ, smṛtau darśanāt /
sā hyadhigamāntarasaṃbhinnārtheti tatsādhanamapekṣate /
evaṃ ca puruṣabuddhiprabhavaṃ bhūtārthamabhūtārthaṃ vā vaco bhavati sāpekṣam /
tato hi tatsaṃbhinna evārthe pratyayaḥ, na tvanapekṣitapūrvādhigamaḥ svātantryeṇārthe /
yathoktam ---
‘api ca pauruṣeyādvacanād ‘evamayaṃ puruṣo veda'iti bhavati pratyayaḥ, na ‘evamarthaḥ'; iti'; /
apuruṣabuddhiprabhavatvādvedavacasi bhūtārthe 'pi na sāpekṣatvahetuḥ, puruṣasaṃbandhakṛtatvātpūrvādhigamasaṃbhedasya /

If being a reiteration is merely being an existent fact, there is no cause of dependence.
Being an existent fact is not itself the cause of dependence, because perception and inference, though having existent facts [as objects], are independent.
Therefore, whether regarding an existent fact or an non-existent fact, contact with another cognition is the cause of dependence on another means of valid cognition, as seen in memory.
For that [memory] has an object commingled with another cognition, and so depends on the instrument of that [prior apprehension].
And in this way, a statement originating from the intellect of a person, whether about an existent fact or an non-existent fact, is dependent.
For from that arises a cognition only of an object commingled with that [prior cognition], not independently regarding the object without expecting a prior cognition.
As it is said:—
'Moreover, from a human utterance arises the cognition, "Thus this person knows", not "Thus is the fact"';
Because it does not originate from the intellect of a person, in the Vedic utterance, even regarding an existent fact, there is no cause of dependence, because the commingling with a prior cognition is caused by association with a person.