Establishment of Brahman 3.60

3.60

atha matam ---
naiṣa śabdamātrasya sāmarthyavibhāgaḥ /
śabdasya hi nijaṃ sāmarthyaṃ kāryaniṣṭhataiva /
tathā hi ---
kāryo niyogārthaḥ /
kāryāya cānyasyānvayaḥ pratīyate /
na tu kāryasyānyārtho 'nvayaḥ /
tasmātkāryatvānniyogasya tatpradhānatā /
puruṣastu pramāṇāntarādavagamyārthaṃ tatra prayuṅkte vacanam /
na ca niyogaḥ pramāṇāntaragocaraḥ /
tasmānna tatra prayoktumarhati /
viniyogasya tu tathābhāvāttatra yujyate prayogaḥ /
tasmādviniyogapradhānaṃ puruṣavacaḥ /
vaidikaṃ tu sāmarthyena kāryatvānniyogasya tatpradhānamiti /

Now, if it is thought:
This is not a division of capacity belonging to speech in general.
For the innate capacity of speech is indeed nothing but culminating in that which is to be done.
To explain:
The meaning of an injunction is that which is to be done.
And the connection of anything else is understood for the sake of that which is to be done,
not, however, is the connection of that which is to be done for the sake of something else.
Therefore, because an injunction is that which is to be done, it has primacy.
A human being, however, having understood an object from another means of valid cognition, uses speech with respect to it.
And an injunction is not an object within the range of another means of valid cognition;
therefore, one cannot use [words] with respect to it.
Application, however, being of such a nature [as to fall within empirical experience], its use with respect to that is appropriate.
Therefore, human speech has application as its primary purpose,
whereas Vedic [speech], by its capacity, because an injunction is that which is to be done, has that as its primary purpose.